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

[QUOTE=TrouserDemon;28500739]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] As I said before, [citation needed]. Just because you go around spewing out bullshit that you've heard doesn't mean you're winning the argument. You need something to back your statements up. Scientists don't just declare things to be the way they assume they are, sometimes the logical assumption is completely wrong in the end.

Since you're such a big fan: [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. [/QUOTE] [Citation needed]

[QUOTE=CjienX;28500819]As I said before, [citation needed]. Just because you go around spewing out bullshit that you've heard doesn't mean you're winning the argument. You need something to back your statements up. Scientists don't just declare things to be the way they assume they are, sometimes the logical assumption is completely wrong in the end.[/QUOTE] He got that information from an article he posted on ITN a week ago I believe. :colbert:

[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;28500782]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.[/QUOTE] As we have been over (exhaustively) there is particularly strong evidence that links the incidence of psychotic effects with the consumption of marihuana while young. It is dangerously misinformative to suggest that it does not have these effects. [url]http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d738.full[/url]

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;28500847]Since you're such a big fan: [Citation needed][/QUOTE] Would you like that on the cannabis\tobacco, or cannabis\random shit burning?

[QUOTE=CjienX;28500886]Would you like that on the cannabis\tobacco, or cannabis\random shit burning?[/QUOTE] I'll take both. Also: [QUOTE=CjienX;28500819] Just because you go around spewing out bullshit that you've heard doesn't mean you're winning the argument.[/QUOTE] Neither does you crying 'hurf citation hurf' mean you're winning it.

[QUOTE=CjienX;28500886]Would you like that on the cannabis\tobacco, or cannabis\random shit burning?[/QUOTE] I'd like that on anything that burns :3: I've already seen studies done that show that wood smoke is just as bad as smoking 6 cigs at once. I wonder how that figures down for what a cig is worth to how many joints.

[QUOTE=CjienX;28500819]As I said before, [citation needed]. Just because you go around spewing out bullshit that you've heard doesn't mean you're winning the argument. You need something to back your statements up. Scientists don't just declare things to be the way they assume they are, sometimes the logical assumption is completely wrong in the end.[/QUOTE] I am an absolute disciple of the scientific method. [url]http://thorax.bmj.com/content/62/12/1058.full?sid=0b91a409-c94d-4406-95aa-f3e8a03a3028[/url] [url]http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d738.full[/url] There may be more things that could lead to hospitalisation as a direct result of consumption, but I couldn't think of any nor find any beyond patient specific examples like heart attacks from the increased heart rate in people with cardiac illness. This was an answer to this question; [quote]In what way could marijuana ever hospitalize you? Seriously.[/quote] I am not advocating prohibition based on this.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;28500905] Neither does you crying 'hurf citation hurf' mean you're winning it.[/QUOTE] I implied that I'm winning? All I've done is request you guys back up your "HURR WEED IS BAD" arguments.

[QUOTE=CjienX;28500950]I implied that I'm winning? All I've done is request you guys back up your "HURR WEED IS BAD" arguments.[/QUOTE] I'm saying all drugs are bad? I'm not playing favorites here :colbert: Hell I said ITN changed my original perception of Marijuana, so before you go lumping me into a group to make it easier to herp derp all over my arguments just remember I want Marijuana legalized.

[QUOTE=Swilly;28500971]I'm saying all drugs are bad? I'm not playing favorites here :colbert: Hell I said ITN changed my original perception of Marijuana, so before you go lumping me into a group to make it easier to herp derp all over my arguments just remember I want Marijuana legalized.[/QUOTE] I believe his post was aimed at Sir Whoopsalot.

[QUOTE=Micr0;28500994]I believe his post was aimed at Sir Whoopsalot.[/QUOTE] the "You guys" part kinda gave it away.

[QUOTE=CjienX;28500950]I implied that I'm winning? All I've done is request you guys back up your "HURR WEED IS BAD" arguments.[/QUOTE] I neither state nor believe the "HURR WEED IS BAD" mindset. It is a drug, and approaching it from the scientific point of view, I acknowledge it has a variety of effects. Looking at it from a societal point of view, it is neither particularly harmful compared to other mainstream drugs, nor a medical miracle. I am against prohibition on principle, and when applied to marihuana it is no different. Prohibition is an illogical approach even if you assume marihuana is a deadly addictive drug.

[QUOTE=Swilly;28501006]the "You guys" part kinda gave it away.[/QUOTE] Oh I see. I didn't even notice that.

In terms of RESTORATION Lung Tissue > Liver Tissue I don't really care about inhaling a bit of smoke every once in a while. Pot really is not that bad at all. If you're going to use ill health effects to justify making it illegal, then a lot of perfectly legal "RESEARCH drugs" and other consumeable foods should also be outlawed and prohibitted. NO MORE BACON YOU FAT FUCKS! That's right, you heard me. You're not allowed coating the insides of your body with that noxious pig fat. If anything, you're incurring more damage to the world as a whole by consuming bad meat products such as hot dogs than you would be by just smoking a plant..

[QUOTE=Micr0;28501036]Oh I see. I didn't even notice that.[/QUOTE] Its cool man. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] -snip-

Did I quote you? I was speaking towards the people who are refuting your claim. [editline]9th March 2011[/editline] I'm not misreading anything

When I would smoke a lot of pot, my voice would get wicked low in pitch. It was awesome. Probably on the top of my reasons as to why pot is awesome. Unfortunately, it wasn't permanent.

[QUOTE=MovingSalad;28501133]Did I quote you? I was speaking towards the people who are refuting your claim. [editline]9th March 2011[/editline] I'm not misreading anything[/QUOTE] My bad man! I'll snip the comment!

