Obama orders over half a ton of Marijuana for 'medical research' - Polidicks

[QUOTE]The Obama Administration needs hundreds and hundreds of pounds of marijuana this year, more than 30 times the amount of pot it originally ordered for 2014. But don’t get any funny ideas. The pot is medicinal, and it’s needed for research purposes. The Drug Enforcement Administration put out a rule on Monday that adjusts the annual production quota of medical marijuana for the U.S. government. That pot, produced by the University of Mississippi, is used by the National Institutes on Drug Abuse to conduct research on medical marijuana. The NIDA’s research is in demand as states around the country consider legalizing medical marijuana, and as pressure is growing on the federal government to decriminalize it. And that demand means the federal government needs a lot more pot than it thought it needed. The DEA had originally set out a production quota of 21 kilograms of pot for 2014. [B]But the new regulation bumped that quota up to 650 kilograms, or about 1,430 pounds.[/B][/QUOTE] Likely story there, Obama [url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/05/obama-administration-puts-in-an-order-for-1430-pounds-of-marijuana/[/url] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFrGsvURsfc[/media]

Here's hoping this research isn't partisan behind the scenes, and we don't end up with another "pot causes brain damage in monkeys" study.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44730119]Here's hoping this research isn't partisan behind the scenes, and we don't end up with another "pot causes brain damage in monkeys" study.[/QUOTE] Think of the poor monkeys! they might get mildly addicted to a practically harmless substance! edit: sarcasm

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;44730128]Think of the poor monkeys! they might get mildly addicted to a practically harmless substance![/QUOTE] Actually, the carbon inhaled into your lungs is really harmful so... I really wouldn't call it harmless. Not to mention second hand smoke and all that. High levels of carbon monoxide in the blood has been linked to a very substantial increase in your risk for heart disease, and considering smoking anything produces CO, you're fucked regardless of what you smoke.

Let us remember what Nixon did when he got his report on Marijuana. He threw it out and made his out ruling on the matter. Seeking to ignore the study and set it as a Schedule 1 drug(which can kill people).

[QUOTE=draugur;44730149]Actually, the carbon inhaled into your lungs is really harmful so... I really wouldn't call it harmless. Not to mention second hand smoke and all that.[/QUOTE] The study that tried to prove this is actually bunkum, by the way. Whatever you find in cannabis smoke, it's not nearly as much as that in cigarettes, and if taken in specific ways, is even less harmful.

[QUOTE=Aide;44730165]Let us remember what Nixon did when he got his report on Marijuana. He threw it out and made his out ruling on the matter. Seeking to ignore the study and set it as a Schedule 1 drug(which can kill people).[/QUOTE] Well, I mean, technically it can kill you through the act of smoking it. But most other ways of consuming pot are virtually fool proof.

Do we really need all this experimentation to realize that anything in large doses can be bad for you? I'd say the test subjects do... :v: also, related [video=youtube;MsyvefDbmV8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsyvefDbmV8[/video]

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;44730176]The study that tried to prove this is actually bunkum, by the way. Whatever you find in cannabis smoke, it's not nearly as much as that in cigarettes, and if taken in specific ways, is even less harmful.[/QUOTE] Uhh, but I'm talking about Carbon Monoxide, a byproduct of combustion. Regardless of the object undergoing combustion, it will be produced. And it is harmful to your body. Pot doesn't magically produce no CO because it has THC in it. Sorry but pot isn't some cure-all elixer with no draw backs. Take your snake oil propaganda away please.

