manitoubass2

Your right. Terpenes, terpanoids. Also cannaflavin a, which is 30 times more potent then aspirin at inhibiting inflammation via PGE-2. There are over 100 active terpenes in cannabis

Sweet! Im good to go then! So lets begin taking out the pseudoscience!!! For one, the tar in cannabis is highly concentrated to the leaf. Users really dont use the leaf, its the bud. Tar from cannabis is FAR less than that of cigarettes, FACT. Containining carcinogens(approx 3) in cannabis, is again FAR less then cigarettes. Now compare the amount of usage(lets say 3 joints vrs 24 smokes, i think thats reasonable) what is worse? Also although cannabis contains carcinogens (like almost everything on earth) it also contains antioxidants and flavanoids, refined cigarettes do not Now, carcinogen is a SCARY word meaning a substance that can cause cancer!!!! What is cancer? A cell that behaves abnoramlly and replicates So cancer is really a generic term used to describe what scientist cant. Because guess what? Cells replicate all the time! They also die all the time! Amazing!!! Fear mongering at its finest Even your metabolism kills you as you read this, FACT!

Its for educational purposes art Where has the thread steered wrong?

If anyone really wants to learn about cannabis, start brushing up on pubmed.com Here is a list of components present in cannabis (-)-[delta 1]-3,4-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol (most active cannabinoid) (-)-[delta 6]-3,4-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol tetrahydrocannabitriol (aka cannabitriol) cannabidiolic acid cannabidiol cannabinol (forms after plant dies) THC acids A and B (inactive unless smoked) Minor constituents: cannabigerol cannabigerolic acid cannabichromene cannabichromenic acid cannabicyclol (aka cannabipinol) cannabicyclolic acid cannabicitran cannabielsoic acids A and B cannabinolic acid (neutral cannabinoid) cannabichromanon cannabifuran dehydrocannabifuran 2-oxo-[delta 3]-tetrahydrocannabinol cannabigerol monomethyl ether cannabidiol monomethyl ether cannabinol methyl ether propylcannabidiol (aka cannabidivarol & cannabidivarin) propylcannabinol (aka cannabivarol & cannabivarin) propyl-[delta 1]-THC (aka [delta 1]-tetrahydrocannabivarol & tetrahydrocannabivarin) propylcannabigerol propylcannabicyclol propylcannabichromene methylcannabidiol (aka cannabidiorcol) methylcannabinol (aka cannabiorcol) methyl-[delta 1]-THC (aka [delta 1]-tetrahydrocannabiorcol) [delta 1]-tetrahydrocannabivarolic acid Nitrogen-containing compounds: choline trigonelline muscarine piperidine N-(p-hydroxy-B-phenylethyl)-p-hydroxy-trans-cinnamide neurine L-proline L-isoleucine betaine hordenine cannabisativine (alkaloid found in the roots) [compiled from "The Botany and Chemistry of Hallucinogens" by Schultes & Hofmann]

Credible to what? To an opinion you have already formed? One thing is for certain, well formed, unbiased studies need to continue.

Notice it mentions "AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS"? This is important And that was a good read! Thanks for that. And porkpie????

Lol

Lots up here too. Seem to go in cycles. Beauty 20 gauge! I prefer a 20 over a 4/10 or 12 for birds

True. But I thoroughly enjoy talking science? Seems some arent up to the task, which is ok too I suppose( it is a shame however because whats wrong with gaining knowledge)? Anyhow...

Hahhaahaha awesome!

Ill let ya know, in this thread, since you wont debate an issue via pm

And to answer one of your questions. It takes one unbiased scientist with no ties financially or politically to do a proper study. I will go through the list of references and I will guess at least half of those studies have people involved with an agenda, be it political, scientifically, monetary or a nice little mixture of any 3

And scientists can be just as ignorant as anyone. You could be doing great work, for a bad cause. Happens all the time

Its too bad you blocked me. I really wanted to pull our convo aside(as I have nothing personal against you) Tinfoil hat guy hey? No just unbiased and informed. I did call you ignorant though, so im fair game if ya wanna bash me lol Anyhow, I asked some questions, and you didnt answer them? Care to? And I didnt say you are boughten and paid for, maybe your amazing in your field? Im not sure? Id love to read your papers!

