MARY JAY WILL KILL YOU IN YOUR SLEEP
[quote]MangoMan305 wrote:
MARY JAY WILL KILL YOU IN YOUR SLEEP[/quote]
Yeah, but it’ll be the best nights sleep ever.
[quote]dirtbag wrote:
[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
Do people “rage” on cocaine? I’ve seen people get pretty twitchy but nothing like thrashing around on the ground completely losing their shit. Is that common with cocaine?[/quote]
I have just seen people get sketchy and looking for more cause there addicted to it. Never violent unless you ripped them off some how.
[/quote]
Oh it can make one violent, certainly if you take the liberty of puting it in a joint without fucking telling me until after I ask “why does this weed taste wierd”?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer
[quote]ScienceDaily (May 26, 2006) Ã?¢?? 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][/quote]
Come on X. Did you read the whole article? The heaviest weed smokers had smoked up to 22,000 joints. For the sake of argument, let’s equate one joint to one cigarette. That means that the heaviest smoker had smoked the equivalent of 550-1100 packs of cigarettes, or roughly 1.5 to 3 packs a day. But the study also mentions that no one under the age of 60 was tested. But according to the NCI’s National Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer 1973-1999, the median age of lung cancer victims is 70 and the median age of death from lung cancer is 71. While the title of the article says there is no link between weed and lung cancer, the article itself makes it clear that their study simply showed no INCREASED risk compared to tobacco.
So there is every possibility that many people have not even reached the age where they will be likeliest to contract cancer from smoking weed yet. Also, the study doesn’t say that weed doesn’t cause cancer at all, it simply says that marijuana smokers, according to their study, are not at a HIGHER risk to cancer than tobacco smokers. But the tobacco smokers they examine smoked more than the weed smokers did, given that the tobacco smokers went thru more than two packs a day, whereas the heaviest weed smokers went thru the equivalent of 1.5 to 3 packs a day at most. If it takes the average lung cancer victim to the age of 71 to die from cancer and he/she smokes areound the same as the HIGHEST weed smokers tested, wouldn’t the weed smokers tested (at the highest rate of usage tested) take the same time or reach the same age before the effects are quantified in the same manner as the tested tobacco smokers?
The article also mentions at the end that they have yet to test whether people who are genetically pre-disposed to lung cancer are at a higher risk when smoking weed. The results are a bit dubious to me. The article admits that there is a 50% higher concentration of cancer-causing chemicals in weed and there is a link to another article on the same page revealing that marijuana contains “…significantly higher levels of several toxic compounds–including ammonia and hydrogen cyanide…”
[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]
Well genius, here’s a little info for you that I found linked to one of the articles Prof X posted:
Just in case you missed it in the article here’s a couple of quotes:
Researchers in Canada report that marijuana smoke contains significantly higher levels of several toxic compounds – including ammonia and hydrogen cyanide – than tobacco smoke
researchers compared marijuana smoke to tobacco smoke, using smoking machines to simulate the smoking habits of users. The scientists found that ammonia levels were 20 times higher in the marijuana smoke than in the tobacco smoke, while hydrogen cyanide, nitric oxide and certain aromatic amines occurred at levels 3-5 times higher in the marijuana smoke
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.[/quote]
When comparing tobacco smoke risk to weed smoke risk, it is important to remember this (quoted from one of Prof. X’s articles linked above):
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.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
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]
Can you point me to these steroid studies that show a relationship between steroid use/abuse to heart problems? The reason I ask is because from what I understand research on steroids is not done because it would be unethical. I don’t believe that, but I’m not in charge.
Chris
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer
[quote]ScienceDaily (May 26, 2006) Ã??Ã?¢?? 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][/quote]
Come on X. Did you read the whole article? The heaviest weed smokers had smoked up to 22,000 joints. For the sake of argument, let’s equate one joint to one cigarette. That means that the heaviest smoker had smoked the equivalent of 550-1100 packs of cigarettes, or roughly 1.5 to 3 packs a day. But the study also mentions that no one under the age of 60 was tested. But according to the NCI’s National Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer 1973-1999, the median age of lung cancer victims is 70 and the median age of death from lung cancer is 71. While the title of the article says there is no link between weed and lung cancer, the article itself makes it clear that their study simply showed no INCREASED risk compared to tobacco.
So there is every possibility that many people have not even reached the age where they will be likeliest to contract cancer from smoking weed yet. Also, the study doesn’t say that weed doesn’t cause cancer at all, it simply says that marijuana smokers, according to their study, are not at a HIGHER risk to cancer than tobacco smokers. But the tobacco smokers they examine smoked more than the weed smokers did, given that the tobacco smokers went thru more than two packs a day, whereas the heaviest weed smokers went thru the equivalent of 1.5 to 3 packs a day at most. If it takes the average lung cancer victim to the age of 71 to die from cancer and he/she smokes areound the same as the HIGHEST weed smokers tested, wouldn’t the weed smokers tested (at the highest rate of usage tested) take the same time or reach the same age before the effects are quantified in the same manner as the tested tobacco smokers?