[QUOTE=draugur;44730181]Well, I mean, technically it can kill you through the act of smoking it. But most other ways of consuming pot are virtually fool proof.[/QUOTE] You have a better chance of dying from liver failure due to a history of excessive drinking.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;44730128]Think of the poor monkeys! they might get mildly addicted to a practically harmless substance![/QUOTE] In 1957, a study on three monkeys was run by Dr. Robert G. Heath at Tulane University. He was able to demonstrate fairly significant and severe brain damage to monkeys that he'd been administering cannabis smoke to. But, see, what wasn't published along with the bombshell news was the methodology. He was basically hooking these monkeys up to oxygen masks and forcing them to inhale about 50 joints worth of cannabis smoke without the assistance of additional oxygen for five minutes at a time. Five minutes of oxygen deprivation once or twice a day will cause massive brain damage in [I]any[/I] mammal, regardless if they're suffocating on wood smoke or pot smoke or tobacco smoke or oregano smoke. Even though his study was discredited on this basis and other anomalies, the myth was seeded for decades of drug policy and public miseducation to come. The Canadian government commissioned a study on marijuana in I think the 70s or 80s. They have refused to release the results ever since.

[QUOTE=draugur;44730200]Uhh, but I'm talking about Carbon Monoxide, a byproduct of combustion. Regardless of the object undergoing combustion, it will be produced. And it is harmful to your body. Pot doesn't magically produce no CO because it has THC in it. Sorry but pot isn't some cure-all elixer with no draw backs. Take your snake oil propaganda away please.[/QUOTE] [quote]A 2011 systematic review of the research concluded that long-term marijuana smoking is associated with an increased risk of some respiratory problems, including an increase in cough, sputum production, airway inflammation, and wheeze – similar to that of tobacco smoking (Howden & Naughton, 2011). However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction. Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use has not been associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function (Pletcher et al., 2012); the effects of heavier use are less clear. Additionally, many marijuana smokers also smoke tobacco, which further increases the harm. Numerous studies have found that the harmful effects of smoking marijuana and tobacco appear to be additive, with more respiratory problems in those who smoke both substances than in those who only smoke one or the other (Wu et al, 1988). The association between smoking marijuana and lung cancer remains unclear. Marijuana smoke contains about 50% more benzopyrene and nearly 75% more benzanthracene, both known carcinogens, than a comparable quantity of unfiltered tobacco smoke (Tashkin, 2013). Moreover, the deeper inhalations and longer breath-holding of marijuana smokers result in greater exposure of the lung to the tar and carcinogens in the smoke. Lung biopsies from habitual marijuana-only users have revealed widespread alterations to the tissue, some of which are recognized as precursors to the subsequent development of cancer (Tashkin, 2013). On the other hand, several well-designed and large-scale studies, including one in Washington State (Rosenblatt et al, 2004), have failed to find any increased risk of lung or upper airway cancer in people who have smoked marijuana (Mehra et al, 2006; Tashkin, 2013), and studies assessing the association between marijuana use and cancer risk have many limitations, including concomitant tobacco use and the relatively small number of long-term heavy users – particularly older users. Therefore, even though population-based studies have generally failed to show increased cancer risk, no study has definitively ruled out the possibility that some individuals, especially heavier marijuana users, may incur an elevated risk of cancer. This risk appears to be smaller than for tobacco, yet is important to know about when weighing the benefits and risks of smoking. (Tashkin DP, 2013). More research on marijuana smoking and cancer is needed. Two other conditions of concern, bullous lung disease (abnormal airspaces in the lungs caused by damage to the lung walls) and pneumothorax (“collapsed lung”), have not been definitively linked to marijuana smoke either (Tam et al, 2006). Several studies have found evidence of a possible association (Beshay et al, 2007; Hii et al, 2008; Reece, 2008), however, many of these studies featured 10 or fewer study subjects, some of whom also smoked tobacco. The research remains unclear.[/quote] It's not completely harmless, but there are usually red flags in most studies to do with testing out how harmful it is by comparison to cigarette smoke. Not many studies have been done with just the right target or control groups.

everyone in the white house knows good ol' Obama has a giant 5ft jesus bong in the presidential suite aptly named "Obongo". That [I]medicinal[/I] research won't do it itself. [editline]5th May 2014[/editline] I can just imagine it now.

