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.

(Medical News Today)   New study shows that alcohol rots your brain, weed does not. Alcoholic Puritans everywhere inconsolable   ( medicalnewstoday.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Brain, marijuana, Neuron, white matter, Nervous system, marijuana legalization, alcohol, Cerebellum  
•       •       •

2874 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2018 at 9:55 PM (22 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-02-14 12:33:37 AM  

Hyjamon: cops find weed in your fridge; they seize your house, car, kids, the fridge, the vicoden and the beer.


You put the drama in drama-queen.  Most states recognize medical marijuana.   And many states had decriminalized personal possession offences years ago.  You pay a fine.  In many other states even where it's still a misdemeanor (crime) it's like $500 fine and 30 days in jail, if less than 28 grams.  Yes, if you had 5 lbs, and are known as the neighborhood dealer you will get more.
 
2018-02-14 01:56:26 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Hyjamon: cops find weed in your fridge; they seize your house, car, kids, the fridge, the vicoden and the beer.

You put the drama in drama-queen.  Most states recognize medical marijuana.   And many states had decriminalized personal possession offences years ago.  You pay a fine.  In many other states even where it's still a misdemeanor (crime) it's like $500 fine and 30 days in jail, if less than 28 grams.  Yes, if you had 5 lbs, and are known as the neighborhood dealer you will get more.


Yes, and by all means, let us ignore the realworld consequences of a marijuana arrest on a person's life-- you know, the serious curtailment of civil rights, loss of custody of your children, inability to find work, loss of student loans, loss of benefits, civil forfeiture, etc.  And let us further ignore the people who have lost their lives in drug raids-- some of whom were entirely innocent of any crime.  There are still a number of states in which possession of small amounts is still a felony.

Nothing to be concerned about, really.

Apparently you apologists for Prohibition II have no shame at all.  If I had a magic button that would get you all arrested for the crime you find so inconsequential, I would push it.  Maybe you might then acquire the ability to feel a little compassion for people unjustly damaged by this stupid and destructive war.

Ah, who am I kidding?  Only morons, criminals, and sociopaths still support the war.  People like that are unlikely to change.
 
2018-02-14 02:04:03 AM  

abhorrent1: knobmaker: abhorrent1: So small studies are fine as long as you agree with their opinion? Got it.

Wow, that's an Olympic-level point missing.  This was a large study.  The famous study that purported to show brain damage in adolescents had 25 potheads and 18 controls.

Bless your heart.

1000 is large?

Bless your heart.


You don't math so good, do you?  Well, a hint.  1000 is larger than 43.  Surprising, I know.  It would certainly take a supernaturally keen intellect to notice that, so you're excused.
 
2018-02-14 02:34:30 AM  

knobmaker: Apparently you apologists for Prohibition II have no shame at all.


Long time mj smoker here.  Live in Boulder County, CO.   Posted plenty on fark that alcohol is way more harmful and addictive than mj, in many threads (because it is).     I just think rational conversation is better than emotional spew.  I also get tired of the knee jerk reactionary attitude that there can be not a single negative word spoken about marijuana, ever, or else you are hitler and HATE marijuana.  No, lol.  That's really stupid.  :)  Look at it this way, I've done a lot of beer drinking in my years.  If I see a study that says alcohol is bad for my liver or this or that.  I say, that seems about right, so?  Not "OMG you hate beer!  You right wing NAZI!!!  WHAAAAAARGARBL!"   <-- that severely ignorant irrational person does not help our cause in my opinion.  Bye.  :)
 
2018-02-14 06:11:03 AM  
Counterpoint (white matter):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti​c​les/PMC4925620/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases​/​2015/11/151127102333.htm

Sounds to me as if we have a difference of opinion among scientists about whether weed use affects this part of the brain.

I don't think anyone would dispute the idea that abusing alcohol can cause brain damage.
 
2018-02-14 07:09:35 AM  

WilderKWight: Alright, chuckleheads... Smoking ANYTHING is damaging to your lungs, whatever the effect on the brain is. Edibles? Oils? Those are fine. But there is no way to inhale smoke that is "safe" for the human body... So the potheads can just stop gloating and acting like weed is completely harmless. It's harmless (as far as we know) as long as you don't partake of by doing something stupid like setting it on fire and breathing in the fumes, and since that's how most of the burnouts partake of it, they lose all high ground for it being "safer" than alcohol.

That said, there's no way to drink enough alcohol to get drunk without also damaging yourself, and with regular use, permanent damage is inevitable.

So as someone who doesn't get high, and who doesn't get drunk, let me tell both sides of this "which is safer for you?" debate that you're both damaging your bodies for the sake of a momentary thrill, and arguing about which is "safer" is idiotic. Whether or not you damage yourself is your business, and I couldn't care less if you're willing to destroy your lungs, liver, or brain for the sake of a high, but please stop pretending that either of those vices is superior to the other.


Name checks-out:

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-14 08:03:05 AM  

fusillade762: I'm sure the Cannabevetses will be along any minute to tell us why this is wrong and that pot smokers are all murderous psychopaths.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-14 08:46:54 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I don't do either one for my health, but can say my alcohol consumption has dropped dramatically since 1/1/18. And today's weed is so much stronger than when I was a regular smoker (and, let's be honest, my tolerance is practically nil these days), I rarely take more than three hits in a day. So, it's probably a net positive in my case.


Starting working at a Distillery made my drinking go down by a lot.  Turns out when you get free, good, bourbon on a regular basis, your desire to consume other booze reduces, and the thought of spending money on non-free booze becomes intolerable.
 
