Gavajabra2
Active member
good job there*
Had to correct my own pet peeve.
Had to correct my own pet peeve.
Weed cuts lung cancer tumors in half
- Thread starter SirFryanator
- Start date
Gavajabra2
Active member
I don't think "cancer sticks" are the only cause in the world for lung cancer.
Gavajabra2
Active member
Bahaha most credible, spot-on sentance in this whole thread.
MattMcGinnis
Active member
its not as far off as you would think. have you seen the special on the history channel about how illegal drugs became illegal? a lot of drugs werent made illegal due to health concerns
hippie_cat
Active member
man i applaud your calmness during this thread.
anyway, some popular theories (now im not citing anything so dont tell my my sources are crap, i know that they are in an academic sence) are that grass was made illegal for many, many reasons which have nothing to do with health, ranging from giving an excuse for detaining/deporting mexicans to the fact that this natural, easy to grow plant is a major threat to big pharma who make billions of dollars every year off medications which have similar effects (for example: marinol, codiene and other opiates, sleeping pills and the huge number of mood-altering drugs currently on the market) the latter is actually my preferred theory as it is infact entirely feasible.
another reason why the govt is very anti-cannabis is because theyve been saying the same thing for decades and if they were suddenly to turn around and admit being wrong, then that could open the floodgates for mass dissent at all the other things theyve fucked up over the years (iraq anyone?)
for another source of information try www.erowid.org . it is a pro-drugs site, but they have very well written articles with respected sources.
anyway, some popular theories (now im not citing anything so dont tell my my sources are crap, i know that they are in an academic sence) are that grass was made illegal for many, many reasons which have nothing to do with health, ranging from giving an excuse for detaining/deporting mexicans to the fact that this natural, easy to grow plant is a major threat to big pharma who make billions of dollars every year off medications which have similar effects (for example: marinol, codiene and other opiates, sleeping pills and the huge number of mood-altering drugs currently on the market) the latter is actually my preferred theory as it is infact entirely feasible.
another reason why the govt is very anti-cannabis is because theyve been saying the same thing for decades and if they were suddenly to turn around and admit being wrong, then that could open the floodgates for mass dissent at all the other things theyve fucked up over the years (iraq anyone?)
for another source of information try www.erowid.org . it is a pro-drugs site, but they have very well written articles with respected sources.
matthasaurusrex
Active member
i dont know about you guys but im gunna spark up a scrumptious joint and blow it on all your usernames. Yay
SirFryanator
Active member
I think the real thing is whether THC is a harmful chemical or not...some studies say yes, others say no, I really hope it's not.
But I do think it could be in brains that aren't fully developed yet. After prolonged use it DOES make you more out of touch with reality, etc. Happened to me. Noticed that it makes you hella calm, even after stopping for a while? Yeah. Happened with me. I'm fine with it, I was a very angry person so for me it was chill. But for others who are already super laid back it's probably not such a good thing.
Who knows. I'm just playing devil's advocate here now haha.
I like weed, but I don't want to smoke it for all of my life, for various reasons...but it's a great way to relax and such. Fun for parties too.
But I do think it could be in brains that aren't fully developed yet. After prolonged use it DOES make you more out of touch with reality, etc. Happened to me. Noticed that it makes you hella calm, even after stopping for a while? Yeah. Happened with me. I'm fine with it, I was a very angry person so for me it was chill. But for others who are already super laid back it's probably not such a good thing.
Who knows. I'm just playing devil's advocate here now haha.
I like weed, but I don't want to smoke it for all of my life, for various reasons...but it's a great way to relax and such. Fun for parties too.
unchyll
Active member
dude... wow
my dad doesnt smoke cigs, that was the point in telling that story...
and yes adderall is speed buddy....
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/amphetamines/amphetamines.shtml
and nyquil is way more dangerous than weed, you know absolutely nothing about drugs. You can DIE from nyquil very easily, alot of the emo kids in my town OD on it.
and what the fuck is with all this joint talk, you dont just smoke weed in joints and it doesnt matter if weed is illegal, you really think that is gonna stop america from lightin up were ever???
shit i smoke when i drive sometimes...
my dad doesnt smoke cigs, that was the point in telling that story...
and yes adderall is speed buddy....