But also, you need to remember cannabis contains flavanoids and anti oxidants, and this plays a major role. Tobbacco for instance really doesnt(once processed) This makes the comparison null and void because the two are not 100% comparable( not even close to 100% actually) Its like if I take tylenol(acetaminphen) and study it against you, that took acetaminophen with acetadose. One looks toxic and one looks great And again, peer reviewed means nothing when its reviewed by "peers" with monetary connections to said studies ie big tobacco

Your last statement is true. The rest is well, ignorant at best. That is the IDEA, but it is not truth. Because most studies are indeed funded with a conflict of interest. And its almost impossible to get around, because the scientists participating in the studies cannot fund them personally. Science is as corrupt as the government, for example. If what your saying is true about tour backround, you either know this or you were not paying attention. That, and depending on the topic being studied, also play a part. Add drugs to the agenda and things get skewed quickly, like energy sources for example. I do however respect that you do indeed have a backround in sciences. But, i can can also tell your biased based on your posts(solely on your posts and not necessarily in your actual life?) And remember, some things are just common sense. I can tell you right now, without a study, taking a haul of your cars exhaust would be bad for your lungs lol

long-term marijuana smoking is associated with an increased risk of some respiratory problems - See more at: http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/respiratoryeffects.htm#.dpuf Really??? Who would ever think considering the human lung is not designed to inhale smoke???? Thats not even science its just logic

Oldman, did you notice the change in the website? Here is the original page(which I cannot view the tabs) It then asks you to go to an updated version. Can you point out the differences???

Whats your backround in science? Im not patting myself on the back here, but you are completely wrong. That and your bursting nobodies bubble(not even the one you apperently live in) I am pro marijuana yes, but scientifically I have zero ties to the issue and Im just an occasional smoker of little amounts. This decision alters my life in no way, so Im looking at it without any conflict of interest. 21 peer reviewed studies mean little to nothing if the studies are flawed from the get go. And "peer reviewed" also means nothing, as these people are often funded in some way or form from those that have held interest in said studies. Can you go to pubmed, log in, present a study you feel worthy, and tell me about the results and what they mean? I will wait patiently? Oh and studies done over decades also doesnt help your cause. Ie studies done during a "drug war", huge advances in technolgies etc deem many older studies irrelevant.

^^^ Not entirely sure what that means? But yes, a really good study would cost ALOT of money. And it needs to be done by great scientists with zero ties to any finacial gain and or backround to companies or government. In fact now that Im thinking about it, it would be an enormous task

To study this properly, however, would be quite difficult but doable. And it needs to be done quite honestly But that wont happen unless big pharma sees a huge profit margin(which the ironically enough, skews results) So anyone wanna lend me about 8 million dollers for a proper study?

I applaud the effort, but as per my knowledge, I can already see numerous flaws in this paper based on a handful of studies 1. It is not double randomized placebo controlled 2. It does nothing to take into factor a high amount of issues before, during or after(such as hereditary disease, exposure to other inhalants, race etc) 3. The amount of tar from marijuana needs to be compared directly to cigaretters in a controlled manner. Ie. Most tobacco smokers might smoke 24 in a day, some marijuana users might smoke 3 joints per day I can go on and on but a simple paper on flawed studies scientifically is equal to toilet paper. And it can also be construde as propaganda

Im gonna go on abit of a rant here. One of the reasons marijuana is so safe and effective is because of its make up of active ingredients. Things found in nature most often produce checks and balances. Cannabis contains somewhere around 80 active ingredients, including flavanoids. Synthetic drugs, heroin for example, is a highly concentrated extract containing one ingredient Same with other synthetics for the nost part(always some exceptions) A good example to the effect/cause is antidepressive medications in the selective serotinin reuptake inhibitors class(SSRIs) Because the neuro anatomy is wildly fluctuated between every human, the drug itself is highly unstable. Might help one person, kill ten, make things worse for 60, etc. Because there is no way to see the amount of neurotransmittors active in a human, you 100% cannot know what is causing depressive symptoms and the like. Cannabis is much more effective because of its high amount of active ingredients(checks and balances) it binds to receptors signalling the brain to produce neurotransmittors of imblances within the persons neuroanatomy( it might raise dopamine and suppress serotonin, or vice versa, dependant on need) So does it work 100% of the time in a positive way, absolutely not. But cannabis has WAY higher potential to be positively effective then other drugs for this very reason. If you suffer back pain, and im your dr, and i say I can give you one of two medications. A is effective 80% of the time(without major side effects) B is effective 5% of the time but might kill you What do you honestly choose?

A perfect example is heavy equipment operators. If you were that tired your actually breaking the law at your worksite. Has any operator ever been charged on site for driving while fatigued(without an accident of course), Id highly doubt it. Possible but VERY unlikely Ive worked 16 hour days and drove home another 4 hours and been perfectly fine. See double or get blurry vision??? Pull over immediately

Why??? Your way less likely to drive wrecklessly after a 12 hour shift then the others presented. And you have to prove fatigue, which is almost impossible until you have A drove wrecklessly B caused and accident C got a confession(youd half to be a real halfwit to admit this without a or b as part of the equation, even then...)