2018-02-14 08:47:59 AM  

Sgygus: Alcohol is a poison.  Cannabinoids are not.  Do the math.


img.fark.netView Full Size


/Math is actually pretty fun on weed
 
2018-02-14 09:03:57 AM  

tirob: Counterpoint (white matter):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic​les/PMC4925620/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/​2015/11/151127102333.htm

Sounds to me as if we have a difference of opinion among scientists about whether weed use affects this part of the brain.

I don't think anyone would dispute the idea that abusing alcohol can cause brain damage.


THERE YOU ARE!!!
 
2018-02-14 09:40:59 AM  

tirob: Counterpoint (white matter):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic​les/PMC4925620/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/​2015/11/151127102333.htm

Sounds to me as if we have a difference of opinion among scientists about whether weed use affects this part of the brain.



The findings of a study aren't really an "opinion", exactly.  More like an analytic result.  But yeah, as noted in your link, there is considerable existing evidence for a negative effect on white matter.  It's an interesting open question for more study, either way.  The people who think this one review of old medical records is 'definitive' or unquestionable and final, of course, are breathtakingly ignorant, as usual.  That's pretty much inarguable fact.  Oddly, many of them are quite smug and about their ignorance too, which is always good for a chuckle.  It's weird certain people thinks they actually have some sort of scientific high ground, when they are so totally clueless.
 
2018-02-14 10:23:34 AM  
media0.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2018-02-14 11:08:15 AM  

AfroSpatula: WilderKWight: Alright, chuckleheads... Smoking ANYTHING is damaging to your lungs, whatever the effect on the brain is. Edibles? Oils? Those are fine. But there is no way to inhale smoke that is "safe" for the human body... So the potheads can just stop gloating and acting like weed is completely harmless. It's harmless (as far as we know) as long as you don't partake of by doing something stupid like setting it on fire and breathing in the fumes, and since that's how most of the burnouts partake of it, they lose all high ground for it being "safer" than alcohol.

That said, there's no way to drink enough alcohol to get drunk without also damaging yourself, and with regular use, permanent damage is inevitable.

So as someone who doesn't get high, and who doesn't get drunk, let me tell both sides of this "which is safer for you?" debate that you're both damaging your bodies for the sake of a momentary thrill, and arguing about which is "safer" is idiotic. Whether or not you damage yourself is your business, and I couldn't care less if you're willing to destroy your lungs, liver, or brain for the sake of a high, but please stop pretending that either of those vices is superior to the other.

I wanna get this off my mind. I have been smoking hash oil, through a bong, with a blowtorch and a titanium nail. I have done so multiple times per day for four years. I was smoking cigarettes, and for a good couple months I decided to binge-drink. That went fine. So I'm trying to establish that I have gotten to experience the big three drugs: alcohol, cannabis, tobacco. Most commonly used drugs in the world. I self-medicate because health care is too expensive in Missouri. Of all three cannabis is the best. Not just of the big three: cannabis is the best drug out of all of them. I've gotten hold of LSD, DMT, MDMA, psilocybin, opioids, salvia, DXM, cocaine, Benadryl and Dramamine. Cannabis is better than all of them. Nicotine is weaker and give you headaches that it gives you (lik ...



The Perfect High
Shel Silverstein

There once was a boy named Gimmesome Roy. He was nothing like me or you.
'Cause laying back and getting high was all he cared to do.
As a kid, he sat in the cellar, sniffing airplane glue.
And then he smoked bananas -- which was then the thing to do.
He tried aspirin in Coca-Cola, breathed helium on the sly,
And his life was just one endless search to find that perfect high.
But grass just made him want to lay back and eat chocolate-chip pizza all night,
And the great things he wrote while he was stoned looked like shiat in the morning light.
And speed just made him rap all day, reds just laid him back,
And Cocaine Rose was sweet to his nose, but the price nearly broke his back.
He tried PCP and THC, but they didn't quite do the trick,
And poppers nearly blew his heart and mushrooms made him sick.
Acid made him see the light, but he couldn't remember it long.
And hashish was just a little too weak, and smack was a lot too strong,
And Quaaludes made him stumble, and booze just made him cry,
Till he heard of a cat named Baba Fats who knew of the perfect high.

Now, Baba Fats was a hermit cat who lived up in Nepal,
High on a craggy mountaintop, up a sheer and icy wall.
"But hell," says Roy, "I'm a healthy boy, and I'll crawl or climb or fly,
But I'll find that guru who'll give me the clue as to what's the perfect high."
So out and off goes Gimmesome Roy to the land that knows no time,
Up a trail no man could conquer to a cliff no man could climb.
For fourteen years he tries that cliff, then back down again he slides
Then sits -- and cries -- and climbs again, pursuing the perfect high.
He's grinding his teeth, he's coughing blood, he's aching and shaking and weak,
As starving and sore and bleeding and tore, he reaches the mountain peak.
And his eyes blink red like a snow-blind wolf, and he snarls the snarl of a rat,
As there in perfect repose and wearing no clothes -- sits the godlike Baba Fats.

"What's happening, Fats?" says Roy with joy, "I've come to state my biz.
I hear you're hip to the perfect trip. Please tell me what it is.
For you can see," says Roy to he, "that I'm about to die,
So for my last ride, Fats, how can I achieve the perfect high?"
"Well, dog my cats!" says Baba Fats. "here's one more burnt-out soul,
Who's looking for some alchemist to turn his trip to gold.
But you won't find it in no dealer's stash, or on no druggist's shelf.
Son, if you would seek the perfect high -- find it in yourself."

