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

[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 can't think of much things i'd be more worried about then lung cancer

Marijuana raped my wife and killed my children [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] also the main reason marijuana is illegal is if hemp was made legal it would eventually hit the oil, plastic, timber and cotton industries hard and these companies would have to adapt to a new crop and new products like they're supposed to in a free market. This is why it was made illegal due to misinformation in news and media funded by tycoons such as William Randolph Hearst and the Dupont family, who were very invested in the oil and timber industries and the plastic industry respectively.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;28504893]i can't [B]think[/B] of much things i'd be more worried about then lung cancer[/QUOTE] I doubt someone who spends $150,000 on pot a year has much use of their mental faculties anymore. Took me about 30 seconds of searching (25 of which was logging into pubmed through my university site). Tilles D S, et al. Marijuana smoking as cause of reduction in single-breath carbon monoxide diffusing capacity. The American Journal of Medicine. 1986;80:601-606. [editline]9th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SM0K3 B4N4N4;28504974]also the main reason marijuana is illegal is if hemp was made legal it would eventually hit the oil, plastic, timber and cotton industries hard and these companies would have to adapt to a new crop and new products like they're supposed to in a free market. This is why it was made illegal due to misinformation in news and media funded by tycoons such as William Randolph Hearst and the Dupont family, who were very invested in the oil and timber industries and the plastic industry respectively.[/QUOTE] At present, hemp oil isn't able to be price competitive (Ty Saudi Arabia) in the oil industry, and thus the plastic industry. Absolutely correct about cotton and paper though, especially considering the hemp plant is ridiculously hardy.

I don't know why hemp is even associated with marihuana. It's a relative, but the THC content is well below psychoactive levels, and you can't get the psychoactive variant from industrial hemp. Even in the already illogical situation of prohibition that's illogical.

[quote=trouserdemon;28505113]i don't know why hemp is even associated with marihuana. It's a relative, but the thc content is well below psychoactive levels, and you can't get the psychoactive variant from industrial hemp. Even in the already illogical situation of prohibition that's illogical.[/quote] [B]US GOVERNMENT RUN BY MONEY[/B] One dollar, one vote (with regard to policy decisions).

Wtf does hemp/hemp oil have to do with the industrial oil industry? I think you guys are getting your types of oil confused.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28505187]Wtf does hemp/hemp oil have to do with the industrial oil industry? I think you guys are getting your types of oil confused.[/QUOTE] Biodiesel.

Silly FP, double posting like that.

[QUOTE=TrouserDemon;28505224]Biodiesel.[/QUOTE] Oh. Well I don't that that's a primary concern of most any producer of any food grade oil. Most bio-diesel is produced from waste oil, isn't it? Though to be fair, that might be because bio-diesel is still really small scale.

[QUOTE=MovingSalad;28501067]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] Lol while I support the legalization of marijuana, that argument is pretty terrible, since if people actually kept up with modern research and stopped believing everything the popular media spouts, you'd know that dietary fat has no negative effects on the body, so bacon isn't really harmful at all. On the other hand, eating excessive amounts of food (It doesn't fucking matter if its fats or carbs) and being a lazy fuck WILL have very negative health effects.

