71 posts
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100195337&ft=1&f=1055
Now look. This is jusy crazy. Pot doesn't hurt you one bit and is wy less harmful than alcohol. I've listened to all these media sources and the viewers comments about how bad this is. Shit. What are these people thinking.
Yeah, it's illegal. Other than that, what harm does it do? Why is it so damn bad? I think the real facts about pot need to be made public. This insane picture painted by our lovely government and the religious fundies who know nothing, needs to be shown for what it really is, bullshit.
Make it legal. Stop waisting money putting harmless pot smokers in jail. Start using the plant as we did in the past and possibly a type of fuel or something and forget it. Damn. >:(
http://www.jackherer.com/chapter02.html
What, you want more freedoms? Where the heck do you think you live anyway??!
And for the record......I went to Jamaica for my marriage-moon. ;D It was lovely. ;D
Heh, you got the X factor going on, I like it. :D
It will never be legal because there are far too many ill-informed people in this country.
There is is a balanced and accurate portrayal of it here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM_vLk1I6G4
Pot is harmful in the sense that it is bad on the lungs like any other smoking organic weed. I just weigh the odds and 4:20 afternoon break anyways. There is beer thirty PM (in my case red wine thirty PM), and my 4:20 Break. Not every day but sometimes.
Yeah, it's a little ridiculous. Every other 23-year-old in the world is smoking weed, and everyone flips out because the Greatest Olympian Ever smokes some?
This should be a wake-up call to everyone in the world who still views pot smokers as lazy, unmotivated, and unathletic. Clearly, great athletes can light some up and still kick major ass.
Anyone who's ever watched an NBA game should know that pot smokers are the best athletes around, by far. ;) And toking up a few phatties obviously hasn't stopped two of our last three presidents from getting decent jobs. Now, if only shrub had smoked some herb...
charger — Feb 04, 2009This should be a wake-up call to everyone in the world who still views pot smokers as lazy, unmotivated, and unathletic. Clearly, great athletes can light some up and still kick major ass.
Yeah, but if he wants to keep all of those endorsement deals he better straighten up mister! >:( ;D ;D ;D
cgtrox 8-)
desertbluesman — Feb 04, 2009Pot is harmful in the sense that it is bad on the lungs like any other smoking organic weed. I just weigh the odds and 4:20 afternoon break anyways. There is beer thirty PM (in my case red wine thirty PM), and my 4:20 Break. Not every day but sometimes.
DO you have any evidence that pot is bad on the lungs? I've looked everywhere for one case of lung cancer caused by smoking pot alone.....can't find one. Not even in countries where the shit is legal. That could have something to do with the pureness of the pot. It isn't laced with chemicals and crap like tobacco is. Anyway, can you find one case of lung cancer caused by smoking pot alone?
Now, surely any smoke isn't good for your lungs. I get that. I'm talking serious ill effects of smoking pot.
Maybe this would be a good read for ya.
http://www.jackherer.com/chapter15.html
Below is the same sort of thing I saw a long time ago back in the hippy daze, Of course burning organic matter does does add carcinogens to the lungs when inhaled. I am not saying don't smoke it, I smoked a ton in this life so far, but knowing that you may be harming yourself is only wisdom, don't hide your head in the sand and forget to know what you are doing and all aspects of what that practice entails.
Excerpts from http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html
Effects on the Heart
One study found that an abusers risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana. The researchers suggest that such an outcome might occur from marijuanas effects on blood pressure and heart rate (it increases both) and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.
Effects on the Lungs
Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increases the lungs exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;8 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.9 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.
Nonetheless, marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency toward obstructed airways. A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers.10 Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.
I think mushrooms should be legal too. ;)
desertbluesman — Feb 04, 2009Below is the same sort of thing I saw a long time ago back in the hippy daze, Of course burning organic matter does does add carcinogens to the lungs when inhaled. I am not saying don't smoke it, I smoked a ton in this life so far, but knowing that you may be harming yourself is only wisdom, don't hide your head in the sand and forget to know what you are doing and all aspects of what that practice entails.
Excerpts from http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html
Effects on the Heart
One study found that an abusers risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana. The researchers suggest that such an outcome might occur from marijuanas effects on blood pressure and heart rate (it increases both) and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.
Effects on the Lungs
Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increases the lungs exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;8 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.9 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.
Nonetheless, marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency toward obstructed airways. A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers.10 Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.
;D ;D ;D ;D
Obviously your the one with your head in the "concrete". ;D
You didn't read shit in the article I posted.
