'It's Worse Than Cocaine'

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]Vir wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I think you guys are confusing steroid use with steroid abuse. Granted, cocaine use (based on my own experiences and those of some old friends of mine) almost assuredly leads to abuse, steroid use can lead to abuse. Maybe it isn’t as likely to lead to abuse, but steroid abuse can lead to horrific consequences similar to cocaine abuse. However, that shit with Ben Affleck was absolutely ridiculous.[/quote]

Cocaine is physiologically addictive. Steroids are not. [/quote]

It takes a lot of use to get addicted to cocaine, you don’t do a few lines and get immediately hooked. .[/quote]

WRONG.

If you’ve ever been around people who have addictive personalities and have done coke, you’d know that this it totally wrong.
[/quote]

These people would get hooked on anything, chances are they are looking for the next thing to get hooked on. If it wasn’t coke then they’d be getting hooked on something else. A lot of cocaine users use it infrequently (like at the weekends) and can happily go the rest of the week without snorting the stuff, I have known several people who do/did this.

For many people it takes consistent use (and a lot of their money) to get hooked on cocaine.

To the rest of people who responded to my post: I never inferred any of those things. Just because testosterone has no direct molecular effects on the addiction pathways in the brain does not mean that taking steroids is not addictive, addiction isn’t that simple.

[quote]AzCats wrote:
Illegal Drugs (cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine) = 15,000-20,000 deaths per year

Legal Drugs (Tylenol, advil, aspirin and so on) = 106,000 deaths per year

Steroids (legal in many countries) = 0 (zero) deaths per year

You be the judge![/quote]

I’m pretty sure marijuana never killed anyone…so that’s a falsheood

Thats was Affleck’s best acting to date.

She was being a bitch though.

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
The only people I hear bitching and moaning about roid rage are people who have never used steroids.[/quote]

For what it’s worth, you rarely find alcoholics donating to MADD.[/quote]

Ell oh ell, as the kids say these days

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]AzCats wrote:
Illegal Drugs (cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine) = 15,000-20,000 deaths per year

Legal Drugs (Tylenol, advil, aspirin and so on) = 106,000 deaths per year

Steroids (legal in many countries) = 0 (zero) deaths per year

You be the judge![/quote]

another falsehood.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/2008/06/28/2008-06-28_news_examines_relationship_between_stero.html

There are also articles that downplay this, but they come from BB sites. It’s like citing Freud’s Cocaine Papers as evidence that cocaine is good or citing High Times as evidence that weed doesn’t cause severe lung and heart damage.[/quote]

I dont want to completely derail this thread, because this is actually the most interesting discussion on this site in a while - mostly because it’s not everyone patting one another on the back and agreeing.

But to post that article as “proof” of a link between steroids and death is disingenuous at best. I haven’t even finished the article, but the VERY FIRST case they present is of a young NFL prospect who died of heart failure. While they present good circumstantial evidence (the bacteriostatic water and arimidex) of his use of steroids, you are COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that he was apparently INJECTING liquid viagra.

http://www.psa-rising.com/medicalpike/viagracardiodeaths031500.htm
"Viagra, commonly prescribed by doctors to treat male erectile dysfunction, is turning up too often at the scene of heart attack death in relatively young men. Some men may be vulnerable to heart attack after taking this drug, made by Pfizer. That is not known, but the drug itself is beginning to look like more than a bystander in the deaths.

Some men who have died after taking Viagra were elderly and on heart medication. But a study reported March 14 finds that more men who have died were under age sixty-five. Most of the deaths have occurred within a few hours of taking the drug. Most of the men took the standard dose. Most of the men had no reported heart problems. Although some men who died were taking nitrates as well as Viagra, men who were not taking nitrates died at a higher rate. "

Come on man, I am as interested in an honest discussion as the next guy, but supposition and weak leaps of logic do not advance your argument in the slightest

this on the other hand

[quote]Someone suggested I do some research on steroids. Here is a quote from a steroid abuse expert and a well-respected doctor in his field, according to the research I performed.

“For males in the U.S., heart disease is the number one cause of death, and steroid abuse makes heart disease even worse,” stressed Dr. Linn Goldberg, a professor at Oregon Health Sciences University, and an expert on steroid abuse.

I understand that steroid abuse in and of itself may not cause death, but it can certainly exacerbate the effects of other behaviors harmful to the heart’s health.

