You’re being lied to...
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=162680
Printed Date: 18 November 2025 at 10:50pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: You’re being lied to...
Posted By: Bunkered
Subject: You’re being lied to...
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:11pm
|
...about marijuana.
For over 70 years, the US Government has been spreading falsehoods about the use of the plant known as marijuana, prosecuting its users at every turn. Every year, thousands of people are http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22441.shtml - imprisoned for simple possession of marijuana. These cases clog our court system, use valuable police resources, and waste tax-payer dollars. The federal government even feels it necessary to raid medicinal marijuana facilities in places where the use of cannabis products by the terminally/chronically ill has been made legal by popular vote. Even hemp, a cousin of marijuana with virtually no psychoactive properties is illegal under federal law. On top of all this, the DEA also prohibits the mere study of marijuana to all but one or two researchers and they must use the "weed" that the government supplies them, which is notoriously poor quality. Since the beginning of the prohibition of marijuana, the government has pumped out propaganda to support their cause. Films like "Reefer Madness" were used to sway an uneducated public into following officials into this "drug war," but the 'facts' they contain have long since been proven inaccurate. What is left of the government's case against weed? Scientific studies have shown that marijuana has properties that make it useful in medicine, yet the FDA still claims that it has "no accepted medical purpose." New studies also indicate that the " http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22430.shtml - gateway theory " on marijuana is not true. Most people now know that your brain is not going to melt down due to marijuana use, and you can NOT overdose. It seems to be a question of morality, and whether or not the government should try to regulate it. In the 1920s, our nation attempted to ban alcohol. Because of the ban, violent crime greatly increased due to smuggling practices. Should marijuana be legalized and regulated, it would take the power out of the kingpins' and gangsters' hands. Buying marijuana would no longer expose you to harder drugs via the dealer, and violent crime rates related to drugs would likely be greatly reduced. Who knows, maybe the taxes it could raise would even help pay for this mess we're in in the Middle East. Whatever the case, it's time for the government to stop telling me what to put in my body. It's time for a change, and our generation will be the one to cause it. Listen to everything you're told with a grain of salt. http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22444.shtml - More Reading ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: jerseypaint
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:12pm
| They can't tax weed, therefor they don't sell it. |
Posted By: hybrid-sniper
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:14pm
| It's a site with "cannabis" in the title. Let's take anything said THAT site with a grain of salt. |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:14pm
|
Explain to me how they "can't tax weed."
They can tax alcohol and cigarettes, they could tax weed (and make a killing off it, by the way. It's not expensive to grow plants.) -------------
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:16pm
The news articles are not written by that site... They are gathered from news articles nation-wide and put in one place for convenient finding. Most are somewhat reputable sources, including Time Magazine, New York Times, and many others. -------------
|
hybrid-sniper wrote:Posted By: hybrid-sniper
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:18pm
|
Ah. I see. Still, seems a little bit stilted. |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:19pm
------------- 
|
Posted By: jerseypaint
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:20pm
I can't. Its just a quote I picked upa nd use everytime this debate comes up. I'm not very learned on the reasons The Man puts down weed. |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:24pm
They could tax it, but it is easier for to grow weed than it is tobacco or to make moonshine. If they did legalize weed you would still be able to get it cheaper from a home grower than to buy it from a gas station or whatever. ------------- 
|
Posted By: jerseypaint
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:25pm
I'll go with that. |
Posted By: Mehs
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:28pm
|
They can tax it, like a tobbacco product, and they DO tax it... It's all apart of the "war on drugs" and the lack of the DEA finding a good enough reason to reschedule marijuana on the controlled substances act, despite its medicinal value, its lack of risk with use, and in no way does it have a "high potential" for abuse. I still do not get why it's illegal. ------------- [IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/1538fbc.jpg"> Squeeze Box ☣ |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:31pm
|
Haha, wow.
That was not an unbiased source you linked to at all. Yeah, smoking anything is bad for you. BUT OMG LIEK TABACOO IS...Shush, I care not, I would like to see them ban tabacco smoking as well. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:31pm
|
I know why it BECAME legal... but I just can't figure out why it hasn't been changed yet, other than the government refusing to admit they were wrong. -------------
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:34pm
Again, yes, it is a site about news on Cannabis. However, the articles are NOT from the website, and are gathered from actual news sources. I actually have seen more than once anti-weed article on the site, but they ARE mostly people who lean towards legalization. -------------
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:35pm
I don't smoke weed anymore (for the most part). When it's my decision on what to use, I use my vaporizer. No harm to my lungs, no carcinogens, just pure THC goodness.  -------------
|
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:36pm
|
If they banned tobacco I would die...