Your heart rate an blood pressure increase while having sex to. Also during exercise. Walking. Maybe even while taking a shit.
NIDA is a government run program. Read the article. Before 1976, I think it was, your same government said pot was basically harmless.
My blood pressure and heart rate goes up when people ignore my post. Also when my 2 year old tries to climb on the kitchen table. ;D Maybewe shouldn't have children, as Kev preaches about. ;D
"Studies have proven that many of the carcinogens in cannabis can be removed by using a water pipe system. Our government omitted this information and its significance when speaking to the press. At the same time politicians outlawed the sale of water pipes, labeling them "drug paraphernalia."
"Effects on the Lungs
Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increases the lungs exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;8 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.9 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time."
Lets look at this. Look at the wording. First, what studies are they talking about? See if you can find these studies and give me the link. Marijuana users "USUALLY" inhale more deeply......really? Says what study? Where is the evidence for this? Does it not sound kinda Clinton like to you? Blah blah blah....."which could lead to cancer".....but never has. Not one time. Ever. Hmmmmm. There is no link to cancer at this time.....well, they did get that one right.
This whole paragraph says nothing. Absolutely not jack shit, man. ;D
Might as well look at this one to. ;D
"Effects on the Heart
One study found that an abusers risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana. The researchers suggest that such an outcome might occur from marijuanas effects on blood pressure and heart rate (it increases both) and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood."
Abuser???? What is abuse of pot? What do they consider abuse? The researchers "SUGGEST" that such an outcome "MIGHT" occur.....
WTF is that. Suggestions and this might hapen.....
Do you not get it? It's says nothing. WHo are the researchers? Can you find out and let me know? One study.....1....which one was it? Out of how many studies total? Who did the study? Pastor Benny Hinn? ;D
Clearly the stats show that you can smoke 5 bongs a day without any serious health impact.
Any Heart/lLung disease will be down to passive smoking. :D
Marijuana users "USUALLY" inhale more deeply......really? Says what study? Where is the evidence for this?
For the record, it has been over thirty years since I partook in such illegal activity but I remember that everyone I knew was indeed inhaling deeper and longer. The cost of the substance, the PITA to find said substance, and the better results when inhaling deeper and longer were the main reasons for doing so. I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but that makes complete sense in my book.
I believe that the respiratory system was designed for fresh air and anything else (other than medical gases) will create problems somewhere down the line.
Keebo — Feb 05, 2009Marijuana users "USUALLY" inhale more deeply......really? Says what study? Where is the evidence for this?
For the record, it has been over thirty years since I partook in such illegal activity but I remember that everyone I knew was indeed inhaling deeper and longer. The cost of the substance, the PITA to find said substance, and the better results when inhaling deeper and longer were the main reasons for doing so. I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but that makes complete sense in my book.
I believe that the respiratory system was designed for fresh air and anything else (other than medical gases) will create problems somewhere down the line.
Wow. I've seen people get pissed or stressed out, grab the cigs, and their first time they took a drag of the cig.....I couldn't tell any difference. Question....if you inhale deep enough to get the smoke to your lungs, how do you measure how deep into the lungs the smoke gets? Is the bottom of the lugs more sensitive than the top of the lungs? Also, when you exhale, does that get rid of all smoke in the lungs completely? Is there any smoke which gets out of town, say, maybe on the next exhale? And what if one were to acquire some really good pot? Would it kinda start to equal out some? Assuming what you say is true, of course.
Do you believe in God? You see, it really doesn't matter what you believe. The question here is that of harm to your lungs from pot smoke, right? One could believe a boat was designed only for fishing to. Or maybe that your penis was designed only to reproduce.
Or, one could argue that your lungs were designed only to breath, and inhale pot smoke, as neither does any harm if done correctly.
And if what you believe were true, don't you think that all the poison we pollute our air with is a little more harmful than pot smoke? Like the emissions from a car, for example?
If we can determine that smoking causes cancer, but smoke from pot doesn't, there has to be some science, evidence to support harm. Long term harm. As in cancer or something.
And since no one will read the article I posted before sticking there foot in there mouth....... ;D
During a later interview, Tashkin congratulated me on the tip I'd given him that marijuana used for emphysema produced good results among persons we knew.
He laughed at me originally, because he had presumed that marijuana aggravated emphysema, but after reviewing his evidence found that, except in the rarest of cases, marijuana was actually of great benefit to emphysema suffers due to the opening and dilation of the bronchial passages.