[QUOTE=TrouserDemon;28500870]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] Strong evidence in the form of statistics which play little to no relevance to many people's mental state. I could easily draw a parallel to this kind of reasoning as to suggest the declaration that auto insurance companies make when charging owners of red vehicles more insurance simply because their colour of car gets more traffic tickets. (visibility, vibrance?) It's statistical analysis and there is a lot of manipulation and bias in a lot of statistics. The fact still stands, whether or not I cite this, that I function rather well while under the influence of marijuana. I am financially, physically, emotionally excelling while still smoking pot on atleast a weekly basis. It is not detrimental to anything at this point, personally, and I believe there are millions of people out there that can agree-- Nobody got into a violent fit of rage after smoking a fucking joint. Hundreds smoke pot every day and laugh, eat, sleep, shit, work, excersise and THINK. Millions of people do it worldwide. Why hide this blatant inconsistency with the use of tax dollars and a held up court system. Why put these functioning members of society through the "justice" system for possessing a goddamn plant. Fuck all your citations and statistics. Time to smoke another bowl. [editline]10th March 2011[/editline] [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] Actually new studies suggest that brain cells can. [quote]Textbook Rewrite: Brain Cells Can Regrow Friday, 15 October 1999 A Princeton study has added to mounting evidence for the brain's ability to regenerate by showing, in adult monkeys, that new nerve cells are continually added to the cerebral cortex, the largest and most advanced part of the brain. Elizabeth Gould and Charles Gross report in the current issue of Science that the formation of new neurons or nerve cells, neurogenesis, takes place in several regions of the cerebral cortex that are crucial for cognitive and perceptual functions. Their results strongly imply that the same process occurs in humans. "People thought: If the cerebral cortex is important in memory, how could it change?" says Gross. "In fact the opposite view is at least as plausible: if memories are formed from experiences, these experience must produce changes in the brain."[/quote] Source: [url]http://www.brainlightning.com/regen.html[/url] We are still learning about neuroscience. Why outlaw a plant and refuse to accept that alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical drugs cause more violence and prone to far more damaging addiction than Cannabis. [editline]10th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=JaegerMonster;28505533]Lol while I support the legalization of marijuana, that argument is pretty terrible, since if people actually kept up with modern research and stopped believing everything the popular media spouts, you'd know that dietary fat has no negative effects on the body, so bacon isn't really harmful at all. On the other hand, eating excessive amounts of food (It doesn't fucking matter if its fats or carbs) and being a lazy fuck WILL have very negative health effects.[/QUOTE] I don't really give a fuck. It proves a valid enough point in my mind.

Confusion.................. Mild..................... Mild Don't know why but i laughed harder than i should

God forbid the sensation of laughter be enhanced by the consumption of Cannabis.

[QUOTE=SM0K3 B4N4N4;28504974]Marijuana raped my wife and killed my children [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] also the main reason marijuana is illegal is if hemp was made legal it would eventually hit the oil, plastic, timber and cotton industries hard and these companies would have to adapt to a new crop and new products like they're supposed to in a free market. This is why it was made illegal due to misinformation in news and media funded by tycoons such as William Randolph Hearst and the Dupont family, who were very invested in the oil and timber industries and the plastic industry respectively.[/QUOTE] untrue, good sir hemp,(industrial) is completely legal, you just need a license or something. anyway i blame racism to some degree all those negro jazz musicisans playin that devil music while smokin joints

Oh no! someone said weed has negative side-effects, they must be wrong! I feel none of these this automatically disproves it!

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;28520473]Oh no! someone said weed has negative side-effects, they must be wrong! I feel none of these this automatically disproves it![/QUOTE] I don't understand where this trashy, sarcastic comment is coming from. Judging from your vague response I can't help but think you haven't really read what the topic is.

[QUOTE=bord2tears;28499190]I knew a guy who's friend's family was killed by THC.[/QUOTE] Hardy fucking harr harr

[quote]Strong evidence in the form of statistics which play little to no relevance to many people's mental state. I could easily draw a parallel to this kind of reasoning as to suggest the declaration that auto insurance companies make when charging owners of red vehicles more insurance simply because their colour of car gets more traffic tickets. (visibility, vibrance?) It's statistical analysis and there is a lot of manipulation and bias in a lot of statistics. The fact still stands, whether or not I cite this, that I function rather well while under the influence of marijuana. I am financially, physically, emotionally excelling while still smoking pot on atleast a weekly basis. It is not detrimental to anything at this point, personally, and I believe there are millions of people out there that can agree--[/quote] Just because you don't experience ill-effects doesn't mean that they don't exist. At the same time, I support the legalized consumption and regulation of cannabis, simply because prohibition never works. [editline]10th March 2011[/editline] [quote]Actually new studies suggest that brain cells can.[/quote] Even more than suggest, it's pretty much confirmed. And besides, it's not like drinking alcohol doesn't have the same effects, as does caffeine. [editline]10th March 2011[/editline] [quote]Why put these functioning members of society through the "justice" system for possessing a goddamn plant. [/quote] Processing drug users through the rather criminogenic legal system vastly increases the likelihood of them disregarding other laws in the future.

