Effects in man of short- and long-term use of cannabis sativa - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;28500000]Because, all that this supposed "study" is just a bunch of misconstrued references put together. While half of them aren't available online, the rest completely contradict the point of this article. Case in point: While this study says that intravenous use of Marijuana is completely harmless. While, a study that is cited completely contradicts this claim. [URL]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1306836/?page=1[/URL] --- While this says Marijuana itself will not cause any form of toxic reaction, while the study cited says:[/QUOTE] Don't confuse this for not addressing your points, as I acknowledged them all, but, how did you make the association from the cited source to the quoted text? I'm curious.

Face it, weed is bad for you. People who say otherwise are addicts, trying to justify their addiction.

[QUOTE=sonictrey;28500127]Face it, weed is bad for you. People who say otherwise are addicts, trying to justify their addiction.[/QUOTE] Nice baseless sweeping generalization you got there.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;28500000]One study has been published regarding the biological fate of Delta-9-THC in man. Lemberger et al. (119) injected a tracer dose (0.6 mg) of radioactivity labeled Delta-9-THC intravenously into three marihuana naive subjects and followed its course in blood, urine and feces. They found that Delta-9-THC is completely metabolized in man. The metabolites appear in the blood within ten minutes, 30% are excreted in the urine and 50% in the feces over a period of eight days. Most are excreted in the first few days. Delta-9-THC in the plasma declines rapidly during the first hour after injection and more slowly thereafter. The initial rapid decline, occurring in the first few hours, probably represents metabolism and a redistribution of Delta9-THC from the blood to the tissues (including brain). This is followed by a slow declining phase over the next three days which presumably represents retention and slow release from tissue stores. Negligible amounts of Delta-9-THC are excreted in the urine and feces. In the present study, the 11-hydroxy-Delta-9-THO metabolite appears to be only a minor metabolite of the Delta-9-THC and the remainder consists of unidentified more polar compounds. No data are presently available dealing with metabolic disposition of THC in experienced marihuana users.[/QUOTE] Followed the source of that reference at the bottom and found [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=e236g9A8wZIC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=Lemberger,+L.,+Silberstein,+S.+D.,+Axelrod,+J.,+%26+Kopin,+I.+J.+Marijuana+:+Studies+on+the+disposition+and+metabolism+of+delta-9-tetrahydrocanna%E2%80%A2+binol&source=bl&ots=ErRP-HKLJ_&sig=_YC95upqLsDGYcprH3t44XaiYaA&hl=en&ei=lMp2Ten2DeOX0QGKoojtBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false]this.[/url] How does this prove your point at all? As a matter of fact, the study you reference is completely different in it's entirety. The claim that they are saying one thing in the study and the reference saying another is a fabrication by you.

Firstly, this isn't a study, it's a collation of sources used to produce a report. It doesn't actually bring any new information, so really what we're looking at is their citations, and interpretations thereof. As other people have noted, their interpretation is contradictory, and they appear to have picked out some unusual examples of studies, such as a whole series of items from the 1800s. We have no way to tell whether or not this is a representative sample of studies; it is certainly not all the studies. We don't have their methodology for picking and judging articles so we can't examine it. With regard to your claim that it dismisses the study I posted a short while back, this is the entirety of what they say regarding long term psychosis; [quote]The existence of a more long lasting cannabis-related psychosis is less well defined. There appears to be some evidence to support the existence of a slow-recovery, residual (2-6 months) cannabis psychosis following heavy chronic use. The symptoms developed gradually tend to subside rather than developing into full-blown psychotic systems. Long-term patterns of acute and subacute psychotic episodes accompanying continued heavy use have also been described. These may produce gradual psychic deterioration in habitual excessive users after prolonged periods of time. Western experience has involved a level of cannabis usage substantially below that of these Eastern studies and the associated psychic disturbances are not generally comparable.[/quote] This section had no citations, and seems to address historical cultural differences is usage rather that comparative studies. Their bland statement that previous studies exist which exhibit bias is both stating the obvious for such a politicized issue, and carries no weight whatsoever.

