As Nate Dogg says:
“Smoke weed everyday.”
How many times have you heard this conversation.
Hey man whats wrong?
“a relative of mine died”
Oh shit man… what happened?
“Marijuana man…marijuana”
I don’t think there has been a “legalize marijuana” thread… I am curious what T-Nation would vote on that.
You must be new:)
[quote]Shaved wrote:
How many times have you heard this conversation.
Hey man whats wrong?
“a relative of mine died”
Oh shit man… what happened?
“Marijuana man…marijuana”
I don’t think there has been a “legalize marijuana” thread… I am curious what T-Nation would vote on that.[/quote]
All I can say is that everyone should have their own opinion or just shut the fuck up about it, because were all ignorant to this subject no matter how much they claim in whatever study it is that they are researching. I mean theres research on both spectrums of this topic that say it is bad, and some say it is good. So really we should really just shut the fuck up about this shit. Maybe im just cranky today, but thats what i feel right now.
Top 10 Pot Studies Government Wished it Had Never Funded
September 2nd, 2006
- HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON?T RUIN YOUR LIFE: Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept. 1997
FreeThePlant
(hooked up by ElDad)
-
MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY: A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.
-
HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON?T RUIN YOUR LIFE: Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept. 1997
-
THE ?GATEWAY EFFECT? MAY BE A MIRAGE: Marijuana is often called a ?gateway drug? by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical ?associations? indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana ? implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained ?without requiring a gateway effect.? More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what?s most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.
-
PROHIBITION DOESN?T WORK (PART I): The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, ?the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement.? And what data exist show ?little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use.? In other words, there is no proof that prohibition ? the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century ? reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America?s Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don?t Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.
-
PROHIBITION DOESN?T WORK (PART II: DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE ?GATEWAY EFFECT??): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found no differences except one: Lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its ?tolerant? marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842.
-
OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I): Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice?s lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.
-
OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II): In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, ?in a dose-dependent manner? (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, ?Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer,? AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.
-
OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III): Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn?t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.
-
OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV): Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.
-
MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE: In response to passage of California?s medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana?s medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, ?Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana.? While noting potential risks of smoking, the report added, ?we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting.? The government?s refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government ?loves to ignore our report ? they would rather it never happened.? Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006
Have at it boss. You can bury me in studies 3 stories high and I will never be convinced that inhaling burning plants on a consistent basis is a good idea. Unless it were in fact the best remedy for something else that was an even worse idea to leave alone.
Why do people feel the need to prove that they’re not hurting themselves to others? If you’re happy, I’m happy. Actually I’ll be happy whether you’re happy or not.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Have at it boss. You can bury me in studies 3 stories high and I will never be convinced that inhaling burning plants on a consistent basis is a good idea. Unless it were in fact the best remedy for something else that was an even worse idea to leave alone.
Why do people feel the need to prove that they’re not hurting themselves to others? If you’re happy, I’m happy. Actually I’ll be happy whether you’re happy or not.[/quote]
No one has said that marijuana isn’t harmful. It certainly isn’t the healthiest choice in the world, but the point is compared to the other options, it is quite healthy.
I can understand why someone would feel the need to prove they’re not hurting themselves or others if the action they are performing is deemed illegal and wrong by their government. Other substances are held in much higher regard eventhough they are FAR more dangerous.
[quote]Shaved wrote:
<<< No one has said that marijuana isn’t harmful. It certainly isn’t the healthiest choice in the world, but the point is compared to the other options, it is quite healthy.
I can understand why someone would feel the need to prove they’re not hurting themselves or others if the action they are performing is deemed illegal and wrong by their government. Other substances are held in much higher regard eventhough they are FAR more dangerous.
[/quote]
Alright, I said on the previous page that I’m not a hater and will probably partake on occasion myself at some point. I even said that I favor it being as legal as tobacco or alcohol.
It just seems like some guys want to kid themselves about what how consistent, protracted use is going to effect them.
[quote]smeb wrote:
All I can say is that everyone should have their own opinion or just shut the fuck up about it, because were all ignorant to this subject no matter how much they claim in whatever study it is that they are researching. I mean theres research on both spectrums of this topic that say it is bad, and some say it is good. So really we should really just shut the fuck up about this shit. Maybe im just cranky today, but thats what i feel right now.[/quote]
You posted just to say “shut the fuck up about this shit”? What a… good use of your time. Did you ever realise that you can just turn your computer off and go outside?
You don’t have to talk about it if you don’t want to.
If you got em, smoke em.
sigh Even an anti-weed individual like myself could figure this one out. Other than that, no comment.
[quote]Shaved wrote:
No one has said that marijuana isn’t harmful. It certainly isn’t the healthiest choice in the world, but the point is compared to the other options, it is quite healthy.
I can understand why someone would feel the need to prove they’re not hurting themselves or others if the action they are performing is deemed illegal and wrong by their government. Other substances are held in much higher regard eventhough they are FAR more dangerous.
[/quote]
I agree that weed is not near as harmful as heroin or crack (And if anyone mentions alchy is worse, I will take a bottle of Heineken and shove it up their ass…wide side first). Not physically, anyway. On other fronts…well, I won’t turn this into a debate of ethics.