As for “mental addiction”, I fully understand that those who are predisposed to addictive behavior are likely to abuse drugs and that this does not mean that every single behavior that can become psychologically addictive will lead to abuse by everybody. I’m not demonizing sex or eating or running, I’m simply pointing out that someone who does take these behaviors to extremes can suffer as a result. Someone with an addictive personality is certainly capable of abusing steroids to the point of harm. Does it happen often and are there other aspects involved? No and yes. But there are numerous studies that show that steroid abuse can lead to heart problems. Does this happen on the same level as cocaine abuse: no, but it does happen. I’m not trying to say that cocaine and steroid abuse are on an equal level, but steroids can most certainly be abused.

Steroids can be used responsibly without withdrawal symptoms and I don’t think there is any way to “responsibly” use cocaine. But someone who is predisposed to addictive behavior and uses steroids is a prime candidate to become that .01% who suffers drastically from it as a result. If I gave the impression that I believe cocaine abuse and steroid abuse are equally problematic, my mistake; that wasn’t where I was going. But don’t try to tell me that steroid use is 100% safe for all grown men to use in any way, shape or form.[/quote]

Is a much more solid argument and raises good points

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I think you guys are confusing steroid use with steroid abuse. Granted, cocaine use (based on my own experiences and those of some old friends of mine) almost assuredly leads to abuse, steroid use can lead to abuse. Maybe it isn’t as likely to lead to abuse, but steroid abuse can lead to horrific consequences similar to cocaine abuse. However, that shit with Ben Affleck was absolutely ridiculous.[/quote]

Cocaine is physiologically addictive. Steroids are not. [/quote]

AFAIK cocaine IS NOT physiologically addictive but VERY psychologically adictive. (it does induce brain changes but not in such a way that you would call cocaine addiction physiollogical as e.g. compared to alcohol or opiates)

[quote]Vir wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]Vir wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I think you guys are confusing steroid use with steroid abuse. Granted, cocaine use (based on my own experiences and those of some old friends of mine) almost assuredly leads to abuse, steroid use can lead to abuse. Maybe it isn’t as likely to lead to abuse, but steroid abuse can lead to horrific consequences similar to cocaine abuse. However, that shit with Ben Affleck was absolutely ridiculous.[/quote]

Cocaine is physiologically addictive. Steroids are not. [/quote]

It takes a lot of use to get addicted to cocaine, you don’t do a few lines and get immediately hooked. .[/quote]

WRONG.

If you’ve ever been around people who have addictive personalities and have done coke, you’d know that this it totally wrong.
[/quote]

These people would get hooked on anything, chances are they are looking for the next thing to get hooked on. If it wasn’t coke then they’d be getting hooked on something else. A lot of cocaine users use it infrequently (like at the weekends) and can happily go the rest of the week without snorting the stuff, I have known several people who do/did this.

For many people it takes consistent use (and a lot of their money) to get hooked on cocaine.

To the rest of people who responded to my post: I never inferred any of those things. Just because testosterone has no direct molecular effects on the addiction pathways in the brain does not mean that taking steroids is not addictive, addiction isn’t that simple.[/quote]

What i’m saying is that you’re wrong in stating, “It takes a lot of use to get addicted to cocaine, you don’t do a few lines and get immediately hooked.” because there are people who try coke once and it snowballs pretty quickly from there.

Sure, it might take longer for others, and there are many people who can and do coke without getting addicted. But, like you just stated, addiction just isn’t that simple.

Also, just because you have that gene, it doesn’t mean that you’d be addicted to just anything. Alcoholics aren’t just poor coke heads.

[quote]football061 wrote:

[quote]AzCats wrote:
Illegal Drugs (cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine) = 15,000-20,000 deaths per year

Legal Drugs (Tylenol, advil, aspirin and so on) = 106,000 deaths per year

Steroids (legal in many countries) = 0 (zero) deaths per year

You be the judge![/quote]

I’m pretty sure marijuana never killed anyone…so that’s a falsheood[/quote]

Marijuana kills people every year. It’s called lung cancer and heart disease. No one has ever overdosed from smoking weed. But given that cigarettes kill 500,000 Americans every year through various forms of heart disease and cancer, and weed contains more carcinogens than tobacco, it’s safe to say that there are thousands who die each year from smoking weed.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]football061 wrote:

[quote]AzCats wrote:
Illegal Drugs (cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine) = 15,000-20,000 deaths per year

Legal Drugs (Tylenol, advil, aspirin and so on) = 106,000 deaths per year

Steroids (legal in many countries) = 0 (zero) deaths per year

You be the judge![/quote]

I’m pretty sure marijuana never killed anyone…so that’s a falsheood[/quote]

Marijuana kills people every year. It’s called lung cancer and heart disease. No one has ever overdosed from smoking weed. But given that cigarettes kill 500,000 Americans every year through various forms of heart disease and cancer, and weed contains more carcinogens than tobacco, it’s safe to say that there are thousands who die each year from smoking weed.[/quote]

Cigarettes are far worse for your health than weed. A typical cigarette contains chemical additives to “help it burn properly” such as arsenic, ammonia, butane and tar, just to name a few, that do far more damage to your body than smoking a marijuana plant bud.

