I, bubbB, would like to issue a formal appology for my posts saying that marijuana smoking was harmful to the human body. I had not done my research and I was confused by the propaganda issued by anti-marijuana groups. I would also like to thank UltraMega, for being the one to link me to some research being done by professionals. For that I thank you. Sorry to all of you who I have confused or angered in my blatant ignorance of the subject on which I was speaking.
Bubb, do you really believe what you write? Of course marijuana smoke is harmful to the human body as are all forms of smoke. Why do you thin firefighters wear masks. Why do cig companies put filters on their products. Smoke is a natural antagonist to the lungs. It is a foreign substance which harms the alveoli in the lungs. If you want to say it is the least harmful addiction, fine, but smoke of any kind is bad for the lungs. Do some research on the AMA site and don't believe what a "pro" marijuana site will tell you.
I didn't want to go into full detail about the studies, but here it is. The direct smoking of a marijuana plant will not cause certain lung, heart and brain cancers as I had previously said. I was apoligizing for not getting the facts strait because i said it caused certain cancers.
Horse ####, now you're confused by the pro-marijuana groups. For every study that says something is true there is a counter study to prove it false. Any inhaling of a substance, which does include smoking, is detrimental to your cardiovasuclar system. Anyone with half a brain can figure that out without a study and a link.
Talk about stirring the pot (pun intended). As with anything you put into your body there are side effects. Does the good outweigh the bad? Each individual case is different.
yea here comes mr prude!!! but thanks no thanks i quit drinking alcohol almost 4 years ago, yea as i say there are some folks who can drink responsible but not this dude!! i dont want to be putting drugs in my body anymore.. i find ienjoy life much much better also yes i agree if we become sheep listiening to the politcally corrrect boneheads the pro druggies then im sorry, medical maryjane maybe but not for this dude. i have a very hard time beliveing that and god help them if there are doctors perscribing a very harmful drug to patients!!! i juust for god sakes theses people all drugged up dont get into a car or vehicle and drive !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lifes to complicated as it is !!!!!!!
Anything you breathe in (short of the natural components of air) is harmful
Marijuana is also a mild hallucinogen.
That being said, it's not nearly as harmful as alcohol and tobacco. It's just those were grown here when those protectionsist laws were made. Anti drug laws (for the most part) have nothing to do with protecting people and everything to do with protecting "American" industry (don't think we're the only country that does this either).
THC (the active agent in cannabis) has legitimate medical uses for cancer patients on chemotherapy and others with certain other pathophysiological conditions (such as glaucoma and some migraine/cluster headaches). It comes in pill form, does not cause smoke damage, and has to be prescribed by a physician and gotten from a licensed pharmacy. It doesn't contain pesticides and other things that illegitimate marijuana growers/dealers may put on it (sometimes deliberately) to poison or kill you. For those who truly need it for healing, I'm all for THC prescriptions. For getting high, however, is it worth taking your life into your hands to smoke that stuff? I think not.
Everything I linked him to was from WebMD, so it's obviously not a pro-marijuana website.
Bubb, never apologize for having an opinion and defending it, and never apologize for being wrong. All humans err on a frequent basis. Just look at it as something you learned. I'm sure there are some things that I believe that you could prove wrong if you did some research.
By the way, rusirious's comment was right on the money. Bulls-eye.
We have drug laws to protect the mega-corporations -- those in the tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical industries.
Marijuana is their competition because it quells a variety of ailments. How are they going to profit from their "one pill per syndome" scheme if you have one substance that is a panacea?
Even steroids help quell a variety of ailments, despite the fact that they have some detriments, as well.
Last edited by UltraMegaOK1988 on July 9th at 9:41 PM.
"And the government always says 'drugs are bad for you' and 'we're trying to protect society' but the government don't give a [darn] about your safety. They sell guns at Wal-Mart -- they don't give a [darn] about you.
No, the government's like this: the government -- they don't want you to use YOUR drugs, they want you to use THEIR drugs."
I don't really care where that link came from. When you wise up you realize that for every study there's a counter study. You should take great care in brainwashing our poor impressionable newbies. You'd be serving society better if you provided him 2 links so he can make up his own mind.
Ultra, the Operative word in your link is "MAY" curb the cancer causing effect. That is because they don't know for sure. Here is what we do know, and rusirious is right, all inhalants are bad for the lungs except normal non polluted air. We can't do anything about the air we breath except by a home purifying system, but inhaling smoke deliberately is idiotic.
Sleepless said it best. Marinol, a legally presribed drug that contains THC is fine for nasea in cancer patients and glaucoma sufferers, but no one needs to smoke marijuana for medical reasons.