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/amphetamines/amphetamines.shtml
and nyquil is way more dangerous than weed, you know absolutely nothing about drugs. You can DIE from nyquil very easily, alot of the emo kids in my town OD on it.
and what the fuck is with all this joint talk, you dont just smoke weed in joints and it doesnt matter if weed is illegal, you really think that is gonna stop america from lightin up were ever???
shit i smoke when i drive sometimes...
unchyll
Active member
what the fuck does being hardcore have anything to do with knowing about drugs... Who the fuck hasnt been to erowid.... Did you ever think that weed is classified as a DRUG and that JUST MAYBE knowing about drugs would mean you know something about weed? The kid has no valid points or atleast no points that are his that he didnt just copy and paste, i still dont understand how you dont see any relivance to what im saying.
You just cant be proven wrong i guess, are you too stubborn or something?
You just cant be proven wrong i guess, are you too stubborn or something?
doritos
Active member
I agree. That being said, Gavajabra is still wrong.
One joint does not equal four cigarettes. Maybe one. Stop touting this because it's an outdated, bullshit fact. Not that it matters given the slant of my argument below.
The government won't support weed because it's too controversial because society is trained to think everyone who smokes is a burnout dumbass. Not that everyone thinks that, but enough do (including the ridiculous numbers of Christians politicians spend fucktons of money campaigning to) that they can't support it without risking their careers.
Secondly, there are plenty of legal things I can do that put my life and the life of others in immediate and critical danger if I'm a dumbass about it. Skiing. Drinking. As it turns out, those things can also cause permanent damage too! Liver problems, addiction, death, serious longterm injury, violence... am I missing anything?
Now, skiing and drinking, those are some things I can do for fun, right? And they have risks associated with them that I take responsibility for when I do them. Why isn't it legal for me to accept the risks of marijuana if its something I enjoy enough to consider those risks outweighed?
You say the government won't do it because one smoking session impairs you while one beer doesn't? I have a high enough tolerance that one smoking session with friends will not make me high by the time I want to drive (usually a half hour tops). Oh, wait, what about those people with low tolerances? Oh, yeah, what about those people with low tolerance for alcohol, like this obnoxious bitch I know who gets hammered after two, three beers? She feels it after one. Driving a little high is no more dangerous than driving a little drunk, in fact, much less dangerous. Driving stoned is fucking stupid, but then again so is driving plastered. What the fuck is the difference?
I rest my case.
One joint does not equal four cigarettes. Maybe one. Stop touting this because it's an outdated, bullshit fact. Not that it matters given the slant of my argument below.
The government won't support weed because it's too controversial because society is trained to think everyone who smokes is a burnout dumbass. Not that everyone thinks that, but enough do (including the ridiculous numbers of Christians politicians spend fucktons of money campaigning to) that they can't support it without risking their careers.
Secondly, there are plenty of legal things I can do that put my life and the life of others in immediate and critical danger if I'm a dumbass about it. Skiing. Drinking. As it turns out, those things can also cause permanent damage too! Liver problems, addiction, death, serious longterm injury, violence... am I missing anything?
Now, skiing and drinking, those are some things I can do for fun, right? And they have risks associated with them that I take responsibility for when I do them. Why isn't it legal for me to accept the risks of marijuana if its something I enjoy enough to consider those risks outweighed?
You say the government won't do it because one smoking session impairs you while one beer doesn't? I have a high enough tolerance that one smoking session with friends will not make me high by the time I want to drive (usually a half hour tops). Oh, wait, what about those people with low tolerances? Oh, yeah, what about those people with low tolerance for alcohol, like this obnoxious bitch I know who gets hammered after two, three beers? She feels it after one. Driving a little high is no more dangerous than driving a little drunk, in fact, much less dangerous. Driving stoned is fucking stupid, but then again so is driving plastered. What the fuck is the difference?