I love how Shuikaido works relentlessly to make himself look like the stupidest person in ITN. He's way past Glaber now, I would say. The fact that he would bitch incessantly about a long term quality paper published in the BMJ by a respected research scientist, saying it was worthless because of bias and flaws, and had been superseded by newer research, and then go post a fucking paper from drugtext.org which cites studies over 100 years old is laughably pathetic. If you could, please stop. You're making marijuana activists look horrible.

Weed isn't perfect, and anyone that says it is is wrong, but that won't stop me and millions of others from having a little fun :v: [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] page king dawggg 420

THC murdered my family and raped my mother and sister.

[QUOTE=Toothpick;28501650]Weed isn't perfect, and anyone that says it is is wrong, but that won't stop me and millions of others from having a little fun :v: [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] page king dawggg 420[/QUOTE] Not my intention of ruining your fun. I know sitting and playing videogames for hours on end ain't healthy for me mentally and physically but its fun as hell.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28498995]Dude, as awesome as we both think weed is, you need to lay off this "weed is perfect and has no issues" thing, it's tiring and it shows again how unwilling you are to accept any claim that doesn't already fit with your world view. I'll judge this study on it's own merits, as you should judge the last one on it's merits. it had less problems than you imagined.[/QUOTE] There is so much truth in this. Smoking weed has health risks as much as drinking diet coke has health risks. Anything past moderation is bad.

[QUOTE=Swilly;28500498]Oh for the love of god, its smoke. Cigs, wood fires, a house burning down, they all do the same fucking damage.[/QUOTE] There has in the history of cannabis use never been a recorded case of any sort of permanent, or temporary lung damage.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28503414]There has in the history of cannabis use never been a recorded case of any sort of permanent, or temporary lung damage.[/QUOTE] How long do you consider to be temporary? And what is considered temporary? Are the temporary effects usually measured after a period of no consumption? If you've ever pushed you limits of how big of hits you can take like me, you've likely gotten a sore throat for a few days and I could consider that temporary damage, but that isn't an issue with the lungs so I don't know why I'm bringing it up. Tar build up could be an issue with smoking, especially considering the smoke is held in longer. I think there has been some stuff that shows it can effect your breath size. This is based off of articles I remember reading. But all of that is of course is pretty non serious and completely reversible. After just now looking through a bunch of websites, the non serious part is always mentioned, which means that there is some temporary damage like I thought, but it isn't anything to be concerned with. There are studies that show permanent damage to the lungs, but they are usually pretty flawed in their selection choices because it is rare to find long term smokers who don't smoke tobacco. There are a decent number of studies that show that heavy smoking doesn't cause any damage, so I think those pretty much disprove the other. I'm kind of tired and rambling.

[QUOTE=Pepin;28503944]How long do you consider to be temporary? And what is considered temporary? Are the temporary effects usually measured after a period of no consumption? If you've ever pushed you limits of how big of hits you can take like me, you've likely gotten a sore throat for a few days and I could consider that temporary damage, but that isn't an issue with the lungs so I don't know why I'm bringing it up. Tar build up could be an issue with smoking, especially considering the smoke is held in longer. I think there has been some stuff that shows it can effect your breath size. This is based off of articles I remember reading. But all of that is of course is pretty non serious and completely reversible. After just now looking through a bunch of websites, the non serious part is always mentioned, which means that there is some temporary damage like I thought, but it isn't anything to be concerned with. There are studies that show permanent damage to the lungs, but they are usually pretty flawed in their selection choices because it is rare to find long term smokers who don't smoke tobacco. There are a decent number of studies that show that heavy smoking doesn't cause any damage, so I think those pretty much disprove the other. I'm kind of tired and rambling.[/QUOTE] I understand and yeah, basically what you say is correct.

[QUOTE=Pepin;28503944]How long do you consider to be temporary? And what is considered temporary? Are the temporary effects usually measured after a period of no consumption? If you've ever pushed you limits of how big of hits you can take like me, you've likely gotten a sore throat for a few days and I could consider that temporary damage, but that isn't an issue with the lungs so I don't know why I'm bringing it up. Tar build up could be an issue with smoking, especially considering the smoke is held in longer. I think there has been some stuff that shows it can effect your breath size. This is based off of articles I remember reading. But all of that is of course is pretty non serious and completely reversible. After just now looking through a bunch of websites, the non serious part is always mentioned, which means that there is some temporary damage like I thought, but it isn't anything to be concerned with. There are studies that show permanent damage to the lungs, but they are usually pretty flawed in their selection choices because it is rare to find long term smokers who don't smoke tobacco. There are a decent number of studies that show that heavy smoking doesn't cause any damage, so I think those pretty much disprove the other. I'm kind of tired and rambling.[/QUOTE] Can you gather the bunch of studies in question? (if they don't disclose full methodology, don't bother) Studies don't really cancel out like that.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28503414]There has in the history of cannabis use never been a recorded case of any sort of permanent, or temporary lung damage.[/QUOTE] Lung cancer that results from cannabis smoking (and thus pyrolysis) would generally be attributed to other sources. Of course, a caveat is that there is a m[B]uch reduced risk of cancer from smoking cannabis, because people don't typically smoke 50 joints a day[/B] (about the equivalent of an ounce and a half). And if they did, lung cancer would be the least of their problems.

[QUOTE=Contag;28504752]Lung cancer that results from cannabis smoking (and thus pyrolysis) would generally be attributed to other sources. Of course, a caveat is that there is a m[B]uch reduced risk of cancer from smoking cannabis, because people don't typically smoke 50 joints a day[/B] (about the equivalent of an ounce and a half). And if they did, lung cancer would be the least of their problems.[/QUOTE] i think if said person was in his 50's, he'd be fine. Any mental effects would really be so hard to build on that. I think. I only say this because there are likely some people doing this in the entertainment business.