-------------
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:37pm
Haha, keep thinking that. Cannot argue with Darwinisim. -------------
|
Posted By: Mehs
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:40pm
Possibly because of the DEA. The DEA and the FDA are the ones who can decide which drug is scheduled where. If suddenly marijuana is rescheduled, or placed on the same area as tobbacco and alcohol, then it will possibly cause loss of jobs to people in the DEA (maybe), who knows really... they spend millions on eraticating the plant, and making sure it is not coming from over the border, so that could be one reason why. What is also weird is all this new research that is coming out which claims it helps more than it harms is government funded, and yet the DEA still doesn't recognize that. Even on their website a lot of the information they give on marijuana contradicts what various studies show. ------------- [IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/1538fbc.jpg"> Squeeze Box ☣ |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:45pm
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying... If you're questioning the use/workings of my vaporizer, I'd be glad to explain how it's not the same as smoking. If you're talking about the "pure THC goodness," then I can't really say anything other than life is short, and I'm enjoying it. -------------
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:49pm
|
The harmful effects of marijuana on the Brain and Central Nervous System
Impaired thinking, mood, memory, and coordination Marijuana (THC) is an extremely powerful and pleasurable intoxicant. It affects, alters, and damages brain cells controlling thinking, emotion, pleasure, coordination, mood and memory. The pituitary gland is also damaged which regulates hunger, thirst, blood pressure, sexual behavior, and release of sex hormones. Clogged synapses, brain damage and addiction Marijuana accumulates in the microscopic spaces between nerve cells in the brain called "synapses." This clogging interferes by slowing and impairing transfer critical information. Long term use causes the brain to stop production of brain chemicals necessary to "feel good" - a negative feedback condition. And, the user becomes chemically addicted to marijuana. The harmful effects of marijuana on the Heart Speeds up heartbeat as much as 50%, increases blood pressure, and poses great risk to those with hypertension and heart disease. The harmful effects of marijuana on the Endocrine System Marijuana damages the network of glands, organs, and hormones involved in growth and development, energy levels, and reproduction. Organs and glands affected: pituitary gland thyroid gland stomach duodenum pancreas adrenal glands testis The harmful effects of marijuana on the Reproductive System males and females Marijuana use can decrease and degenerate sperm, sperm count, movement, and cause lowered sex drive. Females can have egg damage, suppression of ovulation, disrupt menstrual cycles, and alteration of hormone levels. Regular use during pregnancy can lower birth weight and cause abnormalities similar to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (small head, irritability, poor growth and development. Can destroy the number of chromosomes, resulting in cell abnormalities and impaired function. Other affects on the central nervous system distortions of perceptions, thinking and reality Difficulty in forming concepts and thoughts Poor concentration Mental confusion Loss of motivation Wide mood swings Aggression and hostility Depression, anxiety and paranoia The harmful effects of marijuana on the Eyes Sleep looking, blood-shot eyes with dilated pupils. The harmful effects of marijuana on the Throat Irritates membranes of the esophagus; increases chance of developing cancer of larynx and esophagus. The harmful effects of marijuana on the Lungs Significant damage and destruction of the air sacs of the lungs, reducing the lungs ability to bring oxygen and remove carbon dioxide - Emphysema. Causes bronchial tubes to be inflamed, thickened and to produce more mucus; resulting in narrowing of the air passages - Chronic Bronchitis. Marijuana smoke has twice as much "tar" as cigarette smoke and significantly increases chance of lung cancer, inflammation and infection. -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:52pm
| old |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:54pm
|
copypasta
-------------
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:55pm
Done and done. -------------
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:57pm
|
...about marijuana.