I rest my case.
forfun
Active member
Kid listen here right now.. why the fuck are you wasting your time on the internet trying to deny shit people have known forever. you realize the only reason all these false stereotypes are attached to bud is because of racism and corporate influence in the 1920's. i mean if you want to support all that kinda shit go ahead. But hemp as a fabric is far more durable and ecological than cotton, and i think a little bit of the buds is a good way to sit back and look at shit from a different perspecitve. No reason to hate on it.
Gavajabra2
Active member
If your dad doesn't smoke cigarettes, then his lungs would be bad but not terrible like they would be if he smoked cigarettes. My point here is that if marijuana was legal, people would smoke it ALOT more, to the point it'd rival cigarettes in damaging lungs and so forth. You just proved my point in saying nyquil is more dangerous than weed (however wrong). Any simple drug can be considered dangerous if you OD on it, but weed you can't OD on. Instead, in large amounts weed can cause lung disease, and impairs your ability to do simple things like driving, affectively. There is no argument here, weed IS dangerous even if it has medicinal value, so stop trying to justify it so you can get high every now and then.
"Shit I smoke when I drive sometimes..." You really are an idiot.
I'm now late for work, I'll be back at 6 to answer any more of your dumb ass remarks.
"Shit I smoke when I drive sometimes..." You really are an idiot.
I'm now late for work, I'll be back at 6 to answer any more of your dumb ass remarks.
Gavajabra2
Active member
I have no problem with somebody smoking weed, it's their lungs not mine. The 'hating' can occur when they think it's a good idea to drive high, thats when it involves me, you, everybody on the roads. Saying that weed hurts your lungs is defending my point that weed is a dangerous drug.
Gavajabra2
Active member
"A single joint of marijuana obstructs the flow of air as much as smoking up to five tobacco cigarettes"
That was the TIMES, a credible resource and that was posted Wednesday, not very outdated. I'll be back to finish the post later.
That was the TIMES, a credible resource and that was posted Wednesday, not very outdated. I'll be back to finish the post later.
unchyll
Active member
...
liver failure is totaly harmless huh
if weed was legal i really doubt that i nor anyone else that smokes would smoke anymore than we already do except for maybe the first week it is legalized. Theres a limit of weed you can smoke until you start gettin tired from smoking and just want to go to sleep. Obviously you wouldnt know that but you do seem to think you know about everything else. The only bad thing ive ever gotten from weed was a stomach ache from eating to much.
liver failure is totaly harmless huh
if weed was legal i really doubt that i nor anyone else that smokes would smoke anymore than we already do except for maybe the first week it is legalized. Theres a limit of weed you can smoke until you start gettin tired from smoking and just want to go to sleep. Obviously you wouldnt know that but you do seem to think you know about everything else. The only bad thing ive ever gotten from weed was a stomach ache from eating to much.
grubix2
Active member
First off I'm going to step up to the plate and actually address the research article.
#1 This study was done "in-vitro" (meaning in a test tube or outside the organism). And in mice.
As a researcher myself I can say, that these results could actually mean jack shit. I work in a lab for the Department of Endocrinology here at the University of Pittsburgh. Every week I transplant Islets (groups of cells in the pancrea that produce insulin) into diabetic mice. For those of you that are not familiar with what type I diabetes actually is. It is a disorder in which (more or less) the individual's pancreas is incapable of producing insulin. We transplant the healthy Islets into the diabetic mice. And guess what, we see the pacreas in the diabetic mice produce insulin. This same thing has been tried with humans, and it doesn't work nearly as well. To the point where it almost isnt even worth the hassel of transplanting the Islets.
#2 This has nothing to do with health benefits of smoking weed. One of the active ingrediants in Weed (THC) was INJECTED into the mice. Thus all other variables were removed.
Point:
Researchers found that it was possible to ruduce tumor size in rodents by injecting THC.
#1 This study was done "in-vitro" (meaning in a test tube or outside the organism). And in mice.