I suppose if people were just rolling up dried tobacco leaves alone you could probably draw a comparison but that’s not the case.

[quote]fuogo wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]football061 wrote:

[quote]AzCats wrote:
Illegal Drugs (cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine) = 15,000-20,000 deaths per year

Legal Drugs (Tylenol, advil, aspirin and so on) = 106,000 deaths per year

Steroids (legal in many countries) = 0 (zero) deaths per year

You be the judge![/quote]

I’m pretty sure marijuana never killed anyone…so that’s a falsheood[/quote]

Marijuana kills people every year. It’s called lung cancer and heart disease. No one has ever overdosed from smoking weed. But given that cigarettes kill 500,000 Americans every year through various forms of heart disease and cancer, and weed contains more carcinogens than tobacco, it’s safe to say that there are thousands who die each year from smoking weed.[/quote]

Cigarettes are far worse for your health than weed. A typical cigarette contains chemical additives to “help it burn properly” such as arsenic, ammonia, butane and tar, just to name a few, that do far more damage to your body than smoking a marijuana plant bud.

I suppose if people were just rolling up dried tobacco leaves alone you could probably draw a comparison but that’s not the case.[/quote]

If that is true, please post a link.

Otherwise, I would like to inform you that there are dozens upon dozens of plants that contain toxins, known or suspected carcinogens, etc. in very large amounts.

From the BBC’s website:

A study by the British Lung Foundation found that just three cannabis joints a day cause the same damage as 20 cigarettes.

It is vital that people are fully aware of the dangers so they can make an educated decision and know the damage they may be causing

Dr Mark Britton
And when cannabis and tobacco are smoked together, the effects are dramatically worse.

Evidence shows that tar from cannabis cigarettes contains 50% more cancer causing carcinogens than tobacco.

Dr Mark Britton, chairman of the British Lung Foundation, said: "These statistics will come as a surprise to many people, especially those who choose to smoke cannabis rather than tobacco in the belief it is safer for them.

“It is vital that people are fully aware of the dangers so they can make an educated decision and know the damage they may be causing.”

Even though my own experiences are anecdotal evidence, as someone who used to regularly smoke an eighth of weed a day or more, you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that weed does not cause severe damage to the lungs. If you prefer blunts, then the damage is going to be dramatically worse.

Personally, I don’t even know why I’ve responded to those who have argued about my assessment of mental addiction versus physical addiction and the dangers of drug abuse (not use, abuse). I’ve probably abused more drugs and alcohol in my lifetime than any ten people on this thread combined. That’s not a good thing. I’ve seen the damage and the nature of acute addiction and alcoholism in myself and in the people I hung out with. I’ve also had the strength to admit these problems and overcome them.

So if you’re a 20 y/o kid who probably hasn’t ever seen both sides of the fences that I’ve seen or seem to think that the harmful effects of drugs are played up by the media, please do not try to correct my assessment of addiction. I know what it is firsthand.

Everybody on here can have their own opinion, but opinions are like assholes: everybody’s got one, but some of them you wouldn’t come close to, and others you’d come inside of.

[quote]football061 wrote:

[quote]AzCats wrote:
Illegal Drugs (cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine) = 15,000-20,000 deaths per year

Legal Drugs (Tylenol, advil, aspirin and so on) = 106,000 deaths per year

Steroids (legal in many countries) = 0 (zero) deaths per year

You be the judge![/quote]

I’m pretty sure marijuana never killed anyone…so that’s a falsheood[/quote]

Actually, it probably has but not because marijuana is dangerous. People can be allergic to marijuana just like pretty much anything else. A friend of my dad’s nearly died in college the first time he smoked due to an allergy. So, marijuana has probably killed a couple of people throughout history but so has water, so…

[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:

[quote]football061 wrote:

[quote]AzCats wrote:
Illegal Drugs (cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine) = 15,000-20,000 deaths per year

Legal Drugs (Tylenol, advil, aspirin and so on) = 106,000 deaths per year

Steroids (legal in many countries) = 0 (zero) deaths per year

You be the judge![/quote]

I’m pretty sure marijuana never killed anyone…so that’s a falsheood[/quote]