"Why, you jive motherfarker!" screamed Gimmesome Roy, "I've climbed through rain and sleet,
I've lost three fingers off my hands and four toes off my feet!
I've braved the lair of the polar bear and tasted the maggot's kiss.
Now, you tell me the high is in myself. What kind of shiat is this?
My ears 'fore they froze off," says Roy, "had heard all kind of crap,
But I didn't climb for fourteen years to listen to that sophomore rap.
And I didn't crawl up here to hear that the high is on the natch,
So you tell me where the real stuff is or I'll kill your guru ass!"

"Ok, OK," says Baba Fats, "you're forcing it out of me.
There is a land beyond the sun that's known as Zaboli.
A wretched land of stone and sand where snakes and buzzards scream,
And in this devil's garden blooms the mystic Tzu-Tzu tree.
And every ten years it blooms one flower as white as the Key West sky,
And he who eats of the Tzu-Tzu flower will know the perfect high.
For the rush comes on like a tidal wave and it hits like the blazing sun.
And the high, it lasts a lifetime and the down don't ever come.
But the Zaboli land is ruled by a giant who stands twelve cubits high.
With eyes of red in his hundred heads, he waits for the passers-by.
And you must slay the red-eyed giant, and swim the River of Slime,
Where the mucous beasts, they wait to feast on those who journey by.
And if you survive the giant and the beasts and swim that slimy sea,
There's a blood-drinking witch who sharpens her teeth as she guards that Tzu-Tzu tree."
"To hell with your witches and giants," laughs Roy. "To hell with the beasts of the sea.
As long as the Tzu-Tzu flower blooms, some hope still blooms for me."
And with tears of joy in his snow-blind eye, Roy hands the guru a five,
Then back down the icy mountain he crawls, pursuing that perfect high.

"Well, that is that," says Baba Fats, sitting back down on his stone,
Facing another thousand years of talking to God alone.
"It seems, Lord", says Fats, "it's always the same, old men or bright-eyed youth,
It's always easier to sell them some shiat than it is to give them the truth."
 
2018-02-14 11:08:17 AM  
I'm in California. If I could get the MaryJane in a form that isn't brownies or otherwise high calorie I'd go for it. I won't smoke it as that just messes up the house with fumes and other crud.
 
2018-02-14 11:12:38 AM  

WilderKWight: Alright, chuckleheads... Smoking ANYTHING is damaging to your lungs, whatever the effect on the brain is. Edibles? Oils? Those are fine. But there is no way to inhale smoke that is "safe" for the human body... So the potheads can just stop gloating and acting like weed is completely harmless. It's harmless (as far as we know) as long as you don't partake of by doing something stupid like setting it on fire and breathing in the fumes, and since that's how most of the burnouts partake of it, they lose all high ground for it being "safer" than alcohol.

That said, there's no way to drink enough alcohol to get drunk without also damaging yourself, and with regular use, permanent damage is inevitable.

So as someone who doesn't get high, and who doesn't get drunk, let me tell both sides of this "which is safer for you?" debate that you're both damaging your bodies for the sake of a momentary thrill, and arguing about which is "safer" is idiotic. Whether or not you damage yourself is your business, and I couldn't care less if you're willing to destroy your lungs, liver, or brain for the sake of a high, but please stop pretending that either of those vices is superior to the other.


"I think of going to the Grave without having a Psychedelic Experience is like going to the Grave without ever having Sex. It means that you never Figured out what it is all about."
images.vice.comView Full Size
 
2018-02-14 11:51:21 AM  

WilderKWight: Alright, chuckleheads... Smoking ANYTHING is damaging to your lungs, whatever the effect on the brain is. Edibles? Oils? Those are fine. But there is no way to inhale smoke that is "safe" for the human body... So the potheads can just stop gloating and acting like weed is completely harmless. It's harmless (as far as we know) as long as you don't partake of by doing something stupid like setting it on fire and breathing in the fumes, and since that's how most of the burnouts partake of it, they lose all high ground for it being "safer" than alcohol.

That said, there's no way to drink enough alcohol to get drunk without also damaging yourself, and with regular use, permanent damage is inevitable.

So as someone who doesn't get high, and who doesn't get drunk, let me tell both sides of this "which is safer for you?" debate that you're both damaging your bodies for the sake of a momentary thrill, and arguing about which is "safer" is idiotic. Whether or not you damage yourself is your business, and I couldn't care less if you're willing to destroy your lungs, liver, or brain for the sake of a high, but please stop pretending that either of those vices is superior to the other.


Science says, "You're full of shiat."

 Long-term exposure to cannabis smoke is not associated with significant adverse effects on pulmonary function, according to clinical data published in the journal Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases.

https://norml.org/news/2018/02/01/stu​d​y-marijuana-smoke-exposure-not-linked-​to-poor-lung-health?link_id=1&can_id=a​cb8a74262de18433cf73df7357f1d2c&source​=email-norml-news-of-the-week-212018-2​&email_referrer=email_295468&email_sub​ject=norml-news-of-the-week-212018
 
2018-02-14 12:03:49 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: knobmaker: Apparently you apologists for Prohibition II have no shame at all.