And so the relief reported to us by cannabis smoking emphysema patients was confirmed.
Marijuana smoke is not unique in its benefits to the lungs. Yerba Santa, Colt's foot, Horehound, and other herbs have traditionally been smoked to help the lungs.
Tobacco and its associated dangers have so prejudiced persons against "smoking" that most persons believe cannabis smoking to be as or more dangerous than tobacco. With research banned, these public health and safety facts are not readily available.
In December 1997, we asked Dr. Tashkin again, and he unequivocally stated that "marijuana does not cause or potentiate emphysema in any way." In addition, there has not been one case of lung cancer ever attributed to smoking cannabis.
Notice that there are herbs that benefit the lungs when smoked. Not just clean air. But believe away. ;D ;D
Hookbender — Feb 04, 2009"Effects on the Lungs
Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke.
And if you smoked as much pot as there is tobacco in a pack of cigarettes, this would matter. As it is, most people don't even smoke the comparable amount of pot to a single cigarette in a day... we're talking about a substance that is sold in units of 3 and a half grams. How many times you ever met anyone who smoked a full joint to his own head?
"However, unlike tobacco smoke, cannabis smoke does not cause any changes in the small airways, the area where tobacco smoke causes long term and permanent damage. Additionally, a tobacco smoker will smoke 20 to 60 cigarettes a day, while a heavy marijuana smoker may smoke five to seven joints a day, even less when potent high-quality flower tops are available."
You can't compare a pot smoker with a cig smoker. Doesn't even make sense.
"According to the American Lung Association, cigarettes and tobacco smoking related diseases kill more than 430,000 Americans every year. Fifty million Americans smoke, and 3,000 teens start each day. The Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the late 1970s concluded that "marijuana is one-and-a-half times more carcinogenic than tobacco."
And not one death a year from smoking pot.
Not to mention the need for this in our economy. Could be the answer we're looking for. Want to create jobs, look no further.
http://www.jackherer.com/chapter09.html
Question....if you inhale deep enough to get the smoke to your lungs, how do you measure how deep into the lungs the smoke gets? Is the bottom of the lugs more sensitive than the top of the lungs?
I'm sure there are measuring devices for this but total capacity inhaling is what I was referring to. The more that you inhale is inserting more of the produce for the lungs to work with and that much less that escapes the user and their wallet.
Do you believe in God? You see, it really doesn't matter what you believe. The question here is that of harm to your lungs from pot smoke, right? One could believe a boat was designed only for fishing to. Or maybe that your penis was designed only to reproduce.
Thanks for reminding me why I don't visit those other two "voodoo" forum topics :) .
Or, one could argue that your lungs were designed only to breath, and inhale pot smoke, as neither does any harm if done correctly.
Yes, one definetly has the right to argue the above. I, however, have learned during the last three decades that any burning material is harmful to the respiratory track in some form or fashion.
And if what you believe were true, don't you think that all the poison we pollute our air with is a little more harmful than pot smoke? Like the emissions from a car, for example?
I am not an atmospheric or cannabis scientist but I would think that neither are ideal for breathing. The lungs simply are designed for fresh air but will take what they can and adapt to some degree but will eventually fail if not taken care of appropriately.
If we can determine that smoking causes cancer, but smoke from pot doesn't, there has to be some science, evidence to support harm. Long term harm. As in cancer or something.
I would like to see more evidence on this as well.
If you were to read the article I posted, you would get the evidence and answers yur looking for. Complete with who did the study so you could look it up and with the results. Pot smoke, for example, does only temparary aggrevation to the lungs, according to this study. It seems you'd rather just believe what you want instead of reading and getting the eveidence and facts you say you desire.
The g0overnment and it's flock, sponsered programs like Dare and NIDA, are lying to the public. The government even banned research on pot and chose to believe whatever they want, or ignore data that proved them wrong.
Certainly, with the technology w have today, we could get to the bottom of this pot thing much better than we were able to when studies were lat done. But even with the studies we now have, pot is way safer than any alcoholic beverage you may choose to drink. And cig you choose to smoke. So why is it banned or illegal? The gateway drug thing? The article proves that nonsense also.
The shit ain't any good for your health & that is all there is to it. I don't give a fukk what someone writes on some web page, my reason tells me that it is carcinogenic, any smoking material is carcinogenic. And with that knowledge, I can decide what I want to do after knowing the truth.
I am not saying not to smoke the dreaded devils weed I have enjoyed many pounds of the stuff throughout my lifetime. I got nothing against it, in fact I am for legalization. But knowing it is harmful in some ways, and modifying my use because of that is just wisdom.
