If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Proof positive that cannabis is truly a deadly drug: two people dead after smoking it. That's right, TWO people out of an estimated 147 million users worldwide. PANIC to the right   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 218
    More: Fail, Mcintyre, Forensic Science International, smoking marijuana, Charles Lemos, toxicologies, marijuana  
•       •       •

7345 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Aug 2014 at 10:38 AM (6 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



218 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-06 12:25:47 PM
I once knew a guy who drank a Pepsi and then died of a heart attack shortly after.  Now, despite the fact that he had been drinking Pepsi in moderation all his life without problems, it was clearly the Pepsi that killed him.
 
2014-08-06 12:30:37 PM
A 23-year-old man without a history of health problems suddenly collapsed while using public transportation, and died after 40 minutes of unsuccessful resuscitation efforts


Clearest case of marijuana I've ever seen.
 
2014-08-06 12:31:27 PM

tbeatty: I suspect most Marijuana smokers either use cigarettes in between tokes or smoke weed at cigarette quantities.


Why? Because you're 0 for 2.
 
2014-08-06 12:35:43 PM
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
 
2014-08-06 12:35:47 PM
amandacobb.co.uk

hotlinked
 
2014-08-06 12:37:00 PM
FTFA: "Deaths due to cannabis use are usually accidents that are not caused by the substance, but to the circumstances of use," Leune said.


Good thing the point of that sentence didn't make it anywhere near the headline!
 
2014-08-06 12:38:24 PM
When you assume you make an ass out of you. Just you. Not me. You and you alone.
 
2014-08-06 12:39:46 PM
Do these people believe Reefer Madness was a documentary too? "Traces" of cannabis didn't kill anyone.
 
2014-08-06 12:43:50 PM
How's Colorado's Cannabis experiment working out? "Largely Successful."
 
2014-08-06 12:46:07 PM
lol.

Toxicologists need to make the wording more sensitive so that they don't incur the stoner butthurt backlash. "Post mortem tissue tested positive THC - BUT THAT PROBABLY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING AND MARIJUANA IS THE SAFEST THING *EVER* AND DON'T YOU DARE EVEN HINT AT ONE BAD THING ABOUT SMOKING LOTS AND LOTS OF SHIAT BECAUSE STONERS WILL, LIKE, GET ALL SELF-RIGHTEOUS AND STUFF.

okay now?
 
2014-08-06 12:46:10 PM

cryinoutloud: Maybe pot is too strong for novices now. I've been smoking pot since I was a teen, and the old stuff didn't do that to anyone. In fact, I didn't even feel it for the first several times I tried it. It was like it had to build up in my system first (like we know that it does in regular smokers) before I got the effects.


Uh, my first times were back in the 90s. Pot then was roughly as strong as it is now (we had 20+% THC strains back in the 70s according to my father.) The difference is nowdays we have the same crap that hasn't been compressed and oxidized and wasted via the packaging process, and is fresher, which means more delivered potency.

cryinoutloud: I'm serious. The medical stuff is not the same drug that we used to roll up into joints


Yes, it is. Just speaking as a High Time PotC featured grower, medical patient, and landrace cannabis genetics preservation specialist for a Dutch seedbank.
 
2014-08-06 12:46:20 PM

Stoker: Paraquat poisoning the pot again? (See 70's.)


Paraquat toxicity is well documented, and quite easily identifiable by the lung sections which are full of swiss-cheese looking vacuoles.
 
2014-08-06 12:47:03 PM
I must have died a thousand deaths by now.
 
2014-08-06 12:48:18 PM

khyberkitsune: Yes, it is. Just speaking as a High Time PotC featured grower, medical patient, and landrace cannabis genetics preservation specialist for a Dutch seedbank.


Dude, you live in California. I'm not saying I doubt your esteemed qualifications, but....yeah,  I doubt you're telecommuting.

And yes, the medicinal stuff is quite different - especially when it comes to specialized uses, such as oil for Dravet's syndrome, than the recreational stuff, as they select to grow strains high in the specific THC or CBD compounds they are targeting for that condition.
 