Long time mj smoker here.  Live in Boulder County, CO.   Posted plenty on fark that alcohol is way more harmful and addictive than mj, in many threads (because it is).     I just think rational conversation is better than emotional spew.  I also get tired of the knee jerk reactionary attitude that there can be not a single negative word spoken about marijuana, ever, or else you are hitler and HATE marijuana.  No, lol.  That's really stupid.  :)  Look at it this way, I've done a lot of beer drinking in my years.  If I see a study that says alcohol is bad for my liver or this or that.  I say, that seems about right, so?  Not "OMG you hate beer!  You right wing NAZI!!!  WHAAAAAARGARBL!"   <-- that severely ignorant irrational person does not help our cause in my opinion.  Bye.  :)


Well, the fact that you live in Boulder probably explains why you appear to have no grasp of the fact that in many other places in this country, a marijuana arrest can be life-altering.  It does no one any good to pretend that these places do not exist.

You claimed that "most states" have medical marijuana.  I live in two of those states, Florida and New York.  In both states, you are very unlikely to be able to get a medical card unless you are literally dying.  Even if you are dying, you are not allowed to choose any form of smokable cannabis. Nor are you allowed to grow your own.

You also claimed that in most places, simple possession of small amounts was a misdemeanor.  There are still states where you can be charged with a felony for personal use amounts, and many states where growing any amount is a felony  Even in some states that regard such possession as a misdemeanor, you can go to jail for a substantial time.  In Montana, for example, possession of personal amounts less than an ounce can bring a misdemeanor sentence of three years.

You responded with a load of smarmy condescension to a person who claimed a number of dire consequences if one is found with weed instead of booze.  Those consequences are absolutely real in many areas.  People are still going to jail, losing their lives, losing their possessions, losing their children and all the other horrors associated with the drug war.

It is not "irrational" to point out reality.
 
2018-02-14 12:03:59 PM  

cloudofdust: WilderKWight: Alright, chuckleheads... Smoking ANYTHING is damaging to your lungs, whatever the effect on the brain is. Edibles? Oils? Those are fine. But there is no way to inhale smoke that is "safe" for the human body... So the potheads can just stop gloating and acting like weed is completely harmless. It's harmless (as far as we know) as long as you don't partake of by doing something stupid like setting it on fire and breathing in the fumes, and since that's how most of the burnouts partake of it, they lose all high ground for it being "safer" than alcohol.

That said, there's no way to drink enough alcohol to get drunk without also damaging yourself, and with regular use, permanent damage is inevitable.

So as someone who doesn't get high, and who doesn't get drunk, let me tell both sides of this "which is safer for you?" debate that you're both damaging your bodies for the sake of a momentary thrill, and arguing about which is "safer" is idiotic. Whether or not you damage yourself is your business, and I couldn't care less if you're willing to destroy your lungs, liver, or brain for the sake of a high, but please stop pretending that either of those vices is superior to the other.

Science says, "You're full of shiat."

 Long-term exposure to cannabis smoke is not associated with significant adverse effects on pulmonary function, according to clinical data published in the journal Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases.

https://norml.org/news/2018/02/01/stud​y-marijuana-smoke-exposure-not-linked-​to-poor-lung-health?link_id=1&can_id=a​cb8a74262de18433cf73df7357f1d2c&source​=email-norml-news-of-the-week-212018-2​&email_referrer=email_295468&email_sub​ject=norml-news-of-the-week-212018


More science says you're also full of shiat. See, I can cherry pick too.

http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factshee​t​s/respiratoryeffects.htm
 
2018-02-14 12:21:59 PM  

farker99: I'm in California. If I could get the MaryJane in a form that isn't brownies or otherwise high calorie I'd go for it. I won't smoke it as that just messes up the house with fumes and other crud.


You can get tinctures or sublingual lozenges.  Go down to the nearest dispensary.  They'll fix you up.

abhorrent1: More science says you're also full of shiat. See, I can cherry pick too.

http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheet​s/respiratoryeffects.htm


You don't even read your own links, do you?

"However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction."

"On the other hand, several well-designed and large-scale studies, including one in Washington State (Rosenblatt et al, 2004), have failed to find any increased risk of lung or upper airway cancer in people who have smoked marijuana"

That's just pathetic, dude.
 
2018-02-14 12:33:50 PM  

abhorrent1: cloudofdust: WilderKWight: Alright, chuckleheads... Smoking ANYTHING is damaging to your lungs, whatever the effect on the brain is. Edibles? Oils? Those are fine. But there is no way to inhale smoke that is "safe" for the human body... So the potheads can just stop gloating and acting like weed is completely harmless. It's harmless (as far as we know) as long as you don't partake of by doing something stupid like setting it on fire and breathing in the fumes, and since that's how most of the burnouts partake of it, they lose all high ground for it being "safer" than alcohol.

That said, there's no way to drink enough alcohol to get drunk without also damaging yourself, and with regular use, permanent damage is inevitable.

So as someone who doesn't get high, and who doesn't get drunk, let me tell both sides of this "which is safer for you?" debate that you're both damaging your bodies for the sake of a momentary thrill, and arguing about which is "safer" is idiotic. Whether or not you damage yourself is your business, and I couldn't care less if you're willing to destroy your lungs, liver, or brain for the sake of a high, but please stop pretending that either of those vices is superior to the other.

Science says, "You're full of shiat."