As a researcher myself I can say, that these results could actually mean jack shit. I work in a lab for the Department of Endocrinology here at the University of Pittsburgh. Every week I transplant Islets (groups of cells in the pancrea that produce insulin) into diabetic mice. For those of you that are not familiar with what type I diabetes actually is. It is a disorder in which (more or less) the individual's pancreas is incapable of producing insulin. We transplant the healthy Islets into the diabetic mice. And guess what, we see the pacreas in the diabetic mice produce insulin. This same thing has been tried with humans, and it doesn't work nearly as well. To the point where it almost isnt even worth the hassel of transplanting the Islets.
#2 This has nothing to do with health benefits of smoking weed. One of the active ingrediants in Weed (THC) was INJECTED into the mice. Thus all other variables were removed.
Point:
Researchers found that it was possible to ruduce tumor size in rodents by injecting THC.
SirFryanator
Active member
well it DOES help with research with mice, as they are 98 or 99% alike in the gene pool.
They're one of the animals closest to us in genetic structure and the most "morally accepted" in the scientific world, as I'm sure you as a researcher would know.
It's just one study, I found it interesting.
So far, this guy has the most objective viewpoint on it. We don't KNOW yet.
They're one of the animals closest to us in genetic structure and the most "morally accepted" in the scientific world, as I'm sure you as a researcher would know.
It's just one study, I found it interesting.
So far, this guy has the most objective viewpoint on it. We don't KNOW yet.
Gavajabra2
Active member
No, it hasn't been proven wrong. It's SMOKE, just like a fucking cigarette, SMOKE. You're being an ignorant moron and every imbecile in this thread says my facts aren't credible but this isn't about my facts it's about your facts, oh WAIT you don't have any! Post some fucking facts or get out with these stupid "your facts are wrong!" bullshit.
Yeah, I did back into another car. Thousands of accidents happen every year sober, shit fucking happends, and you know it so stop being an idiot by trying to get cheapshots like this in.
Yeah, I did back into another car. Thousands of accidents happen every year sober, shit fucking happends, and you know it so stop being an idiot by trying to get cheapshots like this in.
SirFryanator
Active member
except we're talking about THC now...not smoke.
Gavajabra2
Active member
Stop being a brainless dolt, Nyquil is cold medicine, so yeah it's seemingly harmless. How many times on the news do you hear about Nyquil? Besides commercials? It's a medicine not a huge drug-abuse issue.
Gavajabra2
Active member
Good for you, stay the fuck off my side of the road.
grubix2
Active member
um... no
haha in medical research the gap between in-vivo mice and practical human trials is fucking huge. We could be talking 15-20 years here. Yeah it is all in the scheme of things. But it's so far down on the totum pole. Based on what you said about genetics, I take it you really don't know what you're talking about. Yes all mammals are closely in genomes to humans... but the physiology is so different you have no idea. Keep in mind that other primates share 99.9% of DNA with humans... that 0.1% is what makes them pick parasites out of each other's asshole's with their teeth. While we have strived infinitely further than any organism.
It is interesting, but honestly studies like this are done all the time. Every week in various low budget journals I read about "this prevents cancer in mice". I mean type in "reduce tumors in mice" into google and you'll see what I mean. But none of these make it into the New England Journal. You could find a study done that shows that every vitamin in Centrum Multivitamins prevent cancer in mice... but people who still take them and get cancer.
haha in medical research the gap between in-vivo mice and practical human trials is fucking huge. We could be talking 15-20 years here. Yeah it is all in the scheme of things. But it's so far down on the totum pole. Based on what you said about genetics, I take it you really don't know what you're talking about. Yes all mammals are closely in genomes to humans... but the physiology is so different you have no idea. Keep in mind that other primates share 99.9% of DNA with humans... that 0.1% is what makes them pick parasites out of each other's asshole's with their teeth. While we have strived infinitely further than any organism.
It is interesting, but honestly studies like this are done all the time. Every week in various low budget journals I read about "this prevents cancer in mice". I mean type in "reduce tumors in mice" into google and you'll see what I mean. But none of these make it into the New England Journal. You could find a study done that shows that every vitamin in Centrum Multivitamins prevent cancer in mice... but people who still take them and get cancer.
Gavajabra2
Active member
If it was legal, you'd be able to smoke it in public. Therefore, you'd smoke it more. I rest my case.