For over 70 years, the US Government has been spreading falsehoods about the use of the plant known as marijuana, prosecuting its users at every turn. Every year, thousands of people are http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22441.shtml - imprisoned for simple possession of marijuana. These cases clog our court system, use valuable police resources, and waste tax-payer dollars. The federal government even feels it necessary to raid medicinal marijuana facilities in places where the use of cannabis products by the terminally/chronically ill has been made legal by popular vote. Even hemp, a cousin of marijuana with virtually no psychoactive properties is illegal under federal law. On top of all this, the DEA also prohibits the mere study of marijuana to all but one or two researchers and they must use the "weed" that the government supplies them, which is notoriously poor quality. Since the beginning of the prohibition of marijuana, the government has pumped out propaganda to support their cause. Films like "Reefer Madness" were used to sway an uneducated public into following officials into this "drug war," but the 'facts' they contain have long since been proven inaccurate. What is left of the government's case against weed? Scientific studies have shown that marijuana has properties that make it useful in medicine, yet the FDA still claims that it has "no accepted medical purpose." New studies also indicate that the " http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22430.shtml - gateway theory " on marijuana is not true. Most people now know that your brain is not going to melt down due to marijuana use, and you can NOT overdose. It seems to be a question of morality, and whether or not the government should try to regulate it. In the 1920s, our nation attempted to ban alcohol. Because of the ban, violent crime greatly increased due to smuggling practices. Should marijuana be legalized and regulated, it would take the power out of the kingpins' and gangsters' hands. Buying marijuana would no longer expose you to harder drugs via the dealer, and violent crime rates related to drugs would likely be greatly reduced. Who knows, maybe the taxes it could raise would even help pay for this mess we're in in the Middle East. Whatever the case, it's time for the government to stop telling me what to put in my body. It's time for a change, and our generation will be the one to cause it. Listen to everything you're told with a grain of salt. http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22444.shtml - More Reading ...about marijuana. For over 70 years, the US Government has been spreading falsehoods about the use of the plant known as marijuana, prosecuting its users at every turn. Every year, thousands of people are http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22441.shtml - imprisoned for simple possession of marijuana. These cases clog our court system, use valuable police resources, and waste tax-payer dollars. The federal government even feels it necessary to raid medicinal marijuana facilities in places where the use of cannabis products by the terminally/chronically ill has been made legal by popular vote. Even hemp, a cousin of marijuana with virtually no psychoactive properties is illegal under federal law. On top of all this, the DEA also prohibits the mere study of marijuana to all but one or two researchers and they must use the "weed" that the government supplies them, which is notoriously poor quality. Since the beginning of the prohibition of marijuana, the government has pumped out propaganda to support their cause. Films like "Reefer Madness" were used to sway an uneducated public into following officials into this "drug war," but the 'facts' they contain have long since been proven inaccurate. What is left of the government's case against weed? Scientific studies have shown that marijuana has properties that make it useful in medicine, yet the FDA still claims that it has "no accepted medical purpose." New studies also indicate that the " http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22430.shtml - gateway theory " on marijuana is not true. Most people now know that your brain is not going to melt down due to marijuana use, and you can NOT overdose. It seems to be a question of morality, and whether or not the government should try to regulate it. In the 1920s, our nation attempted to ban alcohol. Because of the ban, violent crime greatly increased due to smuggling practices. Should marijuana be legalized and regulated, it would take the power out of the kingpins' and gangsters' hands. Buying marijuana would no longer expose you to harder drugs via the dealer, and violent crime rates related to drugs would likely be greatly reduced. Who knows, maybe the taxes it could raise would even help pay for this mess we're in in the Middle East. Whatever the case, it's time for the government to stop telling me what to put in my body. It's time for a change, and our generation will be the one to cause it. Listen to everything you're told with a grain of salt. http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22444.shtml - More Reading ...about marijuana. For over 70 years, the US Government has been spreading falsehoods about the use of the plant known as marijuana, prosecuting its users at every turn. Every year, thousands of people are http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22441.shtml - imprisoned for simple possession of marijuana. These cases clog our court system, use valuable police resources, and waste tax-payer dollars. The federal government even feels it necessary to raid medicinal marijuana facilities in places where the use of cannabis products by the terminally/chronically ill has been made legal by popular vote. Even hemp, a cousin of marijuana with virtually no psychoactive properties is illegal under federal law. On top of all this, the DEA also prohibits the mere study of marijuana to all but one or two researchers and they must use the "weed" that the government supplies them, which is notoriously poor quality. Since the beginning of the prohibition of marijuana, the government has pumped out propaganda to support their cause. Films like "Reefer Madness" were used to sway an uneducated public into following officials into this "drug war," but the 'facts' they contain have long since been proven inaccurate. What is left of the government's case against weed? Scientific studies have shown that marijuana has properties that make it useful in medicine, yet the FDA still claims that it has "no accepted medical purpose." New studies also indicate that the " http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22430.shtml - gateway theory " on marijuana is not true. Most people now know that your brain is not going to melt down due to marijuana use, and you can NOT overdose. It seems to be a question of morality, and whether or not the government should try to regulate it. In the 1920s, our nation attempted to ban alcohol. Because of the ban, violent crime greatly increased due to smuggling practices. Should marijuana be legalized and regulated, it would take the power out of the kingpins' and gangsters' hands. Buying marijuana would no longer expose you to harder drugs via the dealer, and violent crime rates related to drugs would likely be greatly reduced. Who knows, maybe the taxes it could raise would even help pay for this mess we're in in the Middle East. Whatever the case, it's time for the government to stop telling me what to put in my body. It's time for a change, and our generation will be the one to cause it. Listen to everything you're told with a grain of salt. http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22444.shtml - More Reading -------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 16 December 2006 at 11:57pm
|
mmmmm..... being illegal isin't exactly stopping whoever wants to get it ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: Mehs
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:00am
|
lol @ whale trolling bunkered. ------------- [IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/1538fbc.jpg"> Squeeze Box ☣ |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:01am
|
I <3 Bunkered. I think the government should not control what you put into your own body. Obviously our country has a huge problem with obesity. But should the government go and ban fatty foods? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:02am
|
All this according to whom?
