[QUOTE=Cintroval;26792003]Ok
[url]http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=marijuana&btnG=Search&as_sdt=10000000000000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0[/url]
This one might be of relevance if you have bad skimming skills
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3492159[/url]
It essentially said smoking marijuana had the same detriment to respiratory health as cigarette smoking.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it's been established that burning a plant will produce carcinogens that are detrimental to the respiratory system, but you still haven't posted anything relating to its detrimental effects when vaporized or "baked" in a consumable food.
Also, the first link you posted is literally just a search. One that gives detrimental effects referring to pregnant women, and one that references a 1970 study that was superseded by [url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000331090541.htm]this[/url] study. It could find no evidence of physical atrophy, though it did find decreased bloodflow in the back of the back of the brain among users who smoked very frequently (>7 times/week).
[QUOTE=Swilly;26791224]That was my major problem, because smoke is smoke, it still damages your brain cells and you're replacing oxygen with smoke. There is no way around that, that is how the human body works. It wouldn't affect people who smoke every so often but the ones who smoke ALL the time do end up fucked up in the end, albeit still pretty awesome.[/QUOTE]
Deprivation of oxygen in the quantities supplemented by smoking would have no direct effect in killing brain cells. If what you've claimed were to be true, people who swim frequently (depriving them selves of oxygen as long as possible in order to maximize time under water) would suffer from noticeable brain damage.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;26789211]Didn't the House just appoint a right-wing climate-denying energy industry shill to head the Science and Technology Committee? Scientific integrity in government, indeed.[/QUOTE]
No this is a memo from the executive, the legislative (read: Republican fuckwits) did that one.
Reading over this memo: all seems good in it, some good steps to allow more scientific freedom for federally funded scientists.
[QUOTE=Obama Yo Momma;26789452]Glaucoma.[/QUOTE]
It's not as good at reducing intra-ocular as the eyedrops we have, and there are more side-effects from weed than those. (I have secondary angle-closure glaucoma)
God damn it you fuckers, way to derail my thread with your bullshit. We've already established smoke is bad, Cannabinoids not so much. Let's stop trying to be each other's mother and let us make our own decisions.
[QUOTE=DarkSpider;26800274]God damn it you fuckers, way to derail my thread with your bullshit. We've already established smoke is bad, Cannabinoids not so much. Let's stop trying to be each other's mother and let us make our own decisions.[/QUOTE]
There's really not much for laymen to talk about on the original topic. It just doesn't concern >99% of facepunch.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