[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;28500179]Followed the source of that reference at the bottom and found [URL="http://books.google.com/books?id=e236g9A8wZIC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=Lemberger,+L.,+Silberstein,+S.+D.,+Axelrod,+J.,+%26+Kopin,+I.+J.+Marijuana+:+Studies+on+the+disposition+and+metabolism+of+delta-9-tetrahydrocanna%E2%80%A2+binol&source=bl&ots=ErRP-HKLJ_&sig=_YC95upqLsDGYcprH3t44XaiYaA&hl=en&ei=lMp2Ten2DeOX0QGKoojtBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false"]this.[/URL] How does this prove your point at all? As a matter of fact, the study you reference is completely different in it's entirety. The claim that they are saying one thing in the study and the reference saying another is a fabrication by you.[/QUOTE] Bah, forgot to link the actual paper: [URL]http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM197004302821803[/URL]. [QUOTE=ShukaidoX;28500106]Don't confuse this for not addressing your points, as I acknowledged them all, but, how did you make the association from the cited source to the quoted text? I'm curious.[/QUOTE] For one thing, the referenced sources follow the cited numbers, and for the most part, are in their proper places. ([i]If I get you correctly, I'm not sure why you're asking this, but that just may be the flu[/i])

[QUOTE=TrouserDemon;28500269] Their bland statement that previous studies exist which exhibit bias is both stating the obvious for such a politicized issue, and carries no weight whatsoever.[/QUOTE] And your welcome to having a difference of opinion.

[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;28500307]And your welcome to having a difference of opinion.[/QUOTE] They are making an obvious statement, which carries plenty of irony. "Many studies exhibit bias" source: another study. They have failed to either prove that all studies except those they cited carry bias, or that their cited studies, or indeed their report itself does not carry bias. It is a fairly meaningless statement, window dressing to justify their notable disconnect with reliable modern studies.

[QUOTE=CjienX;28499729][citation needed][/QUOTE] Any smoke stops the flow of oxygen to the brain which permanently damages cells instead of killing them like Alcohol. While Alcohol has a much more devastating short term effect, its long term is reversible. Weed is a long term damage situation. I thought that was Biology 101.

[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;28499770]Because we're still living in prohibition. Prohibition of cannabis. People have a right to put whatever they want into their bodies and we're fighting to this day to be able to[/QUOTE] And then when you guys inevitably fuck yourselves up, you demand to be helped because of your right of access to healthcare.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;28500447]And then when you guys inevitably fuck yourselves up, you demand to be helped because of your right of access to healthcare.[/QUOTE] How does that relate to the discussion at all?

[QUOTE=Swilly;28500420]Any smoke stops the flow of oxygen to the brain which permanently damages cells instead of killing them like Alcohol. While Alcohol has a much more devastating short term effect, its long term is reversible. Weed is a long term damage situation. I thought that was Biology 101.[/QUOTE] That isn't a citation.

[QUOTE=CjienX;28500490]That isn't a citation.[/QUOTE] Oh for the love of god, its smoke. Cigs, wood fires, a house burning down, they all do the same fucking damage.

wow i'm goning to start smoking weed and then life will be awsomre [editline]9th March 2011[/editline] shit now i cant spell right lol

[QUOTE=Swilly;28500498]You want a citation? Why do you have avoid smoke during a fire?[/QUOTE] There's a HUGE difference between cannabis smoke and house fire smoke, just like there's a huge difference between cannabis smoke and tobacco smoke. And again, that is not a citation. I want an actual reputable source that has drawn that conclusion after doing testing.

-snip-

[QUOTE=Micr0;28500459]How does that relate to the discussion at all?[/QUOTE] Druggies who keep gabbing on about freedom to do with their bodies what they wish rarara, oppressed by the man, smoke weed erryday but then immediately want every penny they can get from healthcare sounds a bit strange to me. I mean, if I jumped off a building for fun, broke both my legs and insisted I received free healthcare on taxpayer's expense, people would be criticizing me and calling me an idiot, right?

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;28500551]Druggies who keep gabbing on about freedom to do with their bodies what they wish rarara, oppressed by the man, smoke weed erryday but then immediately want every penny they can get from healthcare sounds a bit strange to me. I mean, if I jumped off a building for fun, broke both my legs and insisted I received free healthcare on taxpayer's expense, people would be criticizing me and calling me an idiot, right?[/QUOTE] In what way could marijuana ever hospitalize you? Seriously. Also that smokeweederryday 420 rasta bullshit just makes you look like a retard. Stop.