I can point out quite a few things that have been disproven just by looking at this. 1) Marijuana is NOT addictive. 2) "Impaired Thinking" is a relative and generalized statement. 3) According to studies funded and published by the DEA and FDA, no significant loss of motor functions is noticeable upon cessation of use of marijuana. Basically, quit toking and go back to normal. 4) No woman should use any drugs while pregnant, so that's just common knowledge. 5) THC does not harm genetic information, nor has any evidence ever been presented of physical harm to a male or female's reproductive system due to marijuana. 6) Virtually all harmful effects of marijuana on the lungs/throat can be avoided by using a vaporizer (heats weed below the point of combustion, but hot enough to evaporate the THC and other cannabinoids out of the weed.) 7)Sure, weed has more tar. But you usually share a joint or whatever with other people. You don't smoke anywhere near the quantity of tobacco most smokers smoke. No case of lung cancer has ever been linked directly to weed. It sounds like you got most your info straight off a government website, which is far more biased than anything I have linked. -------------
|
Posted By: NotDaveEllis
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:03am
| u supprot terrorism |
Posted By: Mehs
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:05am
|
He got it off of a website from a marijuana rehab center.
------------- [IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/1538fbc.jpg"> Squeeze Box ☣ |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:07am
|
What Whale's basically saying, is the human brain is like a series of tubes...
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:09am
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/ - Like they could ever do that -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:13am
|
Well I know they could, but they shouldn't. It's stupid. It's just giving the government more control over your life. You should be able to put whatever you want into your body. Even if it is bleach.
-------------
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:13am
It is sure not a truck you dump things on. -------------
|
Posted By: Apu
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:15am
|
What, i'm sorry, but this is one of those subjects I see you time and time again trying to argue, and you seem to get more and more wrong as time goes by. You cannot compare a substance such as marijuana, which compaired to alcohol is not as harmful to your body, and is safer to use.
------------- I need a new Sig... |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:15am
As long as you don't harm someone else. -------------
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:16am
Like, you know, smoke. -------------
|
Posted By: Mehs
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:17am
lol stop the terrible trolling. ------------- [IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/1538fbc.jpg"> Squeeze Box ☣ |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:18am
|
It has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental
disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness. Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia. This connection with mental illness should make health care providers for terminally ill patients and the patients themselves, who may already be suffering from some form of clinical depression, weigh very carefully the pros and cons of adopting a therapeutic course of marijuana. In the short term, marijuana use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use. Mental disorders connected with marijuana use merit their own category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association. These include Cannabis Intoxication (consisting of impaired motor coordination, anxiety, impaired judgment, sensation of slowed time, social withdrawal, and often includes perceptual disturbances; Cannabis Intoxication Delirium (memory deficit, disorientation); Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Delusions; Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Hallucinations; and Cannabis Induced Anxiety Disorder. In addition, marijuana use has many indirect effects on health. Its effect on coordination, perception, and judgment means that it causes a number of accidents, vehicular and otherwise. -------------
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:18am
|
TKD: How does someone smoking a joint hurt anyone but the smoker of the joint? We're talking about nothing other than the smoking. No car accidents, indirect effects, etc.