2014-08-06 12:51:22 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: lol.

Toxicologists need to make the wording more sensitive so that they don't incur the stoner butthurt backlash. "Post mortem tissue tested positive THC - BUT THAT PROBABLY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING AND MARIJUANA IS THE SAFEST THING *EVER* AND DON'T YOU DARE EVEN HINT AT ONE BAD THING ABOUT SMOKING LOTS AND LOTS OF SHIAT BECAUSE STONERS WILL, LIKE, GET ALL SELF-RIGHTEOUS AND STUFF.

okay now?


It's not the toxicology reports that irk people. Those reports are based on facts. The personal spin people place on said toxicology reports are what piss people off. A toxicologist would report that traces of alcohol were found in the system of a person that was killed by a detailed train. Would anyone with a working brain arrive at the conclusion that the alcohol detected was the cause of death? No. They wouldn't.
 
2014-08-06 12:52:47 PM

mooseyfate: It's not the toxicology reports that irk people. Those reports are based on facts. The personal spin people place on said toxicology reports are what piss people off. A toxicologist would report that traces of alcohol were found in the system of a person that was killed by a detailed train. Would anyone with a working brain arrive at the conclusion that the alcohol detected was the cause of death? No. They wouldn't.


Actually, it has more to do with people who haven't done any research other than TFA raging and gnashing at what they think a report with narrow implications in medicolegal death investigation is going to be used for.
 
2014-08-06 12:52:55 PM
Derailed, not detailed. Stupid smart phone.
 
2014-08-06 12:54:24 PM

WilderKWight: durbnpoisn: Serious Black: Let's be generous and say both of these deaths were caused by marijuana. That would make them the first two in recorded history. Compare those deaths to those caused by alcohol or tobacco. Statistically speaking, they both killed over a hundred people yesterday in the US alone. Yet those are completely legal under federal law while marijuana is a Schedule I substance. Where is the logic in that situation?

This.

I've been saying it for years, and literally every time one of these threads pops up.

The whole situation is upside down and backwards.

It actually drives me nuts how the whole social stigma works too...  You could happily annouce to your coworkers that you are going to the bar after work, have a few drinks and drive home.  Every smiles.  But say you are gonna stop by a friends how to smoke a few, and you could literally lose your job and end up in rehab.
Where's the sense in that?


No... I'd be just as annoyed by someone who can't get through their day without having a few drinks (and pissed that they intend to drive afterward). When I was in management, I would have kept my eye on someone who constantly announces they're stopping for drinks, and I would have written them up or fired them if I saw anything that made me believe they were bringing their bad habit into the workplace. For the record, I'd also fire someone who kept stepping out during the work day to have a 10-minute smoke break. If your habits interfere with work, you're out on your ass.

I see no reason for you to announce to the workplace that you're going to indulge in whatever taboo habits you enjoy.

How would you like it if Bob from accounting announced he was going to go home and take a big dump, clip his toenails over the sink, and then strip down and jerk off while watching Big Chunky Asses Dumping #13?

Exactly. Ugh. Who needs to hear that?! Who wants to know what Bob's doing outside of work?  Nobody.

In the same way, nobody else cares or wants to know what you do to yourself, with yourself, or with your other drunkard or stoner buddies. Why make it a public issue at all? Do you really need everyone else to approve of your habits? Is there some deep-seated need to not only do the drugs, but have everyone ACCEPT that you do drugs and legitimize your choices for you?

I'm in favor of legalization.  If you want to do it, DO IT. Just don't expect everyone else to change their opinion of you. Go home, get high, and leave everyone else out of it.