And I ain't got my head in the concrete, (Fuck I was a concrete mason for years, I don't want anything to do with concrete, in fact when I needed some at my house I hired the local concrete guy to do it). I did not read the link you posted I don't usually open links in forum postings and "believe what they say" I use my reason to figure out most things. I did not even believe the shit I posted from the Gvt web page I just put it there to show that it may be true.
Two things I've learned over time:
1. If alcohol and tobacco are legal, there is absolutely no reason pot shouldn't be.
2. Arguing with people who don't support pot never works. It's kind of like arguing pro gay marriage, or arguing for a black president. The only way minds will change over this stuff is by the passage of time, and newer generations with more open minds influencing the course of societal opinion.
Sort of on topic... But do you guys think that the Government tends to ban substances more because people enjoy them then for any other reason? Not all substances of course, things like meth, heroin and crack are pure trouble, but some seem to be included "just because."
I've never seen any real evidence that pot is more dangerous than cigarettes (actually, I've seen some that indicates the opposite is true), but cigarettes really don't make a person feel better, they're actually mostly a social habit. Alcohol is, in reality, a depressant. Any pleasure that people get has caused the Government to try and ban it before, but we all know how that ended up. The only difference is that pot-heads are far mellower and less likely to cause the violence that made Prohibition go away! ;D
It is purely cultural thing,
Prohibition is simply a vice law.
What the culture chooses to sanction or proscribe as anti-social personal behaviour.
Cultural law has a huge amount of inertia.
The issue with MJ is not whether it is more or less harmful than Alcohol or Tobacco, it is simply that it is not currently legal.
If the situation was reversed with only MJ as a legal v. Alcohol or Tobacco would struggle to gain legality.
Simply dealing with political inertia.
CraigBert — Feb 05, 2009But do you guys think that the Government tends to ban substances more because people enjoy them then for any other reason?
I think they banned the dreaded reefer madness because it helps people see another facet of things, and it helps to see beyond what people are saying to why they are saying their words.
In other words it is rather enlightening. At least it was for me. When I started smoking pot, I could see things I could not see normally. It did a thing with time for me and slowed the world down enough for me to catch ideas that flew by unnoticed before I turned on. I am talking 1964 here. I still recall the very first time I smoked it, and the changes it put me through. I think the Government considers that ability to see things not necessarily native to many people, and they don't want you to see through their purposes.
That is why I think it is illegal. It is a threat to their dominance. Look at what happened during the hippy daze, all the protests, all of the unrest, all of the changes it put the world through. They are afraid of it amigo's. The devils weed drove me away from normalcy, and I never came back.
You need to take Acid to be truly enlightened :)
Funny - The Reefer madness film was pretty much like how LSD was portrayed in propaganda as a kid growing up.
The jumping out of windows thing particularly.
Ecstasy - a load of hyped up nonsense about a very few deaths they could nail onto it over years with millions taking it every weekend.
Society is simply scared of new drugs - period.
Then it gets used to them
MJ - even granddad and the President has smoked it.
It is not subversive or counter culture any more.
desertbluesman — Feb 05, 2009The shit ain't any good for your health & that is all there is to it. I don't give a fukk what someone writes on some web page, my reason tells me that it is carcinogenic, any smoking material is carcinogenic. And with that knowledge, I can decide what I want to do after knowing the truth.
With all due respect, you have no ability at all to reason if you ignore facts and evidence that contradicts what your saying. Yeah, you can decide for yourself what to believe, as you can decide to believe in the pink unicorn. But if you decide what to believe based on your own personal thoughts alone, your likely to be wrong most of the time. And deciding to ignore evidence isn't really a smart thing, right? Of course not. I wasn't attempting to tell you what to do, I was telling you your wrong.
And if you reaqd the article or search for facts on your own, you'd see there are benefits from smoking pot, such as ceaning of the lung, help with cancer patients, and stress from dealing with people like you. ;D ;D (just kidding around) With you I mean, it does help with stress also. :)
desertbluesman — Feb 05, 2009I am not saying not to smoke the dreaded devils weed I have enjoyed many pounds of the stuff throughout my lifetime. I got nothing against it, in fact I am for legalization. But knowing it is harmful in some ways, and modifying my use because of that is just wisdom.