-------------
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:22am
|
In June 2002, panel of experts brought together by the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (an agency of the World Health Organization) determined that second-hand smoke causes cancer. And we know that marijuana and cigarette smoke contain as many as 50 of the same cancer causing substances. For these reasons, experts believe that exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke is at least as harmful as second-hand tobacco smoke. -------------
|
Posted By: Mehs
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:24am
Recent research into whether cannabis causes "psychosis", mental illness, or schizophrenia has received a great deal of attention in the media and has triggered calls for the British government to move cannabis from Class C back to its former, more punitive, Class B designation. This is, of course, not the first time people have said that cannabis causes mental illness, with assertions of a connection going back at least as far as the British Indian Hemp Drugs Commission's investigation into similar charges in 1893. It concluded that "[when the] alleged evil effects of the moderate use of [cannabis are] subjected to careful examination, the grounds on which the allegations are founded, prove to be in the highest degree defective." http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_health3.shtml#ref1 - 1 Medical and epidemiological research has come a long way since 1893, or so we'd like to believe, and many papers have been written about what physical and mental harms might be caused by the use of cannabis. In recent years, there has been a flurry of news regarding the analyses of several large longitudinal surveys that show an apparent link between cannabis use and mental illness: "The link between regular cannabis use and later depression and schizophrenia has been significantly strengthened by three new studies..." http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_health3.shtml#ref2 - 2 It is easy to dismiss the current Reefer Madness scare as yet another in a long line of such offerings by politically-driven drugabusologists, but there is more to it than hype, even if it is hardly the "drug induced mental health crisis" http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_health3.shtml#ref3 - 3 that some allege. The following is an overview of the current state of the debate. ------------- [IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/1538fbc.jpg"> Squeeze Box ☣ |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:26am
|
The most potent argument against the use of marijuana to treat medical
disorders is that marijuana may cause the acceleration or aggravation of the very disorders it is being used to treat. Smoking marijuana regularly (a joint a day) can damage the cells in the bronchial passages which protect the body against inhaled microorganisms and decrease the ability of the immune cells in the lungs to fight off fungi, bacteria, and tumor cells. For patients with already weakened immune systems, this means an increase in the possibility of dangerous pulmonary infections, including pneumonia, which often proves fatal in AIDS patients. Studies further suggest that marijuana is a general "immunosuppressant" whose degenerative influence extends beyond the respiratory system. Regular smoking has been shown to materially affect the overall ability of the smoker’s body to defend itself against infection by weakening various natural immune mechanisms, including macrophages (a.k.a. "killer cells") and the all-important T-cells. Obviously, this suggests the conclusion, which is well-supported by scientific studies, that the use of marijuana as a medical therapy can and does have a very serious negative effect on patients with pre-existing immune deficits resulting from AIDS, organ transplantation, or cancer chemotherapy, the very conditions for which marijuana has most often been touted and suggested as a treatment. It has also been shown that marijuana use can accelerate the progression of HIV to full-blown AIDS and increase the occurrence of infections and Kaposi’s sarcoma. In addition, patients with weak immune systems will be even less able to defend themselves against the various respiratory cancers and conditions to which consistent marijuana use has been linked, and which are discussed briefly under "Respiratory Illnesses." In conclusion, it seems that the potential dangers presented by the medical use of marijuana may actually contribute to the dangers of the diseases which it would be used to combat. Therefore, I suggest that marijuana should not be permitted as a therapy, at least until a good deal more conclusive research has been completed concerning its debilitating effect on the immune system. -------------
|
Posted By: Badsmitty
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:26am
| I'm guessing that more than half of you were conceived by parents who were high at the time. |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:26am
|
That's an indirect effect.