The article also mentions at the end that they have yet to test whether people who are genetically pre-disposed to lung cancer are at a higher risk when smoking weed. The results are a bit dubious to me. The article admits that there is a 50% higher concentration of cancer-causing chemicals in weed and there is a link to another article on the same page revealing that marijuana contains “…significantly higher levels of several toxic compounds–including ammonia and hydrogen cyanide…”[/quote]
Fact:
Smoking anything delivers toxins to the lungs
I presented a study that shows some cancerous tumor growth seems to actually be inhibited by marijuana…yet you ignored this to talk more about the toxins? We already know smoking anything is bad for you…but in spite of this, marijuana use alone without tobacco use seems to DECREASE the occurrence of cancer or at the very least decrease the rate of occurrence in the population compared to tobacco smoke.
Fact:
Smoking marijuana is not the only form of delivery. I would guess that is simply the most convenient and portable seeing as it being illegal would divert people from looking to more public and safer methods of delivery.
It would seem most negatives can be avoided by simply not smoking the plant…but even with smoking, these studies seem to show a trend in the reduction of cancer among the populations tested.
Scientific studies should never be taken as if finding one that says what you want it to say is the final truth. It takes many studies showing a trend for there to be any attempt at later calling a hypothesis fact.
I can say that I am amazed that they found a reduction in cancerous tumor growth and this did not make headlines and there is no further PUBLIC push to do more research there.
What I fear is that we will be so stupid as a society that we could possibly be sitting on something significant as far as either cancer resistance or other uses that could benefit us all because of the bias of some people.
I stand by the fact that 200 years from now, they will look back and call us all morons.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I stand by the fact that 200 years from now, they will look back and call us all morons.
[/quote]
That’s a pretty standard occurrence throughout history 
[quote]trav123456 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I stand by the fact that 200 years from now, they will look back and call us all morons.
[/quote]
That’s a pretty standard occurrence throughout history :)[/quote]
Yep… pretty much
[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]
find me one directly related to marijuana
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I presented a study that shows some cancerous tumor growth seems to actually be inhibited by marijuana…yet you ignored this to talk more about the toxins? We already know smoking anything is bad for you…but in spite of this, marijuana use alone without tobacco use seems to DECREASE the occurrence of cancer or at the very least decrease the rate of occurrence in the population compared to tobacco smoke.
[/quote]
Not strictly true, you showed that the active ingredient in isolation reduced lung tumour size, but there are many other factors at play in weed as a whole.
Would inhibition of EGF in healthy people be an issue? I would imagine messing up some pretty pivotal signalling molecules/growth factors is a less-than-brilliant idea as a rule…
[quote]-twiggy- wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I presented a study that shows some cancerous tumor growth seems to actually be inhibited by marijuana…yet you ignored this to talk more about the toxins? We already know smoking anything is bad for you…but in spite of this, marijuana use alone without tobacco use seems to DECREASE the occurrence of cancer or at the very least decrease the rate of occurrence in the population compared to tobacco smoke.
[/quote]
Not strictly true, you showed that the active ingredient in isolation reduced lung tumour size, but there are many other factors at play in weed as a whole.
Would inhibition of EGF in healthy people be an issue? I would imagine messing up some pretty pivotal signalling molecules/growth factors is a less-than-brilliant idea as a rule…[/quote]
From the article:
What other “factors at play in weed as a whole” have anything to do with this? What are you referring to with “factors at play in weed as a whole”?
You just had a study that showed the active ingredient in weed reduces the size of tumors in certain lung cancer lines along with other studies that indicating in those human populations that the presence of cancer may be reduced when only smoking marijuana…along with yet another study that showed the risk of COPD is greatly increased with BOTH tobacco and marijuana but that no risk was present with marijuana alone…and your response is to argue what exactly?
How is this not significant at all?
The argument was that weed CAUSES cancer at basically the same rate or worse than tobacco. This study shows some tumor cells may actually be inhibited by it along with those other studies NOT showing an increase in marijuana related cancer patients.
What is your argument exactly?
Do you have studies of people dying as a direct result of getting lung cancer at high rates from marijuana alone or just more studies about toxins as if smoking isn’t the issue in and of itself?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]-twiggy- wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I presented a study that shows some cancerous tumor growth seems to actually be inhibited by marijuana…yet you ignored this to talk more about the toxins? We already know smoking anything is bad for you…but in spite of this, marijuana use alone without tobacco use seems to DECREASE the occurrence of cancer or at the very least decrease the rate of occurrence in the population compared to tobacco smoke.
[/quote]
Not strictly true, you showed that the active ingredient in isolation reduced lung tumour size, but there are many other factors at play in weed as a whole.
Would inhibition of EGF in healthy people be an issue? I would imagine messing up some pretty pivotal signalling molecules/growth factors is a less-than-brilliant idea as a rule…[/quote]
What? Why would “healthy” people be healthy if they had cancer? What isn’t strictly true?
From the article:
What other “factors at play in weed as a whole” have anything to do with this? What are you referring to with “factors at play in weed as a whole”?
You just had a study that showed the active ingredient in weed reduces the size of tumors in certain lung cancer lines and your response is to argue what exactly?
How is this not significant at all?
