manitoubass2

I refrain from naming names if you think you are guilty assume you are. Personal comments general besmearing someones opinions are to be avoided. Telling someone their opinions are wrong is not a part of a debate. Truthfully I have no problem with debating this off fishing topic we all seem to be having fun and it is getting some facts as well as some fantasies corrected.

 

Thanks

 

Art

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!

We got to get back to respecting people opinions and not attacking each other please. The rules allow for debating not personal attacks.

 

Thanks

 

 

Art

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]

Anyone can find stuff on the net to either prove or disprove any point they want. Emphatically. Means zero to me.

 

An opinion like Old Man's seems more credible, at least to me.

Credible to what? To an opinion you have already formed?

 

One thing is for certain, well formed, unbiased studies need to continue.

Old Man, I'm going to refer you to Dr. Donald Tashkin, Professor of Medicine at UCLA.

 

 

He studied 5,000 subjects for 20 years. His study found no increased cancer risk in light to moderate users.

 

Take his word for it:

 

"We expected that we would find that a history of heavy marijuana use--more than 500 to 1,000 uses--would increase the risk of cancer from several years to decades after exposure to marijuana," explains physician Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles, and lead researcher on the project. But looking at residents of Los Angeles County, the scientists found that even those who smoked more than 20,000 joints in their life did not have an increased risk of lung cancer."

 

Even clearer on weed versus tobacco:

 

"Regular smoking of marijuana by itself causes visible and microscopic injury to the large airways that is consistently associated with an increased likelihood of symptoms of chronic bronchitis that subside after cessation of use. On the other hand, habitual use of marijuana alone does not appear to lead to significant abnormalities in lung function when assessed either cross-sectionally or longitudinally, except for possible increases in lung volumes and modest increases in airway resistance of unclear clinical significance. Therefore, no clear link to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been established. Although marijuana smoke contains a number of carcinogens and cocarcinogens, findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use. Although regular marijuana smoking leads to bronchial epithelial ciliary loss and impairs the microbicidal function of alveolar macrophages, evidence is inconclusive regarding possible associated risks for lower respiratory tract infection. Several case reports have implicated marijuana smoking as an etiologic factor in pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum and bullous lung disease, although evidence of a possible causal link from epidemiologic studies is lacking. In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco.

 

 

Source: http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201212-127FR#.VjWgx1-s_CQ

 

 

I'm sorry, I mean no disrespect, but I'm going to take a professor of medicine at UCLA who specializes in studies on smoking and lung function as an authority on the subject.

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

You don't have to convince the world.

It's their loss.

 

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...

Not mine, but my favorite @ this time of year.

 

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

 

What peer review studies mean is that when a scientist concludes a research project, they write the results up in the form of a paper which includes the hypothesis of the study, a literature review of related studies, the methods used, sources or origin of the data, the amount of data, the way the data was analyzed, the conclusions from the analysis and submits it to a scientific journal, a board of his peers will sit review and pick apart if need be anything they may think falls short of sound research methods. This is done to assure that the quality of the information is sound because that information will be review and used by other scientists in furthering the research and knowledge within that field. The fact that the University of Washington author used (referenced) 21 separate studies in writing this gives it more credence than most of the non reference crap that is publish on the net nowadays,

 

My background in science is in biology and agriculture. I made my living as a plant breeder and though the years wrote and submitted many papers of my own to journals.

 

Dispute what you want, but the fact of what cannabis smoke contains is easily proven with the use of mass spectrometry and has been known for years.

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???

 

Just because the article (based on 21 separate studies conducted over decades and submitted to peer reviewed journals) points out that smoke from cannabis contains many known carcinogens, 3 times the tar and higher levels of ammonia and hydrogen cyanide it must be junk compared with the Pseudoscience common nowadays that claims it's almost a health food. Sorry to burst your bubble with the facts. Smoke from cannabis is as harmful as smoke from any other source.

Higher levels of ammonia and hydrogen cyanide

Higher levels of ammonia and hydrogen cyanide

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?

For your reading pleasure

 

 

http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/respiratoryeffects.htm

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

That sucks for all us industrial workers who do continentals.. Coppers should set up shop outside our gate!

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...)

 

back in the early 70's we had Nepalese Temple Balls, streaks of opium through a high grade hash, nothing new

Well technically opium is not heroin, but I get your point

 

(For the record heroin is up to 5x more potent of an opiate than opium)

 

Opium is actually a natural product of poppies

 

Herion is a synthetic drug called diacytelmorphine, a highly standerdized version.

 

Opium being natural, contains non synthetic forms of morphine, thebaine, codeine and noscapine