Science Suggests Smoking Pot Raises Risk of Testicular Cancer, Schizophenia and Infertility - and Lo
381 replies, posted
[QUOTE=dass;37736247]I just find it a huge sinkhole of money.
You're killing cash in something thats gonna get you high just for a few hours, and possibly doing something bad to you if you abuse it too much.
Its like a carnival ride, except if you go through it too much and you might get a disease along with it.
[/QUOTE]
Not expensive at all here. You just consider it to be a large amount of money because you have never had a job.
Also disease? What are you talking about?
[QUOTE=dass;37736247]Doesn't changes the fact that even with a wall full of diplomas, it'll still be hard as hell to get a job here.[/QUOTE]
You aren't looking then.
[url]http://z0r.de/1546[/url]
[QUOTE=Starpluck;37735038]I'm trying to be ironic by reversing his logic, I'm not intending to be mean or to genuinely judge him.[/QUOTE]
Ok cool that's why I put actually because I wasn't sure.
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;37732833]Vaporizing and pot brownies still cause the issues talked about in the article.[/QUOTE]
The article doesn't even ask WHY it happens. It simply makes a weak correlation based off of 52 habitual users.
It doesn't present a pharmacological reason for it or ANYTHING. It doesn't look at ANY variables other than smoking weed. They don't consider that people addicted to cannabis may have other drug/unhealthy habits. These people are self-admitted drug addicts. They've probably got a lot more going on than marijuana. Trust me, a lot of habitual marijuana users also at least DABBLE in other drugs.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;37739807]The article doesn't even ask WHY it happens. It simply makes a weak correlation based off of 52 habitual users.
It doesn't present a pharmacological reason for it or ANYTHING. It doesn't look at ANY variables other than smoking weed. They don't consider that people addicted to cannabis may have other drug/unhealthy habits. These people are self-admitted drug addicts. They've probably got a lot more going on than marijuana. Trust me, a lot of habitual marijuana users also at least DABBLE in other drugs.[/QUOTE]
They're also from a notorious party, drug scene in New Zealand.
Apparently the actual study, which you have to pay to view, "accounts" for these variables, but in reality that's an impossible thing to do with such a small sample size, from only New Zealand mind you, that brings up a wide range of variability; not the kind of variability you'd want in a statistical study either since we're talking about health effects here.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37740288]They're also from a notorious party, drug scene in New Zealand.
Apparently the actual study, which you have to pay to view, "accounts" for these variables, but in reality that's an impossible thing to do with such a small sample size, from only New Zealand mind you, that brings up a wide range of variability; not the kind of variability you'd want in a statistical study either since we're talking about health effects here.[/QUOTE]
it would be nice to know [i]how[/i] exactly the variable factors are accounted for
Lower IQ - I have plenty to spare. Im not worried about it.
Testicular Cancer - Shit, everything gives you cancer. And besides its the smoke not the THC that does this to you. Vape it
Schizophrenia - Only applicable if you have a family history of it. Also alot of enlightened and spiritual people have been written off as schizophrenic. All shamans are considered schizophrenic by phsychologists.
Infertility - Again with the smoke. Also fuck off bob marley had like 3 sons. Im not worried about this. I would quicker be worried about the sterilizing effect of flouride.
All in all these guys are nitpicking at what should be the single most useful plant on this planet. The exception reinforces the rule. There is nothing wrong with marijuana as a whole compared to other popular drugs. Especially those used in "therapy".
also
[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm[/url]
[QUOTE=Bobie;37740415]it would be nice to know [I]how[/I] exactly the variable factors are accounted for[/QUOTE]
I'm not even sure. I got banned once for being in an argument about this very same study, which I sometimes answered only to incite my opponent ( I also debated the legitimacy of political science, but that's for another thread), but when asking this same thing I got nothing but more bullshit in response. Another person asked almost exactly what you said, here's [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1208341&p=37449108&viewfull=1#post37449108"]the response. [/URL] Of course, nothing is actually said about how it accounts for it, but whatever.
[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1208341&p=37449846&viewfull=1#post37449846"]Here's a post[/URL] that apparently "explains" the study in statistical terms and backs it up, even though the fact that most of the data relies on 52 marijuana dependent individuals from a drug-ridden city in New Zealand is sketchy at best.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37740944]I'm not even sure. I got banned once for being in an argument about this very same study, which I sometimes answered only to incite my opponent ( I also debated the legitimacy of political science, but that's for another thread), but when asking this same thing I got nothing but more bullshit in response. Another person asked almost exactly what you said, here's [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1208341&p=37449108&viewfull=1#post37449108"]the response. [/URL] Of course, nothing is actually said about how it accounts for it, but whatever.
[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1208341&p=37449846&viewfull=1#post37449846"]Here's a post[/URL] that apparently "explains" the study in statistical terms and backs it up, even though the fact that most of the data relies on 52 marijuana dependent individuals from a drug-ridden city in New Zealand is sketchy at best.[/QUOTE]
it's confusing to say the least. i'll remain sceptical until there's more studies like this that point in the same direction, but i've yet to see anything that says marijuana shouldn't be used for medical purposes.
[QUOTE=Bobie;37740994]it's confusing to say the least. i'll remain sceptical until there's more studies like this that point in the same direction, but i've yet to see anything that says marijuana shouldn't be used for medical purposes.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly what I was saying, here in and in that thread. Until thorough, uniform testing is performed on this, none of the studies should be viewed as completely accurate.