The argument was that weed CAUSES cancer at basically the same rate or worse than tobacco. This study shows some tumor cells may actually be inhibited by it.
What is your argument exactly?
Do you have studies of people dying as a direct result of getting lung cancer at high rates from marijuana or just more studies about toxins as if smoking isn’t the issue in and of itself?[/quote]
It isn’t strictly true that you showed that MARIJUANA inhibits cancer, just THC. This may well be negated by other substances in the plant. I’m not saying it is, just that to take one ingredient out of context is inconclusive. It was an interesting point however, and I agree that smoking is more likely the issue than marijuana itself.
I did not say people who have cancer are healthy. However, that THC is beneficial in reducing EGF inhibition in those with certain types of tumour, does not suggest that it is in any way good for healthy people to use. Of course you did not say this, I am merely clarifying what I was referring to when asking whether EGF inhibition is likely to be detrimental to healthy people.
Given the tone of the thread and the marijuana section within, I (possibly wrongly) inferred that you were suggesting this finding may show marijuana to actually be fairly harmless if not associated with smoking. I was simply trying to point out that benefits of a substance to those in a diseased state may or may not be relevant to a healthy population (a la kidney impairment and protein intake kind of arguements).
Hope I have clarified what I meant!
[quote]-twiggy- wrote:
It isn’t strictly true that you showed that MARIJUANA inhibits cancer, just THC. This may well be negated by other substances in the plant. I’m not saying it is, just that to take one ingredient out of context is inconclusive. It was an interesting point however, and I agree that smoking is more likely the issue than marijuana itself.
I did not say people who have cancer are healthy. However, that THC is beneficial in reducing EGF inhibition in those with certain types of tumour, does not suggest that it is in any way good for healthy people to use. Of course you did not say this, I am merely clarifying what I was referring to when asking whether EGF inhibition is likely to be detrimental to healthy people.
Given the tone of the thread and the marijuana section within, I (possibly wrongly) inferred that you were suggesting this finding may show marijuana to actually be fairly harmless if not associated with smoking. I was simply trying to point out that benefits of a substance to those in a diseased state may or may not be relevant to a healthy population (a la kidney impairment and protein intake kind of arguements).
Hope I have clarified what I meant![/quote]
I am not saying marijuana is HEALTHY. That would be one huge leap to make and not what I believe anyway, but this isn’t about whether it is healthy. Humans do things everyday that aren’t “healthy” yet we do them anyway and many of us don’t die directly from them.
If we allow adults to legally go out and buy enough alcohol tonight to kill themselves, someone will have to explain in greater detail why we are putting people in jail for marijuana use when, for all intensive purposes, it seems to be LESS harmful than both tobacco and alcohol.
For a country in an economic meltdown, you would think the millions to be made from this plant would outdo the traditional blind bias from the general public who believes everything they see in after school movies.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]-twiggy- wrote:
It isn’t strictly true that you showed that MARIJUANA inhibits cancer, just THC. This may well be negated by other substances in the plant. I’m not saying it is, just that to take one ingredient out of context is inconclusive. It was an interesting point however, and I agree that smoking is more likely the issue than marijuana itself.
I did not say people who have cancer are healthy. However, that THC is beneficial in reducing EGF inhibition in those with certain types of tumour, does not suggest that it is in any way good for healthy people to use. Of course you did not say this, I am merely clarifying what I was referring to when asking whether EGF inhibition is likely to be detrimental to healthy people.
Given the tone of the thread and the marijuana section within, I (possibly wrongly) inferred that you were suggesting this finding may show marijuana to actually be fairly harmless if not associated with smoking. I was simply trying to point out that benefits of a substance to those in a diseased state may or may not be relevant to a healthy population (a la kidney impairment and protein intake kind of arguements).
Hope I have clarified what I meant![/quote]
I am not saying marijuana is HEALTHY. That would be one huge leap to make and not what I believe anyway, but this isn’t about whether it is healthy. Humans do things everyday that aren’t “healthy” yet we do them anyway and many of us don’t die directly from them.
If we allow adults to legally go out and buy enough alcohol tonight to kill themselves, someone will have to explain in greater detail why we are putting people in jail for marijuana use when, for all intensive purposes, it seems to be LESS harmful than both tobacco and alcohol.
For a country in an economic meltdown, you would think the millions to be made from this plant would outdo the traditional blind bias from the general public who believes everything they see in after school movies.
[/quote]
So it was just my abyssmally written first post that confused things, we actually seem to pretty much agree on this matter. That marijuana is smoked less frequently than straight tobacco also (as alluded to in another study you mentioned) shows that in the context of normal use it is probably far less of an issue than other legal drugs.
Tangentially, I often wonder if living in a heavily polluted area such as near a city centre is more of a health risk than using certain drugs etc.
[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.
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]
You reference an article in a glorified gossip rag that cites the expert opinion of someone who ADMITS when put under pressure that he has no proof of none of the evidence he cites as a legitimate source of information? Are you kidding? You actually had a point when you said that for, some people, steroids are psychologically addictive; but the caveat to that is that people with addictive personalities will find just about anything to be obsessed about: porn, rec drugs, food, dieting, exercise, alcohol, hell; even yard work.