In The Union, they cite a dutch study done in the last 10 years that said it saw increased brain activity in marijuana smokers. [editline]9th March 2011[/editline] It's accuracy i'm uncertain, but the Union took pretty unbaised sources for the most part.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28522084]In The Union, they cite a dutch study done in the last 10 years that said it saw increased brain activity in marijuana smokers. [editline]9th March 2011[/editline] It's accuracy i'm uncertain, but the Union took pretty unbaised sources for the most part.[/QUOTE] In situ cannabis shows both neurotoxic and neuro-protective effects.

I just read through the OPs thread history What a fucking retard he is

[QUOTE=MovingSalad;28516802]Strong evidence in the form of statistics which play little to no relevance to many people's mental state. I could easily draw a parallel to this kind of reasoning as to suggest the declaration that auto insurance companies make when charging owners of red vehicles more insurance simply because their colour of car gets more traffic tickets. (visibility, vibrance?) It's statistical analysis and there is a lot of manipulation and bias in a lot of statistics. The fact still stands, whether or not I cite this, that I function rather well while under the influence of marijuana. I am financially, physically, emotionally excelling while still smoking pot on atleast a weekly basis. It is not detrimental to anything at this point, personally, and I believe there are millions of people out there that can agree-- Nobody got into a violent fit of rage after smoking a fucking joint. Hundreds smoke pot every day and laugh, eat, sleep, shit, work, excersise and THINK. Millions of people do it worldwide. Why hide this blatant inconsistency with the use of tax dollars and a held up court system. Why put these functioning members of society through the "justice" system for possessing a goddamn plant. Fuck all your citations and statistics. Time to smoke another bowl.[/QUOTE] Statistics can exhibit bias yes, but they displayed full methodology. This is part of the scientific method, full disclosure of how you did things so anyone can critique things or repeat your experiment identically to see if you get the same result. Your car example doesn't make much sense. If red cars really do show statistically significant deviation from the mean towards accidents, doesn't it make sense then to pay higher insurance premiums for them? Furthermore your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant, all it shows is that at least one person does not exhibit these effects, which is in line with what the study found, in that young smokers have a higher risk incidence for symptoms, not a certainty.

[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] I'm sorry I'm late to the party but you definitely don't know what you're talking about. Weed smoke doesn't stop oxygen from getting in your system unless you're breathing near 100% smoke. That would be called asphyxiation and you should know that, and you should know asphyxiation is because of a lack of oxygen, not an abundance of other stuff. Weed smoke doesn't block oxygen receptors, doesn't do long-term damage to cells (even in the lungs), and doesn't destroy your brain. This is a basic rundown of what weed does to your brain: [url]http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/drugs-alcohol/marijuana3.htm[/url] There are enough specifics there for you to search around and confirm what that article says.

What ever you say about weed, I still won't use it, some frenchie came over our house once and apparently he smoked alot of weed and his breath, holy shit it was like death fog

THC shot me in the leg, now I can't walk without a cane.