If you're just sitting around inhaling marijuana smoke, it is by your choice. People don't smoke marijuana in public (at least not those of us who have brains), so you have to have put yourself in a situation to be inhaling the second-hand smoke. If you're afraid of second-hand marijuana smoke, get the hell out of wherever marijuana is being smoked. Or you can always just quit being a wuss and realize that people die every day, and your time will come whether you accidentally inhale that second-hand smoke or not. -------------
|
Posted By: Mehs
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:27am
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection By Marc Kaufman The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer. The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years. "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought. Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous. Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood. They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied. "This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning." Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar. While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day. The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried. ------------- [IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/1538fbc.jpg"> Squeeze Box ☣ |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:28am
|
The main respiratory consequences of smoking marijuana regularly (one
joint a day) are pulmonary infections and respiratory cancer, whose connection to marijuana use has been strongly suggested but not conclusively proven. The effects also include chronic bronchitis, impairment in the function of the smaller air passages, inflammation of the lung, the development of potentially pre-cancerous abnormalities in the bronchial lining and lungs, and, as discussed, a reduction in the capabilities of many defensive mechanisms within the lungs. Marijuana smoke and cigarette smoke contain many of the same toxins, including one which has been identified as a key factor in the promotion of lung cancer. This toxin is found in the tar phase of both, and it should be noted that one joint has four times more tar than a cigarette, which means that the lungs are exposed four-fold to this toxin and others in the tar. It has been concretely established that smoking cigarettes promotes lung cancer (which causes more than 125,000 deaths in the US every year), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema) and increased incidence of respiratory tract infections. This implies, but does not establish, that smoking marijuana may lead to some of the same results as smoking cigarettes. It is notable that several reports indicate an unexpectedly large proportion ofmarijuana users among cases of lung cancer and cancers of the oral cavity,pharynx, and larynx. Thus, it appears that the use of marijuana as a medicine has the potential to further harm an already ill patient in the same way that taking up regular cigarette smoking would, particularly in light of the fact that those patients for whom marijuana is recommended are already poorly equipped to fight off these infections and diseases. -------------
|
Posted By: Mehs
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:30am
|
Whale: Haha, wow. That was not an unbiased source you linked to at all. ------------- [IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/1538fbc.jpg"> Squeeze Box ☣ |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:32am
|
As noted above, alveolar macrophages from the lungs of healthy, habitual
marijuana smokers were suppressed in their ability to kill fungaland bacterial organisms, as well as tumor cells. Moreover, the same cells were suppressed in their ability to release proinflarnmatory cytokines. These findings suggest that marijuana is an immunosuppressant with clinically significant effects on host defense, which could have potentially serious health consequences in patients with preexisting immune deficits due to AIDS, organ transplantation (receiving immunosuppressive therapy to prevent rejection of the transplant), or cancer (receiving immunosuppressive chemotherapy). The latter possibility is supported by reports of fungal and bacterial pneumonias in patients with AIDS or organ transplantation who used marijuana (Caiaffa et al. 1994; Denning et al. 1991). Moreover, among HIV-positive individuals, active marijuana use has been found to be a significant risk factor for rapid progression from HIV infection toAIDS and acquisition of opportunistic infections and/or Kaposi's sarcoma (Tindall et al. 1988). -------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:40am
|
You've still failed to demonstrate harm to third parties that is the result of the pot itself, and not simple stupidity/inconsideration on the part of the smoker...
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:41am
You are being lied to, brihard. LIED TO! -------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:42am
So far I've only seen my time being wasted... No one has the right to restrict my behaviour inasmuch as it does no harm to other people. That said, for personal reasons I do not smoke, either tobacco or cannabis. If I decided to chance the health effects though, it ought to be my right as long as I do not expose any others to ill effects. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:47am
|
Yeah.
Don't be lied to man. -------------
|
Posted By: CarbineKid
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:59am
Wow, I actually agree with Tae Kwon Do on something Im speachless...and hes correct 
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 1:17am
|
*Note*
The opinions stated in this thread are not really those of your favorite Whale, rather, an attempt to rile up defensive marijuana users such as Bunkered. I don't care if you use it or not. -------------
|
Posted By: Trogdor2
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 1:24am
|
I don't quite understand why everyone freaks out about weed. It's not at
all what it seems. It generally takes about .25-.5 grams to get one person high for 2 or 3 hours. Compare that .25-.5 grams of marijuana to the 1.5-3 grams of tobacco that would be in a cigarette which could be needed at least once an hour if not more. Other than the harm to your lungs and the slight feelings of lazyness while high, there really aren't any good proven arguments against marijuana. I used to smoke a lot, but my parents found out and I respect them enough to stop until I'm not living in their house. There is really no way to get addicted, and unless you smoke an ungodly ammount regularly, I see no risk of cancer or brain damage. Also, the effects of a "high" actually helped me focus and get my homework done instead of the stereotypical stoner sitting on a couch feeling. I view it as a good thing that should be legal, but highly regulated and taxed to hell. ------------- Something unknown is doing we don't know what. That is what our knowledge amounts to. - Sir Arthur Eddington |
Posted By: newport
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 3:41am
|
ARGH! GODDAMMIT! TKD SUCKS SO MUCH!