And I ain't got my head in the concrete, (Fuck I was a concrete mason for years, I don't want anything to do with concrete, in fact when I needed some at my house I hired the local concrete guy to do it). I did not read the link you posted I don't usually open links in forum postings and "believe what they say" I use my reason to figure out most things. I did not even believe the shit I posted from the Gvt web page I just put it there to show that it may be true.
And if you read the article I posted that made the NIDA look like shit, along with you as you didn't read the article before posting, we could have avoided half the post in this thread. It was covered.
But don't feel bad, your not the only one who didn't read it before posting. Right Keebo the voodoo man? ;D ;D
Acid definitely got a bad rap (especially since it was primarily PCP that caused the jumping out of a window deaths - THAT shit is nasty) and Ecstasy is safer than aspirin (though there are some possible issues from using it too often - as there is with just about anything else you don't use in moderation).
Speaking only for myself, I never truly appreciated nature or anything else until after I had taken mushrooms (and, later, mescalin). Now, even without them, I tend to look at things far more deeply and can find wonder in lots of everyday items. I can't understate the profound positives I received, but I can also say that they aren't for everyone. Control freaks should just say "No."
I don't smoke pot (have never smoked anything in fact), though I've had a couple of second-hand highs courtesy of my friends in high-school. It made me breakout and want to eat a dozen cheeseburgers (or an entire pizza by myself), but I didn't get too many other effects from it. Hehe, I may be the only person around Portland who hasn't partaken! ::)
I think the majoriety of the reason it's not legal is because of the majoriety of the people are Christians. Yep, religion again. Religion fucks up everything. ;)
By the way, the first bibles were made in part with hemp. ;D People should have smoked every bible that was made back then. ;D ;D
That Reefer madness film makes more sense if it was PCP they were smoking.
Hookbender — Feb 05, 2009
And if you reaqd the article or search for facts on your own, you'd see there are benefits from smoking pot, such as ceaning of the lung, help with cancer patients, and stress from dealing with people like you. ;D ;D (just kidding around) With you I mean, it does help with stress also. :)
sounds like a wonder drug - it should be prescribed for health reasons to everyone for free. :)
The stronger the better :)
Just imagine how much money the drug companies would lose if pot were legal.
fingers — Feb 05, 2009[quote author=Hookbender link=1233705301/25#32 date=1233876712]
And if you Read the article or search for facts on your own, you'd see there are benefits from smoking pot, such as cleaning of the lung, help with cancer patients, and stress from dealing with people like you. ;D ;D (just kidding around) With you I mean, it does help with stress also. :)
sounds like a wonder drug - it should be prescribed for health reasons to everyone for free. :)
The stronger the better :)
And when it was banned, it had huge hope of being exactly that, a wonder drug for many health issues. And those issues are supported with studies, not imagination or belief. ;D ;D
Quite funny - the claims you are making about MJ are pretty much the same as the ones tobacco used 50 years ago.
Cleans the lungs - lol.
He laughed at me originally, because he had presumed that marijuana aggravated emphysema, but after reviewing his evidence found that, except in the rarest of cases, marijuana was actually of great benefit to emphysema suffers due to the opening and dilation of the bronchial passages.
And so the relief reported to us by cannabis smoking emphysema patients was confirmed.
Marijuana smoke is not unique in its benefits to the lungs. Yerba Santa, Colt's foot, Horehound, and other herbs have traditionally been smoked to help the lungs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O.K., I exaggerated just a bit. Seemed appropriate. ;D
I had a roommate once who contracted emphysema from smoking pot. He never smoked cigarettes. So I think that last statement is probably false.
No, I didn't read the links, Hooky. Dial up prevents me from straying too far from my routine. But this thread has been interesting. I can really relate to DBM's comment about slowing down and catching ideas that previously went by unnoticed.
Those were the good old days but they are just history to me. Good luck on changing the world. Power to the people, right on.
fingers — Feb 05, 2009You need to take Acid to be truly enlightened :)
Did many acid trips over a few year span back when it first came out. It was enlightening, in fact From the time I took my first acid trip, I was never the same. It changed my outlook on the world and to this day some 40 years later I am still glad I went that route. In fact for me after doing acid, every time I smoked pot it was a mini acid trip like experience. Still to this day when I smoke a bone, it is like a mini acid trip.
Hookbender — Feb 05, 2009With all due respect, you have no ability at all to reason if you ignore facts and evidence that contradicts what your saying. Yeah, you can decide for yourself what to believe, as you can decide to believe in the pink unicorn. But if you decide what to believe based on your own personal thoughts alone, your likely to be wrong most of the time. And deciding to ignore evidence isn't really a smart thing, right? Of course not. I wasn't attempting to tell you what to do, I was telling you your wrong.