 Long-term exposure to cannabis smoke is not associated with significant adverse effects on pulmonary function, according to clinical data published in the journal Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases.

https://norml.org/news/2018/02/01/stud​y-marijuana-smoke-exposure-not-linked-​to-poor-lung-health?link_id=1&can_id=a​cb8a74262de18433cf73df7357f1d2c&source​=email-norml-news-of-the-week-212018-2​&email_referrer=email_295468&email_sub​ject=norml-news-of-the-week-212018

More science says you're also full of shiat. See, I can cherry pick too.

http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheet​s/respiratoryeffects.htm


You should pick your cherries better. Or read your own link:

"On the other hand, several well-designed and large-scale studies, including one in Washington State (Rosenblatt et al, 2004), have failed to find any increased risk of lung or upper airway cancer in people who have smoked marijuana (Mehra et al, 2006; Tashkin, 2013), "

The evidence is out there so let's stop the pearl-clutching about pot smoking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/​c​ontent/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501​729.html
https://harmreductionjournal.biomedce​n​tral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-7517-2-​21
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1​7​035389
 
2018-02-14 12:33:52 PM  

knobmaker: farker99: I'm in California. If I could get the MaryJane in a form that isn't brownies or otherwise high calorie I'd go for it. I won't smoke it as that just messes up the house with fumes and other crud.

You can get tinctures or sublingual lozenges.  Go down to the nearest dispensary.  They'll fix you up.

abhorrent1: More science says you're also full of shiat. See, I can cherry pick too.

http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheet​s/respiratoryeffects.htm

You don't even read your own links, do you?

"However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction."

"On the other hand, several well-designed and large-scale studies, including one in Washington State (Rosenblatt et al, 2004), have failed to find any increased risk of lung or upper airway cancer in people who have smoked marijuana"

That's just pathetic, dude.


Cherry picking lines again? okay

A 2011 systematic review of the research concluded that long-term marijuana smoking is associated with an increased risk of some respiratory problems

Marijuana smoke contains about 50% more benzopyrene and nearly 75% more benzanthracene, both known carcinogens, than a comparable quantity of unfiltered tobacco smoke

Based on the current scientific research, there is no definitively proven "safe" way of inhaling marijuana (smoke or vapor).

Inhaling marijuana smoke in the long-term is likely to result in damage to the respiratory tract


But I know. use of words like "Likely"  and "increased risk" to you means that it's perfectly safe.
 
2018-02-14 01:19:33 PM  

abhorrent1: Cherry picking lines again? okay

A 2011 systematic review of the research concluded that long-term marijuana smoking is associated with an increased risk of some respiratory problems


From the same cite, and much more specific: "However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction."

Marijuana smoke contains about 50% more benzopyrene and nearly 75% more benzanthracene, both known carcinogens, than a comparable quantity of unfiltered tobacco smoke

From the same cite, and much more specific: "However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction."

Based on the current scientific research, there is no definitively proven "safe" way of inhaling marijuana (smoke or vapor).

From the same cite, and much more specific: "However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction."

Inhaling marijuana smoke in the long-term is likely to result in damage to the respiratory tract

From the same cite, and much more specific: "However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction."

But I know. use of words like "Likely" and "increased risk" to you means that it's perfectly safe.

From the same cite, and much more specific: "However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction."

I'm starting to feel sorry for you.  That can't be good.
 
2018-02-14 01:24:28 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: The people who think this one review of old medical records is 'definitive' or unquestionable and final, of course, are breathtakingly ignorant, as usual.


What I am *not* seeing on this thread when it comes to this study are the smorgasbord of complaints that I get on these threads when I post a study in which it is posited that abusing weed causes or exacerbates one or another malady--"correlation doesn't equal causation," "reefer madness," "not peer-reviewed," "sample is too small," "not double-blind," "funded by the NIDA," and on and on.

As another poster here pointed out, even the people who composed the study acknowledge the existence of other studies that link weed use to brain damage.  I concur with you that we're still dealing with an open question here.
 
2018-02-14 01:25:24 PM  

knobmaker: It is not "irrational" to point out reality.


Exactly.  He posted an appeal to emotion .  I posted facts.  It doesn't surprise me at all which one you are whining about.   :)

knobmaker: You don't math so good, do you?  Well, a hint.  1000 is larger than 43.  Surprising, I know.  It would certainly take a supernaturally keen intellect to notice that, so you're excused.


I don't agree with ab's point of view (sometimes his posts are funny though, "weed-noggin" made me laugh), but....he didn't bring up the study of 43 people, you did.  You mentioned it earlier, and he made no comment on it.  He didn't say if it was large or small.  And you insult him several timers while confused, incoherent and wrong.

Considering that you started out by insulting someone else for paraphrasing "rots your brain".  As if "rots your brain" is an exacting scientific term. :D  I haven't seen you make a single intellectually honest or even coherent post yet.
 
2018-02-14 01:27:16 PM  

knobmaker: abhorrent1: Cherry picking lines again? okay

A 2011 systematic review of the research concluded that long-term marijuana smoking is associated with an increased risk of some respiratory problems

From the same cite, and much more specific: "However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction."

Marijuana smoke contains about 50% more benzopyrene and nearly 75% more benzanthracene, both known carcinogens, than a comparable quantity of unfiltered tobacco smoke

From the same cite, and much more specific: "However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction."

Based on the current scientific research, there is no definitively proven "safe" way of inhaling marijuana (smoke or vapor).

From the same cite, and much more specific: "However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction."

Inhaling marijuana smoke in the long-term is likely to result in damage to the respiratory tract

From the same cite, and much more specific: "However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction."

But I know. use of words like "Likely" and "increased risk" to you means that it's perfectly safe.

From the same cite, and much more specific: "However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction."