As for smoking it for enjoyment, well that is like anything else, a personal preference. Some people eat horrible things for their bodies, but they like it. If you want to smoke marijuana, I have no problem from a personal liberty standpoint, but don't try and tell others its good for you so you can do it.
So, for the studies that show that prolonged exposure to the sun causes cancer, there are studies out there that show that prolonged exposure to the sun does not cause cancer?
Hmm...
I'd like you to show me some "counter-studies" from legitimate, non-biased sources (like WebMD) that show that marijuana smoke is highly likely to cause cancer, that THC doesn't curb cancer-causing effects of marijuana smoke, and that marijuana has actually been the cause of one's death (remember, the death has to be due to the drug, not the actions of the user while under the influence of the drug -- for instance, someone on another of BubbB's blogs said that people jump off of bridges when they smoke marijuana, but that's because of the user, not because of the drug).
Ultra, the Operative word in your link is "MAY" curb the cancer causing effect.
If you're just judging everything by their title, you may not have read:
"But a recent review of studies on the effects of marijuana and tobacco smoke suggests that the cancer-promoting effects of these ingredients is increased by the tobacco in nicotine and reduced by the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) found in cannabis."
"Research shows that nicotine and THC act on related pathways in the body, but they bind to different receptors to activate these pathways. For example, Melamede says the cells of the lungs are lined with nicotine receptors but do not appear to contain receptors for THC.
He says that may explain why marijuana use has not been linked to lung cancer as cigarette smoking has."
all inhalants are bad for the lungs except normal non polluted air
Oh, I'm not saying that the smoke is actually good for you, or not at all harmful, but it's much less harmful than cigarettes, which are legal.
Ultra - I get it dude. There are no abolute's in life. Except of course for the fact there is a God and Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Your ultra extremist examples will not dissuade me. Just like my mine won't dissuade you. I question your source and your opinions. I was just warning our poor reader not to be brainwashed by you before he know what hit him. No worries big guy just I know where you're going before you get there.
They're not really extremist if they have the backing of the scientific community...
It'd be one thing if I was saying that the Earth was flat. But I'm not.
I question your source
You question WebMD?
Well, that's your right... hey, they're not infallible. They could be wrong.
I was just warning our poor reader not to be brainwashed by you
You're acting as if I'm going around recruiting people for brainwashing camps. I simply posted some cited facts for him to peruse. I didn't demand that he read them. I didn't even expect him to read them, and I was quite surprised when he opened his mind.
I think it would do you a world of good to open up your mind a little bit.
Before your last comment I was only sure of one thing in life. I just realized the second thing I'm sure about. You want to know what it is??
You have not come to the realization that you try to brainwash people with your self servicing links to things you already believe in. I think the open mind is already in my possesion Danielson.
I think someone's scraping the bottom of the barrel...
If you weren't using "brainwashing" in such a pejorative way, I'd actually agree with you. I try to educate other people with what I say in my blogs. And I also hope to be educated if something I write is factually incorrect (key word: factually).
But the negative connotation you imply with "brainwashing" -- that isn't me. I'll never attempt to force someone to believe what I believe. That just shows how weak the belief is to begin with.
And it would be hypocritical of me to force people to believe as I believe, because that's one of the things I hate about this country: how many different groups try to pressure you into thinking as they think. President Bush said something along the lines of "it's unpatriotic to think."
Religious groups are the worst. They try to scare you with punishment like eternal damnation and missing out on the all expenses paid vacation to heaven after you die.
You might catch someone else for "brainwashing," but you'll never catch me, sport. Wrong guy.
Ultra - I don't deny the effort and thought you put into your posts. And, I admit my use of the word "brainwashing" is over the top. I also intended the apparrant irrationality of the use of the word. I just hope you are seeing what I am trying to get at.
To brainwash does not mean to spread propaganda. If you look at the definition of brainwashing it means to convince or persuade. To say you are not persuading someone away from their opinion would be untruthful. You defend your side I defend mine. You just use a brainwashing technique to do so. And to reclarify, I am using a big scary word to describe your behavior. You have just taken offense to the word brainwash.
Oh, by the way I'm a part of a religious group, and I've never brainwashed anyone to believe what I believe. So I'd regard that comment as much more critical than anything I have said to you. Anyhow, hopefully this sheds more light...
I never, ever, ever, ever, once said in any of my posts that brainwashing was a bad thing. You've taken off with this dude. I said you should take care in brainwashing. You're losing me quick.
Just admit you've been thoroughly outclassed in this debate and call it a day. Anyhow I've got to go mow some grass in the dead heat of this humid day.