Actually, it probably has but not because marijuana is dangerous. People can be allergic to marijuana just like pretty much anything else. A friend of my dad’s nearly died in college the first time he smoked due to an allergy. So, marijuana has probably killed a couple of people throughout history but so has water, so…
[/quote]

Are you really saying this? Marujuana kills, period. It contains known carcinogens that are harmful to the heart and lungs to the point that they can cause fatal cancer, period. People die by the hundreds of thousands every year due to smoking-related illnesses, period. If you think that only a couple of the tens and tens of millions who have died throughout history from smoking-related illnesses are due to marijuana, you are beyond delusional.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Are you really saying this? Marujuana kills, period. It contains known carcinogens that are harmful to the heart and lungs to the point that they can cause fatal cancer, period. People die by the hundreds of thousands every year due to smoking-related illnesses, period. If you think that only a couple of the tens and tens of millions who have died throughout history from smoking-related illnesses are due to marijuana, you are beyond delusional. [/quote]

Then I am beyond delusional. I’ve known four people in my life who died of lung cancer and never smoked anything or lived with anyone who smoked. It’s too easy to pass these illnesses off as “smoker’s diseases”. You can put all the periods on it you want, I already think you’re incredibly stupid due to your ridiculous theories on steroids.

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows

[quote]ScienceDaily (Apr. 17, 2007) â?? The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.[/quote]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:

[quote]football061 wrote:

[quote]AzCats wrote:
Illegal Drugs (cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine) = 15,000-20,000 deaths per year

Legal Drugs (Tylenol, advil, aspirin and so on) = 106,000 deaths per year

Steroids (legal in many countries) = 0 (zero) deaths per year

You be the judge![/quote]

I’m pretty sure marijuana never killed anyone…so that’s a falsheood[/quote]

Actually, it probably has but not because marijuana is dangerous. People can be allergic to marijuana just like pretty much anything else. A friend of my dad’s nearly died in college the first time he smoked due to an allergy. So, marijuana has probably killed a couple of people throughout history but so has water, so…
[/quote]

Are you really saying this? Marujuana kills, period. It contains known carcinogens that are harmful to the heart and lungs to the point that they can cause fatal cancer, period. People die by the hundreds of thousands every year due to smoking-related illnesses, period. If you think that only a couple of the tens and tens of millions who have died throughout history from smoking-related illnesses are due to marijuana, you are beyond delusional. [/quote]

You need to become more educated than a very quick google search.

Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer

[quote]ScienceDaily (May 26, 2006) â?? People who smoke marijuana–even heavy, long-term marijuana users–do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer, according to a study to be presented at the American Thoracic Society International Conference on May 23rd.

Marijuana smoking also did not appear to increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus, the study found.

The findings were a surprise to the researchers. “We expected that we would find that a history of heavy marijuana use–more than 500-1,000 uses–would increase the risk of cancer from several years to decades after exposure to marijuana,” said the senior researcher, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles. [/quote]

To balance the previous:

Growing Evidence Of Marijuana Smoke’s Potential Dangers

[quote]ScienceDaily (Aug. 5, 2009) â?? In a finding that challenges the increasingly popular belief that smoking marijuana is less harmful to health than smoking tobacco, researchers in Canada are reporting that smoking marijuana, like smoking tobacco, has toxic effects on cells.

Rebecca Maertens and colleagues note that people often view marijuana as a “natural” product and less harmful than tobacco. As public attitudes toward marijuana change and legal restrictions ease in some countries, use of marijuana is increasing.

Scientists know that marijuana smoke has adverse effects on the lungs. However, there is little knowledge about marijuana’s potential to cause lung cancer due to the difficulty in identifying and studying people who have smoked only marijuana.

he new study begins to address that question by comparing marijuana smoke vs. tobacco smoke in terms of toxicity to cells and to DNA. Scientists exposed cultured animal cells and bacteria to condensed smoke samples from both marijuana and tobacco. There were distinct differences in the degree and type of toxicity elicited by marijuana and cigarette smoke.

Marijuana smoke caused significantly more damage to cells and DNA than tobacco smoke, the researchers note. However, tobacco smoke caused chromosome damage while marijuana did not.[/quote]

What does this all mean? That the issue is not as “black and white” as some would have you believe. the lack of chromosomal damage may also point to a decrease in the ability of pure marijuana smoke to cause cancer at the same rate as tobacco.

Very Interesting:

Marijuana Smoking Increases Risk Of COPD For Tobacco Smokers

What does this mean? That the comment that marijuana is JUST AS HARMFUL OR MORESO than tobacco seems to be very FALSE.

damn this topic got quiet.