I'm starting to feel sorry for you.  That can't be good.


Okay I get it.
Pot is 100% healthy. Actually it even makes you more healthy than you were before you smoked it and nothing is going to tell you differently.

It's absoloutly impossible for you to admit that just maybe it has some health effects that aren't positive. I get it.
 
2018-02-14 01:42:56 PM  

tirob: What I am *not* seeing on this thread when it comes to this study are the smorgasbord of complaints that I get on these threads when I post a study in which it is posited that abusing weed causes or exacerbates one or another malady--"correlation doesn't equal causation," "reefer madness," "not peer-reviewed," "sample is too small," "not double-blind," "funded by the NIDA," and on and on


Surprise.

"correlation doesn't equal causation,"
lol.  This has to be the single most misunderstood and misused phrase by pseudo-scientific pseudo-intellectuals ever in history.  Finding correlations is a highly useful observation in many fields.  If we know that x and y are highly correlated, we are interested in y and x is easy to test for, that is extremely useful.   Direction of causation is often of secondary concern.  It always makes me laugh when some idiot poseur dismisses a scientific finding using that phrase. It's like they hung a neon sign on themselves saying "I'm a moron".
 
2018-02-14 02:08:25 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: "correlation doesn't equal causation,"
lol.  This has to be the single most misunderstood and misused phrase by pseudo-scientific pseudo-intellectuals ever in history.  Finding correlations is a highly useful observation in many fields.  If we know that x and y are highly correlated, we are interested in y and x is easy to test for, that is extremely useful.   Direction of causation is often of secondary concern.  It always makes me laugh when some idiot poseur dismisses a scientific finding using that phrase. It's like they hung a neon sign on themselves saying "I'm a moron".


So you'd say it was a sufficient (but not necessary) condition for being a moron?
 
2018-02-14 02:36:24 PM  

abhorrent1: knobmaker: abhorrent1: Cherry picking lines again? okay

A 2011 systematic review of the research concluded that long-term marijuana smoking is associated with an increased risk of some respiratory problems

From the same cite, and much more specific: "However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction."

Marijuana smoke contains about 50% more benzopyrene and nearly 75% more benzanthracene, both known carcinogens, than a comparable quantity of unfiltered tobacco smoke

From the same cite, and much more specific: "However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction."

Based on the current scientific research, there is no definitively proven "safe" way of inhaling marijuana (smoke or vapor).

From the same cite, and much more specific: "However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction."

Inhaling marijuana smoke in the long-term is likely to result in damage to the respiratory tract

From the same cite, and much more specific: "However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction."

But I know. use of words like "Likely" and "increased risk" to you means that it's perfectly safe.

From the same cite, and much more specific: "However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction."

I'm starting to feel sorry for you.  That can't be good.

Okay I get it.
Pot is 100% healthy. Actually it even makes you more healthy than you were before you smoked it and nothing is going to tell you differently.

It's absoloutly impossible for you to admit that just maybe it has some health effects that aren't positive. I get it.


"no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction" != "Pot is 100% healthy"

But hyperbole is fun, isn't it?
 
2018-02-14 02:44:58 PM  

GanjSmokr: "no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction" != "Pot is 100% healthy"

But hyperbole is fun, isn't it?


Right. It's not at all because this is the same reaction you guys have for every pot thread that might suggest that it could be in some way harmful.
 
2018-02-14 02:48:05 PM  

abhorrent1: GanjSmokr: "no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction" != "Pot is 100% healthy"

But hyperbole is fun, isn't it?

Right. It's not at all because this is the same reaction you guys have for every pot thread that might suggest that it could be in some way harmful.


[citation needed]

I don't recall ever seeing anyone here saying that pot is 100% healthy, but I could have missed it.  Maybe you can provide a link?
 
2018-02-14 02:54:22 PM  
Y'know, a few of you may have missed it, but a year or two ago, Gupta, who was USA Today's medical expert, did a front page apology for his decades-long opposition to weed.

It seems this MD expert, who'd been fulminating about the Evils of Weed for a long, long time, had *just* read the 1945 LaGuardia Study.  I read that when I was, on, 17 or 18. It's in the library.....
 
2018-02-14 03:00:05 PM  

GanjSmokr: abhorrent1: GanjSmokr: "no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction" != "Pot is 100% healthy"

But hyperbole is fun, isn't it?

Right. It's not at all because this is the same reaction you guys have for every pot thread that might suggest that it could be in some way harmful.

[citation needed]

I don't recall ever seeing anyone here saying that pot is 100% healthy, but I could have missed it.  Maybe you can provide a link?


Being literal is also a defense you use. You rabidly defend against anyone suggesting that pot may have ANY negative effect. You know damn well what I meant by saying that. If you don't, maybe the weed is affecting your brain.

Here lets do this.
YOU tell ME one negative effect that pot can have on your health that you believe. Or do you truly believe there aren't any?
 