This debate has turned into whether or not I'm brainwashing someone else, as you've completely ignored this:
I'd like you to show me some "counter-studies" from legitimate, non-biased sources (like WebMD) that show that marijuana smoke is highly likely to cause cancer, that THC doesn't curb cancer-causing effects of marijuana smoke, and that marijuana has actually been the cause of one's death (remember, the death has to be due to the drug, not the actions of the user while under the influence of the drug -- for instance, someone on another of BubbB's blogs said that people jump off of bridges when they smoke marijuana, but that's because of the user, not because of the drug).
And you've yet to explain how my WebMD links are biased or have false information.
I haven't accused you of providing biased information. I just bet you if I looked long enough (although I'm not going to waste my time looking) I could find a study that proved otherwise. I know you're intelligent and I know you understand what I'm saying despite the fact you'll hide behind your words and force me to provide a burden of proof before you'll concede. Either you'll concede without me submitting to your link demands, or we'll type on and on like this until we're blue in the face.
Last edited by sportthink on July 11th at 10:58 AM.
I was asking you to prove why WebMD is questionable. Having a particular bias would be one way it is questionable. Providing incorrect information would be another.
How is WebMD questionable, again?
I just bet you if I looked long enough (although I'm not going to waste my time looking) I could find a study that proved otherwise.
Find the counter-studies and cite them. Otherwise, you have no point here.
Last edited by UltraMegaOK1988 on July 11th at 11:01 AM.
I have a point and I won't provide you with anymore proof (I am unwilling). Your need for literal evidence has clouded your ability to reason here. I'm asking for you to allow your common sense some room to manueuver in this debate. If you're unwilling to do that then I guess to you I don't have a point.
Last edited by sportthink on July 11th at 11:05 AM.
I have a point and I won't provide you with anymore proof
You have no proof, so your point is moot.
Your need for literal evidence has clouded your ability to reason here.
Your lack of a need for tangible evidence has clouded your ability to reason here.
I'm asking for you to allow your common sense some room to manueuver in this debate.
I'm asking for you to allow your ability to back up your claims to maneuver in this debate.
Do you see how pointless your points are? You're being absolutist in how one should debate. We differ in that I like to see things before I believe in them, hence why I cite almost everything I say. You believe in things without seeing them, hence why you never cite anything.
This debate isn't about winning or losing, it's about learning (sorry for sounding cliche). Show me a counter-study that shows "that marijuana smoke is highly likely to cause cancer, that THC doesn't curb cancer-causing effects of marijuana smoke, and that marijuana has actually been the cause of one's death."
I'll learn from it and will have gained from this debate.
a) Predates the WebMD research, meaning that the studies WebMD cites disproved the theory that marijuana smoking gives you a high risk of getting cancer.
b) Their marijuana variable was as follows: "To be eligible, the participants had to be in one or more of the following categories: Marijuana smokers who smoked an average of 10 or more marijuana cigarettes a week for the last five years or longer."
That's a hell of a lot of marijuana, if you didn't know.
My study is as relevant as yours is. I could provide you with ten thousand studies and your blind allegiance to your argument has disallowed your intelligence to take precedence here. Although intriguing for a short time, discussing this with you is like pissing the wind.
"[Daniel E. Ford, MD] says his conclusions differ from another study reported recently."
I could provide you with ten thousand studies
You've provided one that has been disproven.
your blind allegiance to your argument
I don't have allegiance to anything, certainly not a belief. That has actually been one of the criticisms of a lot of the bloggers here of me, especially when I was writing some stuff that was critical of the United States.
Interesting how I bend and fold to the will of what the bloggers want me to be.
I'm too close-minded! No! I'm too open-minded! No! I look at too much evidence! No! I look at too little evidence!
My point has been proven, proven, and proven again. I can find a counter study to your study. All kinds of them. You asked me to do it. I did it. Appreciate the time.
Answer: Yes, but most marijuana smokers don't smoke nearly as much marijuana as cigarette smokers smoke tobacco. However, it is now generally accepted that marijuana use is STRONGLY
addictive psychologically, and heavy use leads to amotivational syndrome in which the user feels total lack of motivation to do anything besides get high.
What's funny about this is that there is no withdrawal symptoms listed in the DSM-IV. What that means is that marijuana is either not psychologically addictive enough to earn an entry in the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders," or that they have completely left it out.
I hate to resort to an ad hominem argument of sorts, but AIM defends Joseph McCarthy (remember the black lists for alleged Communists?). They attack anyone that doesn't fit in with their ideology.
But that aside, I'll dissect why this one is innocuous.
"studies made during the past 30 years have found that marijuana causes lung damage and probably cancer"
I'm just another guy with other opinions. If you like my style, go for it and read. If not, yell at me and I will yell louder. I'll throw the race card into your face. I take a hard look at sports and try to find the real meaning for NASCAR, which is just an advertisment for beer.