Be happy. You're getting it legalized in many places. You're officially less of a social pariah than a crackhead, but if you expect you're going to be more accepted than a smoker or a drunkard, you're dreaming. That's not going to happen any time soon. Keep your odious personal habits to yourself and all will be well. Bob won't talk about his love of perfectly-legal German scat porn featuring 500-lb women, Sheila won't talk about her pica making boogers taste awesome to her palate, and you can refrain from telling everyone in the office that you like to get farked up on this-or-that substance. Because honestly: Nobody wants to know, and nobody gives a shiat. Work in a head shop if you want to talk about pot.


Who said anything about it affecting work? Such a situation isn't normally about alcohol, it is about socializing with coworkers.

It certainly isn't uncommon in most of the western world for coworkers to go out for a drink after the work day (actually in a lot of places not doing so would be unusual), which often involves a general invitation.

But if the equivalent were to occur with pot (even where I am in Vancouver), you would face issues in most work places.
 
2014-08-06 12:55:33 PM

hardinparamedic: Dude, you live in California. I'm not saying I doubt your esteemed qualifications, but....yeah, I doubt you're telecommuting.


They send me the seeds via post. I'm registered with the CA Dept. of Ag. for this.

hardinparamedic: as they select to grow strains high in the specific THC or CBD compounds they are targeting for that condition.


Those strains were already naturally that high (we've got the seeds in our bank, it comes from China for the CBD and THC-Vivarin content, and regular THC comes from the more sativa-dominant landrace genetics from the Afghan areas.)
 
2014-08-06 12:56:03 PM

hardinparamedic: mooseyfate: It's not the toxicology reports that irk people. Those reports are based on facts. The personal spin people place on said toxicology reports are what piss people off. A toxicologist would report that traces of alcohol were found in the system of a person that was killed by a detailed train. Would anyone with a working brain arrive at the conclusion that the alcohol detected was the cause of death? No. They wouldn't.

Actually, it has more to do with people who haven't done any research other than TFA raging and gnashing at what they think a report with narrow implications in medicolegal death investigation is going to be used for.


TFA was actually filled with facts that point away from weed as a killer plant. The headline of said article didn't. But yet that hasn't stopped any anti-pot people from taking away exactly what they wanted to from the article. I wonder why that is.

/probably because they're not starting from a logical or fact-based position to begin with
 
2014-08-06 12:59:44 PM
What strain?
 
2014-08-06 01:02:34 PM
Youtried.jpg
 
2014-08-06 01:03:38 PM

Epic Fap Session: What strain?


Bullshiatacus Sativa. BS for short.
 
2014-08-06 01:05:27 PM
I've tried to have some form of this discussion with my teen, who's battling a pre-natal addiction,  As long as pot possession/distribution was illegal, research could not occur.  So, there was no conclusive proof as to the harmfulness or harmlessness of pot.  Now that some sense has arrived on the scene, researchers can actually begin to document either the users' claims, or refute them.  As noted upthread, there is a trickle of research, just starting.  Just as we stopped trusting the marketing research about tobacco, we'll learn soon enough if these researchers are on the up and up. If they are shills, it will come out.  If they are unbiased, it will worth the wait to make an informed decision about consuming pot.
 
2014-08-06 01:17:05 PM

TabASlotB: Dinki: Just a tip, prohibitionists- BS 'reports' like this only make you look really desperate and dishonest. If you want to prove there are links to marijuana and some health risk, do the science- double blind tests of randomly selected people, with extensive medical background checks to rule out any extenuating factors. Until you do that, STFU.


That's not how epidemiology usually works...not even close.


 I was talking about actual science related to identifying the possible effects of the active ingredients in marijuana. If you think this 'report', or most studies that have come out lately about the relative dangers of pot are actual helpful, you need to do more research. To wit- The very first ' scientific literature' you link is a well debunked french study that tried to link cannabis use to heart attacks and even death. Some interesting facts about that french study- Research was funded by the French InterMinisterial Mission for the Fight Against Drugs and Addiction and the French Drug Agency. also, part of the authors' conclusion is that a death rate of 25.6% exists in cases of cardiovascular complications related to cannabis. If those aren't warning signs about the legitimacy of the report you are fooling yourself.
 
