An open letter to Justin

[manitoubass2]

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?

[GbayGiant]

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?

just like the clowns

 

... they're already here

 

Money talks!

[Old Man]

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.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Old Man

[manitoubass2]

^^^

 

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

[DRIFTER_016]

Kinda like drinking in Canada. There's no need to consume Moonshine, unless you go to a Lakair G2G !

 

You're very right!!!

 

[manitoubass2]

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.

Edited October 31, 2015 by manitoubass2

[esoxansteel]

Justin is planning a 10 million dollar taxpayer paid upgrade to 24 Sussex which was fine for Mr Harper for the past 10 years

[manitoubass2]

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???

 

[manitoubass2]

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

[Old Man]

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.

 

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 through 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.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Old Man

[leaf4]

Justin is planning a 10 million dollar taxpayer paid upgrade to 24 Sussex which was fine for Mr Harper for the past 10 years

I'm pretty sure he's not planning one, but that's the cost that was proposed in 2008 from the auditor general.

 

The house has knob and tube wiring, asbestos, window units for air conditioning, its understandable that Justin Trudeau wouldn't want to downgrade, I'm sure the house he lives in isn't in shambles like 24 Sussex is

Edited November 1, 2015 by Lucas F

[manitoubass2]

 

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

[manitoubass2]

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

[Old Man]

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.

 

 

Ah... tinfoil hat time. Any research that doesn't fit a persons agenda must be corrupt. So obviously 21 separate scientist where bought and paid for, 22 if you count the U of W author. So what is the magic number of studies or scientists required to prove something?

 

It's a shame I'm so ignorant about science, I wonder how I ever made a living at it, oh right I was bought off I forgot because I wasn't paying attention.

[manitoubass2]

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!

Edited November 1, 2015 by manitoubass2

[manitoubass2]

And scientists can be just as ignorant as anyone.

 

You could be doing great work, for a bad cause. Happens all the time

[manitoubass2]

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

[manitoubass2]

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

Edited November 1, 2015 by manitoubass2

[GbayGiant]

You don't have to convince the world.

It's their loss.

 

[manitoubass2]

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...

[GbayGiant]

There's Very Good News for the Lungs of Marijuana Smokers

By Matt Essert January 18, 2015

LIKE MIC ON FACEBOOK:

The news: Conventional wisdom generally says inhaling any kind of smoke is bad for your lungs, and, to that end, smoking marijuana is just as bad for your health as smoking tobacco cigarettes.

However, according to data recently published in the journal Annals of the American Thoracic Society, inhaling one marijuana cigarette a day over 20 years is not associated with adverse changes in lung health.

In the largest cross-sectional analysis study of its kind, researchers at Emory University in Atlanta found that cannabis exposure and inhalation were not associated with negative spirometry changes, just FEV1 (forced expiratory volume) declines or problems with small airways disease. Additionally, the researchers found that vaporizing marijuana users reported even fewer issues than those who inhaled combusted marijuana.

In other words, unlike tobacco cigarettes and their well-documented highly negative effects on smokers' lungs, marijuana cigarettes cannot be said to have the same correlation. On top of that, the researchers concluded marijuana smoke exposure could be "associated with some protective lung effects among long-term smokers of tobacco," reports NORML.

However, the study found that inhaling marijuana smoke led to an increase in symptoms of bronchitis-like coughing, sore throat and shortness of breath. So, some risks are certainly still present, but they pale in comparison to the same risks when smoking tobacco cigarettes.

"In a large representative sample of U.S. adults, ongoing use of marijuana is associated with increased respiratory symptoms of bronchitis without a significant functional abnormality in spirometry, and cumulative marijuana use under 20 joint-years is not associated with significant effects on lung function," the study's authors concluded. "The pattern of marijuana's effects seems to be distinctly different when compared to that of tobacco use."

Growing science: Previous studies have also shown marijuana to have health effects much different than generally expected, including its effects on pulmonary functions and similar studies on the effects of marijuana smoke on the lungs.

Not only does this data show marijuana smoke isn't as dangerous as tobacco smoke, but that cannabis could potentially be an effective method of treatment for a number of medical issues, considering the myriad of potential uses.

Already, many state have legalized marijuana in one form or another, though most have approved cannabis for medicinal use. And as the body of science behind marijuana's positive aspects grows, you can expect even more states to be jumping on board and legalizing.

h/t reset.me

[DRIFTER_016]

[manitoubass2]

Lol

[chris.brock]

The pattern of marijuana's effects seems to be distinctly different when compared to that of tobacco use.

 

no crap, I know guys that smoke 3 packs per day, don't know anybody that smokes 75 joints per day, bad science, who's the author, I can write stuff on the internet too, is it true?

[DRIFTER_016]