2018-02-14 03:12:40 PM  
AfroSpatula:

I wanna get this off my mind. I have been smoking hash oil, through a bong, with a blowtorch and a titanium nail. I have done so multiple times per day for four years. I was smoking cigarettes, and for a good couple months I decided to binge-drink. That went fine. So I'm trying to establish that I have gotten to experience the big three drugs: alcohol, cannabis, tobacco. Most commonly used drugs in the world. I self-medicate because health care is too expensive in Missouri. Of all three cannabis is the best. Not just of the big three: cannabis is the best drug out of all of them. I've gotten hold of LSD, DMT, MDMA, psilocybin, opioids, salvia, DXM, cocaine, Benadryl and Dramamine. Cannabis is better than all of them. Nicotine is weaker and give you headaches that it gives you (like religions). All the others listed either make you feel worse, kill you, or are too strong, leaving you house bound. Hash through a bong will keep you from driving for about 15 minutes, but after that your reaction time goes back to normal. Alcohol destroys your reaction time and makes you say stupid, emotional things. Salvia is CRAZY. LSD is okay, but weird. Either way, are you conflating the smoke from a jazz cigarette and the vaporized hash smoke through a bong? If you are, don't. The vapor cloud is a mild, pleasant odor and doesn't linger. Joints and blunts are bad, I agree, but they aren't the only way.

You sure you haven't left any thing out?
 
2018-02-14 03:22:36 PM  

abhorrent1: Being literal is also a defense you use.


Stop posting hyperbolic idiocy.  That will help out.

abhorrent1: Here lets do this.
YOU tell ME one negative effect that pot can have on your health that you believe. Or do you truly believe there aren't any?


If you smoke it, it's not good for your lungs.
 
2018-02-14 03:36:54 PM  

abhorrent1: GanjSmokr: abhorrent1: GanjSmokr: "no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction" != "Pot is 100% healthy"

But hyperbole is fun, isn't it?

Right. It's not at all because this is the same reaction you guys have for every pot thread that might suggest that it could be in some way harmful.

[citation needed]

I don't recall ever seeing anyone here saying that pot is 100% healthy, but I could have missed it.  Maybe you can provide a link?

Being literal is also a defense you use. You rabidly defend against anyone suggesting that pot may have ANY negative effect. You know damn well what I meant by saying that. If you don't, maybe the weed is affecting your brain.

Here lets do this.
YOU tell ME one negative effect that pot can have on your health that you believe. Or do you truly believe there aren't any?


Go read the *only* definitive study, the 1945 LaGuardia Report.
 
2018-02-14 03:47:19 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: I don't agree with ab's point of view (sometimes his posts are funny though, "weed-noggin" made me laugh), but....he didn't bring up the study of 43 people, you did.


Oh for fark's sake.  I brought it up because the article in the headline had a much larger n than the article that prohibitionists like to point at to justify their claim that adolescent cannabis use damages adolescent brains.  The headline article refutes that poorly designed and obviously politically motivated study.  And then the poor guy started going on about small studies that I agree with, completely oblivious to the fact that most of the studies cited by prohibitionists like him are small and poorly done.

You know, for a guy who claims to want to be rational about weed, you sure seem to say a lot of scientifically indefensible things.

Maybe, being a resident of Boulder, you've got yours and believe everyone else should just suck it up and stop complaining about injustice.  That's pretty shiatty.  So, bye.
 
2018-02-14 03:51:12 PM  

GanjSmokr: If you smoke it, it's not good for your lungs.


But you just said there's no proof that it damages your lungs? Or was that the other guy?
 
2018-02-14 03:52:37 PM  
vaporizer-planet.comView Full Size
If your worried about the smoke
 
2018-02-14 03:56:52 PM  

knobmaker: You know, for a guy who claims to want to be rational about weed, you sure seem to say a lot of scientifically indefensible things.


This has nothing to do with "scientifically indefensible".  I was pointing out that you were repeatedly insulting him for something he never said or brought up.  And now you are claiming that me pointing this out is "scientifically indefensible"   lol.

Are you a nonsense bot?  Very honest question.
 
2018-02-14 03:57:19 PM  

abhorrent1: GanjSmokr: If you smoke it, it's not good for your lungs.

But you just said there's no proof that it damages your lungs? Or was that the other guy?


There's a pretty easy way to find out...
 
2018-02-14 03:59:09 PM  

abhorrent1: Okay I get it.
Pot is 100% healthy. Actually it even makes you more healthy than you were before you smoked it and nothing is going to tell you differently.

It's absoloutly impossible for you to admit that just maybe it has some health effects that aren't positive. I get it.


Wrong again.  It can cause bronchitis if you smoke it, as well as excessive phlegm production.  It can cause short-term memory loss-- which can be a drawback, (or can be a boon, if you suffer from PTSD.) There are probably other ill effects as well.  My opinion is that these negative effects are far outweighed by the drug's positive effects.

But the thing to remember about weed, as well as other illicit drugs, is that prohibition does nothing to make these drugs safer.  Prohibition only makes them less safe.  I'll even give you an example.  Although no one has been able to demonstrate that weed gives you cancer, it is entirely possible that the insecticides and fungicides used on black market crops could be hurting people.  In places where the stuff is legal, the product is tested and inspected for adulterants and stuff like mold.  Black market weed could contain anything.
 
2018-02-14 05:42:59 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: "correlation doesn't equal causation,"

lol. This has to be the single most misunderstood and misused phrase by pseudo-scientific pseudo-intellectuals ever in history. Finding correlations is a highly useful observation in many fields.


It was a major part of the research that proved that smoking tobacco caused lung cancer, according to a doctor I knew who was a pioneer in the field. (yeah, CSB)

knobmaker: In places where the stuff is legal, the product is tested and inspected for adulterants and stuff like mold.


Bwahahahaha!  You're the credulous one, aren't you?

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016​/​03/17/23720675/more-products-on-shelve​s-at-recreational-marijuana-stores-hav​e-tested-positive-for-sketchy-pesticid​es
 
2018-02-14 06:43:18 PM  

tirob: knobmaker: In places where the stuff is legal, the product is tested and inspected for adulterants and stuff like mold.