2014-08-06 01:19:27 PM
so 2 people with heart conditions had heart attacks while using or having just used pot.

So pot might have helped the heart attack but it didn't kill them. The Heart attack killed them.

And pot definitely changes blood pressure. that is a FACT. So I could very easily see it as a contributing factor but to say it killed these people is complete and utter BS.
 
2014-08-06 01:20:08 PM
Were the researchers Kolansky and Moore?
 
2014-08-06 01:21:51 PM

cherryl taggart: I've tried to have some form of this discussion with my teen, who's battling a pre-natal addiction,  As long as pot possession/distribution was illegal, research could not occur.  So, there was no conclusive proof as to the harmfulness or harmlessness of pot.  Now that some sense has arrived on the scene, researchers can actually begin to document either the users' claims, or refute them.  As noted upthread, there is a trickle of research, just starting.  Just as we stopped trusting the marketing research about tobacco, we'll learn soon enough if these researchers are on the up and up. If they are shills, it will come out.  If they are unbiased, it will worth the wait to make an informed decision about consuming pot.


Marijuana was extensively studied when it was (and still is at the federal level and in 48 states) illegal. Schedule 1 drugs can be used for research and/or compassionate use with approval as an experimental drug. Hence its efficacy and safety in the treatment of several disorders is well documented. What is also wee documented is that it is virtually impossible to overdose on smoked marijuana. To date, no death as a direct result of smoking marijuana has ever been identified. There have been some rare instances, such as the ones covered in the FA where someone has died and had THC or its metabolites in their system, but this does not mean that the drug killed them. large doses of THC can lower blood pressure and sometimes dramatically so. So someone who has an undiagnosed cardiovascular problem may theoretically be at risk, since a rapid drop in blood pressure in such individuals may lead to cardiac arrhythmias.
 
2014-08-06 01:22:01 PM

khyberkitsune: Uh, my first times were back in the 90s. Pot then was roughly as strong as it is now (we had 20+% THC strains back in the 70s according to my father.) The difference is nowdays we have the same crap that hasn't been compressed and oxidized and wasted via the packaging process, and is fresher, which means more delivered potency.


And you said you had bad effects, right? So my point stands. I started smoking in the late 70's. It was nothing like it is today. And your dad is sort of right--there WERE very strong kinds of pot then, but very few people ever got any. We were usually smoking stuff like grows in the ditches in Kansas. Your average pothead wasn't touching the stuff that came from Amsterdam, or Maui Wowee, or whatever the fark was around then. I just don't think it's the same now. Barely even the same drug, the way it's been modified and genetically altered to do different things.

It's like comparing driving a 1970 Volkswagen to driving a late-model [insert name of super-fast car here.] Well, what do I care? You young stoners keep smoking modern pot like it's the 70's, until your brain fogs up for three days, your mouth falls open, and you barf, while I'll keep taking my tiny little hits and saving a lot of money.
 
2014-08-06 01:22:30 PM

Dinki: The very first ' scientific literature' you link is a well debunked french study that tried to link cannabis use to heart attacks and even death. Some interesting facts about that french study- Research was funded by the French InterMinisterial Mission for the Fight Against Drugs and Addiction and the French Drug Agency. also, part of the authors' conclusion is that a death rate of 25.6% exists in cases of cardiovascular complications related to cannabis. If those aren't warning signs about the legitimacy of the report you are fooling yourself.


Well, I'm settled. Someone who is deliberately misstating and lying about the published research and linking to an individual's blog seems more trustworthy than the JAMA.

You do realize that outright lying about something like smoking - well, anything - having a major cardiovascular risk factor doesn't help your cause, right? It actually gives anti-decriminlization and anti-legalization people ammunition to use against you?

mooseyfate: TFA was actually filled with facts that point away from weed as a killer plant. The headline of said article didn't. But yet that hasn't stopped any anti-pot people from taking away exactly what they wanted to from the article. I wonder why that is.


Do you know what shuts that down?