[QUOTE=CjienX;28500526]There's a HUGE difference between cannabis smoke and house fire smoke, just like there's a huge difference between cannabis smoke and tobacco smoke. And again, that is not a citation. I want an actual reputable source that has drawn that conclusion after doing testing.[/QUOTE] Please read the last one. [url]http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#tobacco[/url] MY bad there are two actually, one that states it doens't kill brain cells and another that states that smoke damage is there but not as prevelent because people don't smoke weed as often as cigarettes.

[QUOTE=Swilly;28500588]Please read the last one. [url]http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#tobacco[/url][/QUOTE] Everything on that page is agreeing with me bro

[QUOTE=CjienX;28500621]Everything on that page is agreeing with me bro[/QUOTE] I never said it killed brain cells :v: And it still states that it causes smoke damage, people just don't smoke it as often as cigarettes so the damage isn't as prevalent.

[QUOTE=CjienX;28500526]There's a HUGE difference between cannabis smoke and house fire smoke, just like there's a huge difference between cannabis smoke and tobacco smoke. And again, that is not a citation. I want an actual reputable source that has drawn that conclusion after doing testing.[/QUOTE] [url]http://thorax.bmj.com/content/62/12/1058.full?sid=0b91a409-c94d-4406-95aa-f3e8a03a3028[/url]

[QUOTE=Micr0;28500581]In what way could marijuana ever hospitalize you? Seriously. [/QUOTE] Well, there is the lung problems (though I'm not quite sure what the risks are compared to smoking tobacco) or the increased risk of psychosis.

[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;28499394]Classic example of an idiots brain. Doesn't even read the context and assumes he knows everything about the study. Seriously now you're just grasping for straws.[/QUOTE] That's a lot of straws

[QUOTE=Swilly;28500628]I never said it killed brain cells :v: And it still states that it causes smoke damage, people just don't smoke it as often as cigarettes so the damage isn't as prevalent.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't...?

[QUOTE=CjienX;28500659]No it doesn't...?[/QUOTE] What part about smoke cutting off air flow don't you get? Smoke doesn't discriminate from where it comes from. Sure the damage is different but any thing that cuts air off from the brain causes brain damage, its very small but those damaged brain cells don't get replaced.

[QUOTE=Swilly;28500675]What part about smoke cutting off air flow don't you get? Smoke doesn't discriminate from where it comes from. Sure the damage is different but any thing that cuts air off from the brain causes brain damage, its very small but those damaged brain cells don't get replaced.[/QUOTE] That means jack shit until you show me something that says for a fact that smoking cannabis can be linked to brain damage due to lack of oxygen. If scientists tried as hard as you are the sky would probably be purple.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;28500642]Well, there is the lung problems (though I'm not quite sure what the risks are compared to smoking tobacco) or the increased risk of psychosis.[/QUOTE] There has been no record of anyone ever being hospitalized over lung problems caused solely by marijuana. It does increase the risk of psychosis yes, but the people who are actually affected by this have a background of psychosis and the only thing the marijuana is doing is "inflaming" it. The effects wear off as soon as the high wears off (generally 2-4 hours).

[quote]In what way could marijuana ever hospitalize you? Seriously.[/quote] If you smoke a very heavy dose from a young (less than 15) age onwards on a very regular basis, you face a statistically significantly increased risk of developing psychotic symptoms. The lung damage is either at or below that of tobacco consumption, with the carcinogenic risk also similar or less. Given that the average dosage is far smaller than that of tobacco, it can be considered to be less for practical purposes.

[QUOTE=Micr0;28500705]There has been no record of anyone ever being hospitalized over lung problems caused solely by marijuana. It does increase the risk of psychosis yes, but the people who are actually affected by this have a background of psychosis and the only thing the marijuana is doing is "inflaming" it. The effects wear off as soon as the high wears off (generally 2-4 hours).[/QUOTE] This, in a nutshell, is the bottom line. You will not become schizophrenic from cannabis as much as you wont develop black lung from it. Yes, smoking anything is bad for you. No it will not cause serious lung damage. Same can be said for the psychotic effects. This I will not deny.