------------- 
|
Posted By: Koolit32
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 3:44am
laffs lets get stownt |
Posted By: GThomas
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 4:56am
| I don't need a website to tell me how weed is or isn't bad for you. I just need to look at a few friends of mine who are high every waking minute of their lives to see how badly it messes you up. People who say weed isn't harmful to you are in denial. I garuntee everyone who smokes weed claims it is not addictive or harmful at all. Yet everyday I hear my room mate talk about how badly he wants to get high. The drug is in no way as harmful as other drugs such as cocain and heroin (obviously). But you cannot simply deny the negative side effects it has. I have no problem with smoking weed in moderation. I have smoked a handful of times and know what it feels like to be high. I have no interest in getting high again. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 7:02am
OH MAH GAWD IS BEEN LEID TAH -------------
|
Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 8:33am
| I didnt read every post. Not going too. Too many. But I know a few people who have smoked so much weed they are pretty dumb now. And they say its the weed. |
Posted By: battlefreak
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 8:51am
------------- 
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 10:36am
|
Ok, let me state my real views on Marijuana now.
I support it being on the same level as Alcohol. I think the government should regulate its growth, shipping, safety, and potentcy much like it does with alcohol. I think, much like alcohol, driving while under the influance should be illegal, and a set age of 21 should be implimented for purchase. -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 11:03am
|
Weed doesn't really impair you from driving.
-------------
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 11:42am
It alters one's mental state of being. That is enough reason to ban it from being used while driving. We do the same with alcohol, pain-killers, sedatives, etc.,. -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:25pm
|
It's always hard to tell around here if bizarre statements like this are serious or joking, but... The science is pretty strong and conclusive on this. Smoking pot makes you a very dangerous driver. Instead of directly citing impartial scientific evidence (that has obviously been doctored by The Man), I will cite a summary article from this pro-legalization site: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5448 - http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5448
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:27pm
 YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: little devil
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 12:58pm
|
i wouldnt say it makes you a very dangerous driver at all |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 1:18pm
That's really all I want. I'm not saying it should be legal for everyone to use at all times no matter what. I think it should be taxed and regulated, and the government should bring in taxes on it. But until people begin to recognize that the government is lying about the "facts" of marijuana, no real change is likely to be made. -------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 1:20pm
I don't think 21 for purchase makes sense- drinking age should be 18 across the board; peoplea re gonna drink or smoke pot anyway, so why not encourage legal use from the outset? 18/19 works just fine up here in Canada. I've got a problem with being a legally responsible adult, able to vote, and not being legal to drink in some jurisdictions. It's an unnecessary strike at individual liberty, responsibility and accountability. Fortunately I'm legal everywhere in Canada... ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 1:21pm
|
Well, I also think that we are far to easy on underage drinking here. I think if
we put Marijuana on the same level as Alcohol, it should be strictly enforced against people under the age of 21. -------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 1:23pm
|
Why 21, specifically?
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 1:25pm
chosen to be the age of responsibility. I know that not everyone is at that age, and some people are before it, but we do need a set age. I think 18 is too young, so 21 just seems like a logical step. -------------
|
Posted By: FROG MAN
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 1:26pm
|
well, i would take 21, but i think 18 is just fine.
That is my 100% totaly unbiased opinion ------------- <1 meg sig = bad> |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 1:30pm
"Very dangerous" is pushing it a bit in my opinion. I agree every bit that being high somewhat impairs driving ability, and that were it to be made legal, measures should be taken to prevent driving while under the influence. However, I've seen a study claiming that the highest level of intoxication possible (there is a certain point where even if you smoke more you don't get higher) had a similar effect on driving as a .04 blood alcohol content (well within the legal limit). http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450 - Cannabis effects on driving Also, from experience weed doesn't affect my driving anywhere near as much as even 2-3 beers. -------------
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 1:32pm
|
I'm all for heavily regulated Marijuana, on the same level as Alcohol, with consumption limits on both being 18.
21 is too far out, we've seen the effects of our current system on underage drinking. The real solution (well, partial solution) is to lower the drinking age, raise the driving age. |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 1:46pm
|
The driving age will not be raised anytime soon. Kids need their cars to get to work. Companies need kids to work because they can pay them low wages without worrying about strikes and whatnot.
Perhaps the drinking age should be reduced to 18 and there should be a zero tolerance policy on drinking and driving under 21. Even a .02 could get you in trouble if you're 18-20. A 21 year old can get away with a .08BAC. In all honesty, if given a choice, I'd choose to criminalize alchohol while legalizing weed. I've seen more people's lives ruined by alcohol than weed, and I've never almost died from smoking, but I have from drinking beer (I blew a .38 and threw up for hours, .4 is when you usually die). -------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 1:51pm
So MY choices should be legally restricted because of YOUR stupidity? No thanks. Natural selection has its place. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 1:57pm
|
I knew that reaction would occur. You basically summarized my entire feelings towards the anti-marijuana crowd in your post.