Pointing out the actual implications of the case study, and it's applications. The actual case studies presented in the study are towards marijuana use as a contributory cause in cardiovascular events. Not that pot kills.
 
2014-08-06 01:27:39 PM

JackieRabbit: Marijuana was extensively studied when it was (and still is at the federal level and in 48 states) illegal.


img.4plebs.org
 
2014-08-06 01:30:09 PM

hardinparamedic: Well, I'm settled. Someone who is deliberately misstating and lying about the published research and linking to an individual's blog seems more trustworthy than the JAMA.


Really, and what lie did I state about the JAMA study? Was it not funded by the French InterMinisterial Mission for the Fight Against Drugs and Addiction and the French Drug Agency ? Did the auor of the JAMA report not state "However, despite poor exhaustiveness, it has already been shown that the spontaneous reporting (as, for example, in thefield of pharmacovigilance) is the cornerstone to identify signals. In the context of our study, the increasing reporting of cardiovascular complications related to cannabis, and their extreme seriousness (with a death rate of 25.6%) could indicate cannabis as a possible risk factor for cardiovascular disease in young adults, in line with previous findings."

Please, Show me where I lied.... or STFU.
 
2014-08-06 01:30:41 PM

cryinoutloud: And you said you had bad effects, right? So my point stands.


No, it does not. Learn about the endocannabinoid system first before talking.

You had to break it first before Weed works. That's been proven. It explains the 'first time smoke non-stoned' issues.

You may be older but you lack my education and experience in this field.

And since you don't practice, quit acting like you do.
 
2014-08-06 01:32:34 PM
cryinoutloud:
And you said you had bad effects, right? So my point stands. I started smoking in the late 70's. It was nothing like it is today. And your dad is sort of right--there WERE very strong kinds of pot then, but very few people ever got any. We were usually smoking stuff like grows in the ditches in Kansas. Your average pothead wasn't touching the stuff that came from Amsterdam, or Maui Wowee, or whatever the fark was around then. I just don't think it's the same now. Barely even the same drug, the way it's been modified and genetically altered to do different things.

It's like comparing driving a 1970 Volkswagen to driving a late-model [insert name of super-fast car here.] Well, what do I care? You young stoners keep smoking modern pot like it's the 70's, until your brain fogs up for three days, your mouth falls open, and you barf, while I'll keep taking my tiny little hits and saving a lot of money.


Have you given any thought to the fact that your age might be the difference and not necessarily (or at least not exclusively) the pot?  When I was 19 I did LSD and mushrooms, I know for a fact that at 34 that would be a BAD idea.  I could not handle it these days, I'm sure of this.  I know it's sort of apples and oranges but your body has changed.

/with you on the tiny hits though
//too much gives me bad side effects
///I also like saving money
 
2014-08-06 01:32:38 PM

Dinki: hardinparamedic: Well, I'm settled. Someone who is deliberately misstating and lying about the published research and linking to an individual's blog seems more trustworthy than the JAMA.

Really, and what lie did I state about the JAMA study? Was it not funded by the French InterMinisterial Mission for the Fight Against Drugs and Addiction and the French Drug Agency ? Did the auor of the JAMA report not state "However, despite poor exhaustiveness, it has already been shown that the spontaneous reporting (as, for example, in thefield of pharmacovigilance) is the cornerstone to identify signals. In the context of our study, the increasing reporting of cardiovascular complications related to cannabis, and their extreme seriousness (with a death rate of 25.6%) could indicate cannabis as a possible risk factor for cardiovascular disease in young adults, in line with previous findings."

Please, Show me where I lied.... or STFU.


The word 'cornerstone' is a weasel word. Until they can not use those, that study plus 15 years of unbeaten and totally unchallenged cannabis research by me is BULLshiat AND SUSPECT.

Come back when you can identify reliable sources.
 
2014-08-06 01:35:26 PM
Once I smoked so much pot, I turned into a giant lizard.

/I got better
 
2014-08-06 01:37:40 PM

mooseyfate: Derailed, not detailed. Stupid smart phone.