Here's what I got in response to what you and I said:
[QUOTE=scout1;37441374]1) Yes I am
2) The study this thread is about IS a uniform, thorough test. Do you just discount anything that you don't agree with, or what??[/QUOTE]
:v:
So I don't get this, one day people want to legalize weed so people can smoke it without having the cops up their asses and give a great income to the nation once it is taxed. Now after people trying to fight for it to get it pass... why pass something this unhealthy? Our nation is full of ignorance and stupid people left and right, and yet we trying to pass a bill that allow us to smoke weed and smoking weed lowers our IQ, which make more stupid people even stupid-er? The least that scientist could do is remove most of the negative impact of weed once it legalizes so that we get less bad results, otherwise we legalized something with bad intentions.
[QUOTE=Larry_G;37734958]I'm having my doubts, even with the thread title alone, I mean, "Science [I]suggests[/I]"? Then again, nothing in the article that I didn't know already. I'm not against weed in any way, legalize it for all I care, I very rarely smoke some myself, like 2-3 times a year or something. It's just so blatantly obvious that whatever you're smoking, it's just not going to be healthy, ever.[/QUOTE]
I took the title directly from one of the articles
Isnt that a rule?
[editline]21st September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;37735091]You also seem to have missed the part where he literally plucked the whole "causes brain cancer," out of the aether.[/QUOTE]
I was replying to the dude who said smoke weed cause it cures cancer which is a lie
[editline]21st September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;37735131][url]http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/study-smoking-marijuana-not-linked-with-lung-damage/[/url]
[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm[/url]
Look I'm not gonna be one of those guys who denies all downsides to weed, you're inhaling a burning organic compounds, that's got a whole ton of negatives, but if you vape then there's no reason for you to suffer any respiratory issues at all.[/QUOTE]
First study is crap, it was already posted, second one mice =/= humans but that looks interesting
I have been saying that not smoking it will stop respiratory issues from occurring but the other problems will still be there the whole time btw
[QUOTE=McGii;37741391]I took the title directly from one of the articles
Isnt that a rule?
[editline]21st September 2012[/editline]
I was replying to the dude who said smoke weed cause it cures cancer which is a lie
[editline]21st September 2012[/editline]
First study is crap, it was already posted, second one mice =/= humans but that looks interesting
I have been saying that not smoking it will stop respiratory issues from occurring but the other problems will still be there the whole time btw[/QUOTE]
Actually the study makes no mention of what causes what. It just shows a small sample size of habitual drug users developing lower IQ and having a higher rate of health issues than the 950 other people tested.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37740944]I'm not even sure. I got banned once for being in an argument about this very same study, which I sometimes answered only to incite my opponent ( I also debated the legitimacy of political science, but that's for another thread), but when asking this same thing I got nothing but more bullshit in response. Another person asked almost exactly what you said, here's [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1208341&p=37449108&viewfull=1#post37449108"]the response. [/URL] Of course, nothing is actually said about how it accounts for it, but whatever.
[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1208341&p=37449846&viewfull=1#post37449846"]Here's a post[/URL] that apparently "explains" the study in statistical terms and backs it up, even though the fact that most of the data relies on 52 marijuana dependent individuals from a drug-ridden city in New Zealand is sketchy at best.[/QUOTE]
Almost every city over here has a fuck ton of people who do drugs, not just dunedin :v:
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;37743838]Almost every city over here has a fuck ton of people who do drugs, not just dunedin :v:[/QUOTE]
Well of course. that's pretty much the same in the States and probably elsewhere, but if I recall correctly weren't you the one in the last thread to say how often people get fucked up in Dunedin? Or maybe it was another poster, I can't remember.
It was me, but it was more that it was a student town and they used students which would be the main partiers, not that its a drug ridden town if you get what I mean
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;37744385]It was me, but it was more that it was a student town and they used students which would be the main partiers, not that its a drug ridden town if you get what I mean[/QUOTE]
Yeah I feel you, I was mostly talking about stuff like [URL="http://www.otago.ac.nz/profiles/drugusewidespread.html"]this[/URL].
[QUOTE=darkedone02;37741150]So I don't get this, one day people want to legalize weed so people can smoke it without having the cops up their asses and give a great income to the nation once it is taxed. Now after people trying to fight for it to get it pass... why pass something this unhealthy? Our nation is full of ignorance and stupid people left and right, and yet we trying to pass a bill that allow us to smoke weed and smoking weed lowers our IQ, which make more stupid people even stupid-er? The least that scientist could do is remove most of the negative impact of weed once it legalizes so that we get less bad results, otherwise we legalized something with bad intentions.[/QUOTE]
Why pass something this unhealthy? Should I list the medical issues with Tobacco and Alcohol? How about the multitude of massive side effects from common pain killers?
Everything is unhealthy, to fucking ban something based on how unhealthy it is, is bullshit. Frankly it should be legal for the simple reason that folk want to be able to smoke it, educate people on the dangers instead of the whole fucking over the top anti drugs bullshit you have in schools, give people the bare facts and the freedoms to do what they want with their own bodies.
[editline]21st September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=McGii;37741391]I took the title directly from one of the articles
Isnt that a rule?
[editline]21st September 2012[/editline]
I was replying to the dude who said smoke weed cause it cures cancer which is a lie
[editline]21st September 2012[/editline]
First study is crap, it was already posted, second one mice =/= humans but that looks interesting
I have been saying that not smoking it will stop respiratory issues from occurring but the other problems will still be there the whole time btw[/QUOTE]
How exactly is the first one crap? If you could link me to a news story or journal which renders it invalid that would be awesome.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37744741]Yeah I feel you, I was mostly talking about stuff like [URL="http://www.otago.ac.nz/profiles/drugusewidespread.html"]this[/URL].[/QUOTE]
That study is about all of new zealand
Bill Hicks
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZqYV9KKOZQ[/media]
"All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is a dream and we are the imaginations of ourselves.. - Here's tom with the weather!"
Bill Hicks
Also:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX1CvW38cHA[/media]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.