[QUOTE=Aide;44730204]You have a better chance of dying from liver failure due to a history of excessive drinking.[/QUOTE] Just because there are things worse than something doesn't mean it is by any means safe. Drinking mercury is deadly, therefore drinking excessive amounts of alcohol is harmless because it isn't the same as drinking mercury. Except no, because both actions are still dangerous. Weed isn't the harmful object here, it is the act of smoking it.

[QUOTE=draugur;44730200]Uhh, but I'm talking about Carbon Monoxide, a byproduct of combustion. Regardless of the object undergoing combustion, it will be produced. And it is harmful to your body. Pot doesn't magically produce no CO because it has THC in it. Sorry but pot isn't some cure-all elixer with no draw backs. Take your snake oil propaganda away please.[/QUOTE] Secondary inhalation isn't a problem as long as you're not in the same car as someone who's hotboxing.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;44730234]It's not completely harmless, but there are usually red flags in most studies to do with testing out how harmful it is by comparison to cigarette smoke. Not many studies have been done with just the right target or control groups.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about airway dysfunction primarily. I am talking about the production of carbon monoxide through the partial combustion and combustion of carbon based material. BECAUSE, carbon monoxide transfers from your lungs to your blood easier than oxygen does and thus, smoking causes you to breathe in quantities of carbon monoxide which get into your blood. This causes various things to happen to your blood and since it sticks easier, you keep CO in your blood easier than oxygen as well. People that smoke regularly have a much higher level of CO in their blood than non-smokers and since higher concentrations of CO in the blood have been linked to increased risk of heart disease, people that smoke ANYTHING have a greater risk of heart disease than non-smokers. Unless your weed is somehow a nitrogen based substance, you're inhaling CO, sorry to break it to you. [editline]5th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Coffee;44730268]Secondary inhalation isn't a problem as long as you're not in the same car as someone who's hotboxing.[/QUOTE] Secondary inhalation isn't really much of an issue unless in concentration yes, but that's the same with tobacco smoke as well. Hence why there were laws to prevent smoking with children in the car before there were for smoking next to entrances and such. Since usually it will dissipate before being an issue.

So why is the National Institute on [B]Drug Abuse[/B] researching [B]medical[/B] use of marijuana?

[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;44730240]everyone in the white house knows good ol' Obama has a giant 5ft jesus bong in the presidential suite aptly named "Obongo". That [I]medicinal[/I] research won't do it itself. [editline]5th May 2014[/editline] I can just imagine it now.[/QUOTE] five alarm fire reported at the White House, massive amounts of smoke are reportedly flowing from President Obama's personal office, along with large amounts of laughter.

The White House also ordered a kilo of cocaine and fourteen research prostitutes, in order to study the effect of drugs and unprotected sex on a group of old, rich, white dudes.

[QUOTE=draugur;44730149]Actually, the carbon inhaled into your lungs is really harmful so... I really wouldn't call it harmless. Not to mention second hand smoke and all that. High levels of carbon monoxide in the blood has been linked to a very substantial increase in your risk for heart disease, and considering smoking anything produces CO, you're fucked regardless of what you smoke.[/QUOTE] Just eat or drink or vaporise instead :P I understand that smoking is the primary method of use but there are plenty of alternatives with potential for reducing harm.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;44730420]The White House also ordered a kilo of cocaine and fourteen research prostitutes, in order to study the effect of drugs and unprotected sex on a group of old, rich, white dudes.[/QUOTE] Cocaine induced old men running my world and banging my white chicks? What's next? Bionic old men running the world? North Korea might have bangin haircuts and weed growing everywhere, but what the fuck is the point if you can't even be provided the food for the impending munchies? Fuck man America even has this [IMG]http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/02/84/00/08/0002840008405_500X500.jpg[/IMG] Now you know what real human rights violations are.