Gavajabra2
Active member
Unless you're eatting it, your inhaling it in the form of smoke, so yes we are talking about smoke.
doritos
Active member
So what? The government has no right to tell me what I should or should not be doing to myself. If I want to ruin my lungs then fuck, I should be able to. Cigarettes are legal. Alcohol is legal (and is far more dangerous for you and those around you than weed). For Christ's fucking sake, SALVIA is legal. You wanna talk about fucking with your head, try having your friends turn into gingerbread men while you roll around on the floor like a goddamn idiot, followed by a nice, long head and body high. You can buy it legally, on the street, from pipe stores. If I can do that to myself legally, then you're a goddamn tool to tell me I can't toke up.
charmander
Active member
you cause fucking lung cancer
SirFryanator
Active member
Ever heard of a vaporizer? heats it up just enough so only the thc combusts, virtually no carcinogens, 15% more THC intake, and less weed needed. It takes longer to set in so you're more controlled the entire time.
cliff notes: vapes save money, you control yourself more, and they're much healthier than smoke.
cliff notes: vapes save money, you control yourself more, and they're much healthier than smoke.
Gavajabra2
Active member
It's easier to smoke weed in a form of a cigarette than carrying a vaporizor around.
Gavajabra2
Active member
Like I said, if you want to ruin your lungs then by all means, but with the laws coming about public smoking I don't think second hand smoke will be an issue. I'm not saying you can't smoke weed, I'm just saying it's dangerous. It becomes dangerous for everyday people when you do things like driving high, and I don't want to hear some other moron stating how he drives better high. We tried to illegalize Alchohol, it failed because the people beat the system and forced it to be legalized again. I don't think cigarettes should be illegal, unless they smoke in public (which is becoming less and less of an issue every year). Personally, fry your fucking lungs out if you're stupid enough to do so, you pay billions in taxes every year to build all our nice buildings, and pave our highways, so thanks. My only problem with anything is when you take your problem and start harming other people, I have the same views on drunk driving, driving high, and second hand smoke.
Oxycotton was legal for a while, too. I'm sure Salvia won't be legal much longer.. well I hope so anyway.
Oxycotton was legal for a while, too. I'm sure Salvia won't be legal much longer.. well I hope so anyway.
SirFryanator
Active member
ok dude...
you don't know shit.
You don't carry your weed around in a fucking "cigarette." and you don't smoke it everywhere you go. Why don't you try it?
you don't know shit.
You don't carry your weed around in a fucking "cigarette." and you don't smoke it everywhere you go. Why don't you try it?
doritos
Active member
Nah dude, there are times when I actually am a better driver high, just because of my personality. When I drive sober I tend to be uninterested and only half-focused on what I'm doing. When I'm high I concentrate fully on the road and I'm really into it sometimes, besides the fact that I'm generally much more cautious about speeding, etc. If I was blitzed it'd be a different story but if I've smoked a little I become a safer driver every so often...
Gavajabra2
Active member
That was hypothetical, IF it was legalized it'd be easier to sell and easier to carry in the form of cigarettes.
doritos
Active member
Guess what? I can smoke J's in public NOW if I wanted to. I roll my own cigarettes so if a cop asks me about it I can whip out my pouch of tobacco and I'm good to go, not that I've ever been asked... as long as you act like you know what you're doing people generally leave you alone. All legalization would do as far as that goes is make it easier for the glass people to enjoy public toking, but don't listen to me, I mean... you know everything about it right? Because you haven't done it and all... shesh. Quite an expert.
One last aside, very rarely does someone who's not an idiot ever buy weed pre-rolled into "cigarette form" unless it's from a good friend. It's just asking to get fucked over. What a knowledge base you are.
One last aside, very rarely does someone who's not an idiot ever buy weed pre-rolled into "cigarette form" unless it's from a good friend. It's just asking to get fucked over. What a knowledge base you are.
comeatmebro
Active member
can you believe that driving under the influence of drugs is 6 months license probation. and under the influence of alcohol is 12 months license probation. now this doesnt always happen cause lawyers etc. but it was in the PA handbook thing for my cousins drivers ed. class. sweet huh?