[QUOTE=Latency;28528046]I'm sorry I'm late to the party but you definitely don't know what you're talking about. Weed smoke doesn't stop oxygen from getting in your system unless you're breathing near 100% smoke. That would be called asphyxiation and you should know that, and you should know asphyxiation is because of a lack of oxygen, not an abundance of other stuff. Weed smoke doesn't block oxygen receptors, doesn't do long-term damage to cells (even in the lungs), and doesn't destroy your brain. This is a basic rundown of what weed does to your brain: [url]http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/drugs-alcohol/marijuana3.htm[/url] There are enough specifics there for you to search around and confirm what that article says.[/QUOTE] THC is pretty damn safe, but it's not the only psychoactive. Then I read this: [quote]Weed smoke doesn't block oxygen receptors, doesn't do long-term damage to cells [B](even in the lungs)[/B], and doesn't destroy your brain.[/quote] ARE YOU INSANE? SERIOUSLY? DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT??? Any inhalation of pyrolyzed material causes damage to the lungs. Read up to my other post citing a study which indicates a causal relationship between cannabis inhalation and decreased carbon monoxide diffusing capacity.

Cigerette smoke is gross, dangerous, and bad for you I don't smoke them. Marijuana smoke is also kinda bad for you. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ~420~

A vaporiser would be the safer way to imbibe marihuana.

[QUOTE=Contag;28538604]ARE YOU INSANE? SERIOUSLY? DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT??? Any inhalation of pyrolyzed material causes damage to the lungs.[/QUOTE] That was bad wording. I meant damage that's extremely hard to reverse or seriously unhealthy. That's the only damage that would matter. [QUOTE=Contag;28538604] Read up to my other post citing a study which indicates a causal relationship between cannabis inhalation and decreased carbon monoxide diffusing capacity.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I didn't read through the thread before replying. I can't find that link anyway. Where was diffusion capacity affected, how badly, and for how long? If they didn't give numbers for those things (which are pretty important), you need to then ask where the lifetime weed smokers with debilitating brain damage from caboxyhemoglobin are. If there are none or they're only people who smoke way more than casual use, it shouldn't be a concern for you and me, even though it does happen. It's like liver damage from abusing alcohol. Also, diffusion capacity is half the picture. The other important thing to look at here is capacity, and cannabinoids are a pretty potent vasodilator. [editline]11th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=TrouserDemon;28540947]A vaporiser would be the safer way to imbibe marihuana.[/QUOTE] A million times this. The second best it a water bong or water pipe/bubbler. I love that cool smoke and clean taste.

[QUOTE=Latency;28541307] Where was diffusion capacity affected, how badly, and for how long? If they didn't give numbers for those things (which are pretty important), you need to then ask where the lifetime weed smokers with debilitating brain damage from caboxyhemoglobin are. If there are none or they're only people who smoke way more than casual use, it shouldn't be a concern for you and me, even though it does happen. It's like liver damage from abusing alcohol. Also, diffusion capacity is half the picture. The other important thing to look at here is capacity, and cannabinoids are a pretty potent vasodilator.[/QUOTE] Diffusion capacity was affected in the lungs (obviously - diffusion capacity is a measurement of the lung's ability to transfer gases.), by about 10-30% compared to normal. They had been smoking for about ten years, on average. There was no follow up. At the very least, it indicates that smoking Marijuana is unhealthy. Of course, that doesn't mean it should be illegal. [quote]To investigate the effects of chronic marijuana smoking on lung function, pulmonary function tests including single-breath carbon monoxide diffusing capacities were performed in 15 healthy women who smoked 1.7 +/- 1.4 (mean +/- SD) marijuana cigarettes per day for 235 +/- 135 days per year for a mean of 10.5 +/- 3.7 years. Control groups included 27 nonsmoking and 26 tobacco-smoking women. Results revealed that marijuana smoking with or without tobacco is associated with a reduction in the single-breath carbon monoxide diffusing capacity to 74 +/- 20 percent of predicted, which was significantly different from that in the nonsmoking control subjects (92 +/- 11 percent; p less than 0.05). The subset of subjects who smoked marijuana and tobacco had a further reduction of the single-breath carbon monoxide diffusing capacity to 65 +/- 17 percent, which was significantly different from that in both nonsmoking and smoking control subjects (80 +/- 7 percent).[/quote] Vaporization should be pushed to replace smoking of all substances. [editline]11th March 2011[/editline] If you don't have access to the journal study I can copy out the relevant bits.