However, I didn't say it SHOULD be illegal, I said that I'd prefer it to be the other way around if one has to be illegal. Preferably, both would be legal and it would be everyone's decision which, or both, they'd like to use. -------------
|
Posted By: estcstpnt
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 1:57pm
|
Weed should be legalized... There's worse things, like alchohol. Most bad theories about marijuanna have been proven wrong. ------------- Thinking about it... |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 2:03pm
|
I think it needs to be decriminalized. Legalized, not so much.
-------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 2:05pm
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 2:07pm
|
Yeah, I'd love for it to be legalized. But it will be long before that happens. We need to be pushing for decriminalization before legalization.
-------------
|
Posted By: Mehs
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 2:25pm
|
They have SOME decriminalization laws, which make fines not very harsh,
and also so it's not a policemans top priority. It only applies
to some states, and because of them, I am here today and not in
jail/trying to pay off a 1000 dollar fine. Now comparing it to the same level as alcohol is a hard thing. Alcohol impairs a user so much more than a user of marijuana (in my opinion atleast...), and a person is more likely to get up and drive somewhere while drunk compared to a person who would just want to sit and relax while high (again, from personal experience & experiences with various people). Marijuana is also so much less harmful than alcohol, atleast in terms of a lethal amount, because there have been zero recorded deaths from use, compared to the thousands recorded from both alcohol, tobbacco, otc and prescription meds. Maybe in the way it impairs a user is what makes it similar to alcohol, but that's about the only connection that I can make so far... ------------- [IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/1538fbc.jpg"> Squeeze Box ☣ |
Posted By: jerseypaint
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 5:16pm
| Hehe. Page 5. |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 5:19pm
|
Funny thing is Federal Law > State/Local Law.
-------------
|
Posted By: Hitman
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 5:50pm
I'm pretty much sure of it. ------------- |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 7:46pm
Funny thing is, the Constitution gives the states the rights to regulate anything not specifically named to the federal government's authority. So technically, the federal government has no authority in the matter, but in our messed up world of today, they control it anyways. The federal government needs to get out of states'/voters' business. 10 years ago California passed the "Compassionate use" law, allowing medicinal users of marijuana to smoke without risk of the government intervention. Dispensaries have been established, and an ID card system is currently used to prevent just anyone from getting this "medicine." For some reason the federal government, teamed with the DEA think they have the right to override voter's wishes and raid these dispensaries. Has anyone seen this democracy I heard about in school? -------------
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 7:48pm
------------- 
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 7:52pm
You're wrong. Plain and simple. Research has PROVEN that the effects of THC on the neurotransmitters in the brain lead to psychological addictions. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 8:06pm
Which research is this? Have you seen this research, or did your health teacher/DARE instructor tell you this? Or are you just spouting out of your ass? Addiction is not the same as psychological dependence. Addiction is a disease with symptoms, the most important of which are withdrawal symptoms. These are not found even in cases of extreme psychological dependence on marijuana. Anything you do, from weed to sex to work can potentially form psychological dependence. I know what addiction is; I am addicted to cigarettes. I also use marijuana more than most people, and I am NOT addicted to it, nor are any of my other "stoner" friends. I've taken breaks from smoking ranging from a week to a year, and never had any withdrawal symptoms. -------------
|
Posted By: Destruction
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 8:13pm
|
I just smoke heroin. ------------- u dont know what to do ur getting mottor boatted Men are from Magmar, women are from Venusaur. |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 8:15pm
Good call. Just as long as you don't smoke that devil's weed. -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 8:21pm
|
REEEEEFER MADNESS. I would link to the movie, but I don't know if I could get in trouble for it.
-------------
|
Posted By: oreomann33
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 8:32pm
|
RAASTAFFFFAAAAARIIII
------------- 
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 8:40pm
|
Worst weed debate ever.
-------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 8:47pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Destruction
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 9:14pm
|
Cedric, Tito Pwenté
I heard that this kid chopped up his family with an axe after smoking weed. ------------- u dont know what to do ur getting mottor boatted Men are from Magmar, women are from Venusaur. |
Posted By: Hitman
Date Posted: 17 December 2006 at 11:12pm
|
A more likely story is that he used too much AXE deodorant and his family died from the smell.
------------- |
Posted By: Destruction
Date Posted: 18 December 2006 at 12:44am
No, he was a marijuana addict, and he chopped up his family after he smoked because it makes you violent, and it makes you hate your family. ------------- u dont know what to do ur getting mottor boatted Men are from Magmar, women are from Venusaur. |