Ah. I thought you meant a really clean train.

So clean that its Cd was so low and it didn't make any noise, so the guy got hit by it since he didn't hear it coming.
 
2014-08-06 01:38:44 PM

F42: The man had occasionally used cannabis, the researchers wrote. He had also abused alcohol and drugs, such as amphetamines and cocaine until about two years before his death, they wrote. "After exclusion of other causes of death, we assume that the young men died from cardiovascular complications evoked by smoking cannabis," the researchers wrote.

Oh yeah, the guy smoked meth and crack, but POT made his heart asplode.

That's some credible propaganda, Lou.


This cant be stressed enough. Ignore the drug that makes your heart go THUMPTHUMPTHUMPTHUMPTHUMP, and go straight for the pot excuse. Nice logic there.
 
2014-08-06 01:41:11 PM
Funny thing about all the people touting these anecdotal reports of Pots harmful effects. If you talk about pots beneficial effects, they will scream "But you don't know what is in that weed you bought on the street!! You don't know the percentage of THC or CBD or if it has been mixed with other more dangerous substances!!" Yet they will point to someones past use of pot as if it alone must be the reason for that persons malady.
 
2014-08-06 01:44:22 PM

italie: Ignore the drug that makes your heart go THUMPTHUMPTHUMPTHUMPTHUMP,


You're obviously not paying attention to the thread, otherwise you'd have noted my responses to pot pulled form my personal written journal.

So shut the hell up.
 
2014-08-06 01:51:14 PM

hardinparamedic: Dinki: The very first ' scientific literature' you link is a well debunked french study that tried to link cannabis use to heart attacks and even death. Some interesting facts about that french study- Research was funded by the French InterMinisterial Mission for the Fight Against Drugs and Addiction and the French Drug Agency. also, part of the authors' conclusion is that a death rate of 25.6% exists in cases of cardiovascular complications related to cannabis. If those aren't warning signs about the legitimacy of the report you are fooling yourself.

Well, I'm settled. Someone who is deliberately misstating and lying about the published research and linking to an individual's blog seems more trustworthy than the JAMA.

You do realize that outright lying about something like smoking - well, anything - having a major cardiovascular risk factor doesn't help your cause, right? It actually gives anti-decriminlization and anti-legalization people ammunition to use against you?

mooseyfate: TFA was actually filled with facts that point away from weed as a killer plant. The headline of said article didn't. But yet that hasn't stopped any anti-pot people from taking away exactly what they wanted to from the article. I wonder why that is.

Do you know what shuts that down?

Pointing out the actual implications of the case study, and it's applications. The actual case studies presented in the study are towards marijuana use as a contributory cause in cardiovascular events. Not that pot kills.


No arguments here. And might I also add a "Yeah, you right!".
 
2014-08-06 01:53:13 PM

Dinki: Funny thing about all the people touting these anecdotal reports of Pots harmful effects. If you talk about pots beneficial effects, they will scream "But you don't know what is in that weed you bought on the street!! You don't know the percentage of THC or CBD or if it has been mixed with other more dangerous substances!!" Yet they will point to someones past use of pot as if it alone must be the reason for that persons malady.


So smoking pot doesn't increase cardiovascular risk factor? Despite contradictory evidence published in high impact journals? Or the past 70 years of knowledge?

See, it's things like this that don't help. This is why people accuse you of lying.

It has nothing to do with THC or CBD content. It has to do with the fact you're inhaling products of combustion, tar, and mechanical\chemical irritants. And the fact that many people who smoke also concurrently smoke tobacco doesn't help.
 
2014-08-06 01:54:05 PM
I heard about this kid that smoked pot, and the pot made him think he was a bird, so he jumped out a window and he died.
 
2014-08-06 02:01:06 PM

hardinparamedic: Despite contradictory evidence published in high impact journals?


Just to be fair, a few of those 'high impact' journal shave been proven to be bullshiat.

So until several double-blind studies are performed, you can kiss your sources good-bye.
 