Is the study based on marijuana mixed with tobacco or pure marijuana joints?
[quote]wqp3 wrote:
22,000 joints is not enough volume compared to one or two packs per day for years (20 cigarettes per day is over 7000 per year). Like most of the second-hand smoke studies, these results should be and are inconclusive because concentration creates toxicity.[/quote]
Who smokes 20 joints a day?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Shaved wrote:
<<< No one has said that marijuana isn’t harmful. It certainly isn’t the healthiest choice in the world, but the point is compared to the other options, it is quite healthy.
I can understand why someone would feel the need to prove they’re not hurting themselves or others if the action they are performing is deemed illegal and wrong by their government. Other substances are held in much higher regard eventhough they are FAR more dangerous.
Alright, I said on the previous page that I’m not a hater and will probably partake on occasion myself at some point. I even said that I favor it being as legal as tobacco or alcohol.
It just seems like some guys want to kid themselves about what how consistent, protracted use is going to effect them.[/quote]
You and I have the same position on the subject.
[quote]gadget wrote:
Professor X wrote:
They are obviously discussing cancers associated with the head, neck and lungs. I’m not sure what your issue with that is. You didn’t know there are patients with cancer associated with some anatomical structure in their head? This is a NEWS PAPER ARTICLE so obviously anyone interviewed knows their audience includes people with no medical backgrounds at all. That would be like rambling off pure medical jargon when I discuss something with a patient. Unless they were also a nurse or a doctor of some sort, they would sit there and look at me like I was speaking a foreign language.
Maybe he should have written, “an association with squamous cell carcinoma on the lateral border of the tongue often seen in smokers”. I think I just lost every soccer mom reading the passage when I could have just said, “mouth cancer”.
Prof, No offense intended. I just like scientists who sound like the carry a bachelors. Mouth cancer is a lot more specific than head cancer. For example the treatment (and therefore the efficacy of THC) would be different for a tumor in the brain than for a melanoma on the nose. Defining it as “brain tumors” narrows it down without taking the article too academic. “Head cancer” just sounds retarded.
[/quote]
Actually Head and Neck Cancer is a term used to describe various cancers that occur in that particular region of the body. It usually encompasses cancers of the pharynx, larynx, oral cavity, nasal cavity, and the major salivary glands. Brain cancer would be something totally different.
[quote]Raven3606 wrote:
If you got em, smoke em.[/quote]
Thats what I’m talking about. Inhale & pass. I used to be a huge bud smoker (domestic & foreign: Hydro, Northern light, Mexican brown bud, G13…etc). If it was made legal I would take back up smoking it. Nothing like taking a few hits on a friday night or smoking a quarter oz on new years. Me, I personally liked shaking all the crystals off of the buds and smoking bowls of the stuff. About 7 tokes @ 40 seconds of holding your breath per hit gets me pretty faded. Anyhow, glad to see the info on possible anti-cancer.
P.S I’m with you Raven3606, Mufasa, Nate Dogg & Snoop Dogg
P.S.S If your names not here, I didn’t mean to leave you out. No offence.
Iron Life
[quote]smeb wrote:
All I can say is that everyone should have their own opinion or just shut the fuck up about it, because were all ignorant to this subject no matter how much they claim in whatever study it is that they are researching. I mean theres research on both spectrums of this topic that say it is bad, and some say it is good. So really we should really just shut the fuck up about this shit. Maybe im just cranky today, but thats what i feel right now.[/quote]
Wow, man…sounds like someone needs a bong-rip…
[quote]t3h_Squirr3l wrote:
Shaved wrote:
No one has said that marijuana isn’t harmful. It certainly isn’t the healthiest choice in the world, but the point is compared to the other options, it is quite healthy.
I can understand why someone would feel the need to prove they’re not hurting themselves or others if the action they are performing is deemed illegal and wrong by their government. Other substances are held in much higher regard eventhough they are FAR more dangerous.
I agree that weed is not near as harmful as heroin or crack (And if anyone mentions alchy is worse, I will take a bottle of Heineken and shove it up their ass…wide side first). Not physically, anyway. On other fronts…well, I won’t turn this into a debate of ethics. [/quote]
Ok, looks like your Heineken is going to see some darkness.
-
Alcohol clearly effects Brain, Liver and other organs more than pot. Ever hear of the alcoholic death? Wet brain? Violence? Alcoholism. No such thing happens on pot.
-
Alcohol is responsible for aggressive and destructive behavior more than pot.
-
Alcohol can ruin lives very quickly.
I think anyone who thinks alcohol is safer than pot is a complete idiot with no experience in the matter.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
t3h_Squirr3l wrote:
Shaved wrote:
Ok, looks like your Heineken is going to see some darkness.
-
Alcohol clearly effects Brain, Liver and other organs more than pot. Ever hear of the alcoholic death? Wet brain? Violence? Alcoholism. No such thing happens on pot.
-
Alcohol is responsible for aggressive and destructive behavior more than pot.
-
Alcohol can ruin lives very quickly.
I think anyone who thinks alcohol is safer than pot is a complete idiot with no experience in the matter.
[/quote]
Yep