Bwahahahaha!  You're the credulous one, aren't you?

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/​03/17/23720675/more-products-on-shelve​s-at-recreational-marijuana-stores-hav​e-tested-positive-for-sketchy-pesticid​es


So? According to you we need NO regulation and turn the business over to the cartels, right?
 
2018-02-14 07:04:09 PM  

GanjSmokr: abhorrent1: Being literal is also a defense you use.

Stop posting hyperbolic idiocy.  That will help out.

abhorrent1: Here lets do this.
YOU tell ME one negative effect that pot can have on your health that you believe. Or do you truly believe there aren't any?

If you smoke it, it's not good for your lungs.


Yeah but man. Studies show no long term negative effects. Been smoking heavy for 25 years also rides bikes and hikes. Lungs r good bro. Also making good use of oxygen at 98%
 
2018-02-14 07:14:02 PM  

johnphantom: According to you we need NO regulation and turn the business over to the cartels, right?


1.  Black market sellers still command sizable market shares in the legal at retail jurisdictions.

http://www.westword.com/marijuana/col​o​rados-black-market-for-marijuana-how-b​ig-is-it-9280870

2.  "Regulation" is a joke.  Most of the market for weed doesn't care about "purity."  The link I put up in my previous post is evidence of that; so is the continued existence of large black markets in the legal at retail states.

But you're partly right.  If we're going to legalize weed at retail, I'd drop the pretense of "regulation" and allow anyone to sell any amount of weed to anyone else at any time and at any place, and let the buyer beware.  It's practically what's going on now in the legal states as it is.
 
2018-02-14 08:28:29 PM  

tirob: If we're going to legalize weed at retail, I'd drop the pretense of "regulation" and allow anyone to sell any amount of weed to anyone else at any time and at any place, and let the buyer beware.  It's practically what's going on now in the legal states as it is.


I disagree, we need to tighten up regulation and get it federally legal so the big boys like Phillip Morris can produce it cheaply. The black market will be left to individuals skirting the law, like moonshiners or single cigarette sellers - in other words, not a big deal.
 
2018-02-14 08:50:22 PM  

tirob: 1.  Black market sellers still command sizable market shares in the legal at retail jurisdictions.

http://www.westword.com/marijuana/colo​rados-black-market-for-marijuana-how-b​ig-is-it-9280870

2.  "Regulation" is a joke.  Most of the market for weed doesn't care about "purity."  The link I put up in my previous post is evidence of that; so is the continued existence of large black markets in the legal at retail states.

But you're partly right.  If we're going to legalize weed at retail, I'd drop the pretense of "regulation" and allow anyone to sell any amount of weed to anyone else at any time and at any place, and let the buyer beware.  It's practically what's going on now in the legal states as it is.



And here is where we part ways.  I disagree with most of what you have said here.  The difference is I'm not going to call you names and spew childish insults like the ignorant weed-hitler nutjobs you usually post to  :)

The mj market needs to be regulated at least as tightly as alcohol and tobacco.  And I think a large segment of the market does care about purity.  More so than tobacco consumers.    But you are right that CO has been a poorly regulated free-for-all for some time.  It will take time to get right.  It will help when neighboring states legalize, thus ending a large part of the demand for the black market.

But I remember some years back when fark weed-hitlers' arguments centered around "Legalization will end the black market and drug crime."  My response was "not a chance in hell it do that.  Tobacco is legal and regulated and there is still a multi-billion dollar tobacco black market."  And I gave sources.  And they would get white hot outraged by that, and call me a nazi or "prohibitionist"  (always lol at that).  And yet here we are.
 
2018-02-14 09:27:33 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Tobacco is legal and regulated and there is still a multi-billion dollar tobacco black market."


Yes, and the regulation affects that black market for cigarettes, as I am sure the vast bulk of black market cigs is just buying legal regulated cigs in one state and taking them to another state that has higher taxes.
 
2018-02-14 09:37:48 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: AfroSpatula:
Of all three cannabis is the best. Not just of the big three: cannabis is the best drug out of all of them. I've gotten hold of LSD, DMT, MDMA, psilocybin, opioids, salvia, DXM, cocaine, Benadryl and Dramamine. Cannabis is better than all of them.
You sure you haven't left any thing out?


You're right! I forgot nitrous oxide, phenazepam and canned air.
 
2018-02-15 04:58:08 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: The mj market needs to be regulated at least as tightly as alcohol and tobacco.


I think this would be an exercise in futility, because I don't think it's possible to regulate a commodity like weed this way.  As long as $200 worth of the stuff fits comfortably into a shirt pocket, even a 14 year old can set himself up in business dealing.  Compare alcohol and tobacco, where you at least need a reliable vehicle to engage in black market activities in those commodities.

ThrobblefootSpectre: And I think a large segment of the market does care about purity.


The figures for black market sales in the legal at retail states that I cited here previously would lead me to believe differently.  The market never cared about purity in the days when you could go to jail for possessing a few grams, and I see very little evidence that its tastes have changed since then.

johnphantom: I disagree, we need to tighten up regulation and get it federally legal so the big boys like Phillip Morris can produce it cheaply. The black market will be left to individuals skirting the law, like moonshiners or single cigarette sellers - in other words, not a big deal.


See above.  Weed is a different kind of commodity than booze or cigs.  And I see no evidence that the price will be going down drastically soon.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report