[QUOTE=Dougz;44730111] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFrGsvURsfc[/media][/QUOTE] I think the WKUK did the stoner founding fathers thing better [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABhyKEK-CDg[/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YBLiqG5EGo[/media] I have Itchy Scrot

I am not agains pot but again, if Nikola Tesla would light up a joint only once, we wouldn't have electricity like we know it today.

yes now barack sort us a tenners

[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;44731386]I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. So if he got high even once, he'd somehow get fucked up enough not to be able to invent stuff?[/QUOTE] Basically yes. Sorry, forgot to write 'if'. Fixed it now. Reason: I believe that eidetic memory is very tuned and fragile thing and anything psychoactive can break it. Also I don't know any successful scientist or man, that smoked weed and was very successful in mathematics at the same time. Correct me if I am wrong. But I don't think it has really big effect on average memory of us average mortals. Don't get me wrong, I smoke occasionally and I believe it should be legal and man, it does relax me and boosts creativity. But smoking too much (binging or just raping your lungs with it) is bad for my body and mind, because I don't really give shit about anything when I am high, and I do have sort of hangover next day. It should be legal for re-creative and medical use, but at your own risk. Fair? I think so.

[QUOTE=HeatPipe;44731996]Basically yes. Sorry, forgot to write 'if'. Fixed it now. Reason: I believe that eidetic memory is very tuned and fragile thing and anything psychoactive can break it. Also I don't know any successful scientist or man, that smoked weed and was very successful in mathematics at the same time. Correct me if I am wrong. But I don't think it has really big effect on average memory of us average mortals. Don't get me wrong, I smoke occasionally and I believe it should be legal and man, it does relax me and boosts creativity. But smoking too much (binging or just raping your lungs with it) is bad for my body and mind, because I don't really give shit about anything when I am high, and do have sort of hangover next day. It should be legal for re-creative and medical use, but at your own risk. Fair? I think so.[/QUOTE] it doesn't really matter if anyone else has or hasn't done it the very idea that smoking one joint would ruin someones mental capacity is pretty much totally bullshit. also, didn't Carl Sagan smoke weed? and how are scientists who drank alcohol measured up in your mind?

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;44730176]The study that tried to prove this is actually bunkum, by the way. Whatever you find in cannabis smoke, it's not nearly as much as that in cigarettes, and if taken in specific ways, is even less harmful.[/QUOTE] Too bad that doesn't change chemistry in that when you burn plant material carbon is produced in the reaction

[QUOTE=HeatPipe;44731347]I am not agains pot but again, if Nikola Tesla would light up a joint only once, we wouldn't have electricity like we know it today.[/QUOTE] this is exactly how it works. if u ever a weed u instantly become unable to anything, permanently

[QUOTE=HeatPipe;44731347]I am not agains pot but again, if Nikola Tesla would light up a joint only once, we wouldn't have electricity like we know it today.[/QUOTE] If HeatPipe would hit a joint just once maybe his or her posts would be more informed on the matter. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44732011]also, didn't Carl Sagan smoke weed? [/QUOTE] He did, quite regularly. He even wrote an article in support of cannabis under the pseudonym "Mr. X". [Quote=Carl Sagan/Mr. X]I find that most of the insights I achieve when high are into social issues, an area of creative scholarship very different from the one I am generally known for. I can remember one occasion, taking a shower with my wife while high, in which I had an idea on the origins and invalidities of racism in terms of gaussian distribution curves. It was a point obvious in a way, but rarely talked about. I drew the curves in soap on the shower wall, and went to write the idea down. One idea led to another, and at the end of about an hour of extremely hard work I found I had written eleven short essays on a wide range of social, political, philosophical, and human biological topics. Because of problems of space, I can’t go into the details of these essays, but from all external signs, such as public reactions and expert commentary, they seem to contain valid insights. I have used them in university commencement addresses, public lectures, and in my books.[/quote] [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/carl-sagan-marijuana_n_3367112.html[/url] Since when did Facepunch not let you edit posts?