2014-08-06 02:04:28 PM

khyberkitsune: hardinparamedic: Despite contradictory evidence published in high impact journals?

Just to be fair, a few of those 'high impact' journal shave been proven to be bullshiat.

So until several double-blind studies are performed, you can kiss your sources good-bye.



Just to be counter-fair, there have been decades of controlled studies which demonstrate massive cardiovascular risk between smokers and non, that have held up quite well despite well funded attempts to prove otherwise.

It's not at all a leap to believe that the magical presence of cannabinoids makes that suddenly different.

Epidemiological studies don't work like you seem to think they do.
 
2014-08-06 02:05:59 PM

hardinparamedic: So smoking pot doesn't increase cardiovascular risk factor?


You want to show me where I ever said that? try looking up the thread a bit-

Dinki: nekom: I'm willing to accept that marijuana contributed to heart attacks.  But that same heart attack was just a climb of a flight of stairs away.

yep, this. There are million substances and activities that can increase heart rate. There is no evidence that Pot increases your heart rate any more than a lot of those.


And I completely agree that smoking pot is probably the worst way to ingest it. Smoking anything is bad for you. The problem I have with these reports (which you characterize as "The actual case studies presented in the study are towards marijuana use as a contributory cause in cardiovascular events. Not that pot kills. " When in fact, the people paying for most of these studies are looking for exactly that kind of justification, looking for anything they can take out of the report and scream "LOOK- WE TOLD YOU POT WOULD KILL YOU" Maybe the scientists doing the studies have that same view, maybe they are simply naive. We don't know, and because of this, the rest of us need to parse the studies and extract what the science really says. And scientists stating things like a 25.6% death rate in the body of their report do not lend to rational discussion.
 
2014-08-06 02:06:50 PM

hardinparamedic: Just to be counter-fair, there have been decades of controlled studies which demonstrate massive cardiovascular risk between smokers and non, that have held up quite well despite well funded attempts to prove otherwise.


Yea, tobacco. Now take into account the other mitigating factors such a genetics. Oh, you don't have that knowledge, and that isn't listed in those studies.

False science without testing every avenue. Gimme a break. Versus 10K+ years of known usage....
 
2014-08-06 02:09:28 PM

Dinki: maybe they are simply naive


Given the drop in educational standards in the 90s, this is the exact reasoning, behind being easily-bribed by third-parties outside of the scope of the study.

Or have we forgotten all the fake ass journals disguised as ads this past decade?

Hardin is a paramedic. Not a licensed doctor, not a licensed doctoral assistant. Until he gets a medical doctorate (to beat my MS) he's not talking about anything from any position but from that of a lowly EMT.
 
2014-08-06 02:09:28 PM

hardinparamedic: khyberkitsune: hardinparamedic: Despite contradictory evidence published in high impact journals?

Just to be fair, a few of those 'high impact' journal shave been proven to be bullshiat.

So until several double-blind studies are performed, you can kiss your sources good-bye.


Just to be counter-fair, there have been decades of controlled studies which demonstrate massive cardiovascular risk between smokers and non, that have held up quite well despite well funded attempts to prove otherwise.

It's not at all a leap to believe that the magical presence of cannabinoids makes that suddenly different.

Epidemiological studies don't work like you seem to think they do.


We already have a partial solution.
uploads.medicaljane.com
 
2014-08-06 02:12:22 PM

hardinparamedic: Just to be counter-fair, there have been decades of controlled studies which demonstrate massive cardiovascular risk between smokers and non, that have held up quite well despite well funded attempts to prove otherwise.


Yea, SMOKING. How many different avenues are there for cannabis ingestion? Quite a few, from IV tinctures in a lipid-saline solution to vaporization.

Quit grasping at straws. You give me the feeling you're the idiot paramedic that thought it'd be a good idea to give me (an opiate-allergic person with a farking wrist band) morphine while I'm sitting around crushed by a truck, half-dead.
 
Displayed 50 of 218 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report