The one thing that amazes me is that people believe what they read, did you follow up on that article, to go to the universities or scientific labs websites that did the studies (if there were studies) for back up. Or did you just "believe" what was written there?
You see from birth we are taught to "believe" but fortunately for me I was taught by a grade school teacher not to believe anything I heard or read until I found definitive proof. The reason I did not read the article is because I simply don't care what they say, If I want to smoke pot I will smoke it, in fact I smoked my first joint in 1964, and from there many every day until sometime in 1990. I used to go to work on high rise buildings high on pot every day working on swing scaffolds with nothing but 5 2x12 planks between me and 20 stories of air. I don't have to justify my actions by reading some article on the internet because you said to read it. I did the act and I take responsibility for my actions, and if I get diseased from smoking pot it ain't anybodies fault but my own.
And by the way you can't tell me I am wrong because all I said is
smoking any organic substance puts carcinogens in your lungs. Prove that statement to be untrue, and I will read your article. But you have to direct me to a university study that lasted 5 years or more to make me believe anything.
Hook, dude. I love weed. Have since I was a pre teen. Made a hell of a living with it as a cornerstone in my business for over a decade. For many years the first thing I did was get high, right after pissing in the morning. Then, throughout my day, I would smoke weed, much like a cigarette smoker does tobacco, using either a glass pipe or water bong. For many years I averaged between a half oz to over an oz consumption a day, of good, potent, green shit. I was moving 100-200 lbs a week for the last few years I had my business and was involved in a couple different grow operations (as the source of funding and general advisor) that were producing nearly a pound a week of Hydro between them. Nearly everyone I knew sold pot on a large scale, and of course we all smoked it. I only bring this up to say, more than most people you will ever meet, I consider myself something of an expert on the subject. I have imported it from Canada, Mexico, Afghanastan, Alaska, etc... The year I got busted, my earnings from weed, coke, X, and various other activities such as lending money for interest and doing collections for other friends in the industry was over $200k, mind you that was my own personal earnoing after paying expenses including a list of "employees".
When, after around 12 years of this, I got busted, the thought of actually spending money on weed made me sick. To me, it had been a perk of my job, I always thought it amazing that so many people were willing to spend their money on the shit. So I quit smoking it unless I happened to be somewhere where someone was offering it free, which actually still happened quite often.
But, upon ceasing daily use, after a couple of months, my breathing had improved my motivation to actually get out and do shit ramped up. Then I eventually ended up quitting all together for a while. Actually I had quit until I took the onstruction job in 07 and started smoking on the job with my blue collar pot buddies.
I notice a definite, real deifference in my breathing while smoking and for days after. I don' smoke enough anymore to sap my motivation or wahtever.
Pot smoke is still smoke. If you don't believe it hurts your lungs or airways, then just check your pipe/bong/other smoking apparatus. That resin that gathers all over the place, you think your lungs are immune? As far as comparing it to cigarettes, a single cigarette does not yield anything like the resing on the roach of a nice joint. THat said, I have never, ever smoked tobacco, I am repulsed by the smell of it, it is a dirty, rotten habit. But I have seen other people do so and I have yeat to see an ashtray full of resin coated cigarette butts.
I still think it should be legal, health risk or no. When I was in business I did not think so, legalizing weed, coke, X, would bankrupt the illicit drug industry, no serious drug dealer could support legalization. But as a reformed straight citizen, yeah, I see no reason for it to be illegal. But there is too much money involved on both sides of "the war on drugs" for it to ever cease.
I know for 100% certainty that if the DEA or local law enforcement really wanted to shut down any sizeable drug ring, they can. When they got me they were throwing out names of all kinds of people whom I thought were really under the radar; asking if I knew them, telling me details about them and their relationship to me that I had thought were kept pretty confidential. "The man" knows who all the players are, so why not end the game?
desertbluesman — Feb 06, 2009[quote author=Hookbender link=1233705301/25#32 date=1233876712]With all due respect, you have no ability at all to reason if you ignore facts and evidence that contradicts what your saying. Yeah, you can decide for yourself what to believe, as you can decide to believe in the pink unicorn. But if you decide what to believe based on your own personal thoughts alone, your likely to be wrong most of the time. And deciding to ignore evidence isn't really a smart thing, right? Of course not. I wasn't attempting to tell you what to do, I was telling you your wrong.
The one thing that amazes me is that people believe what they read, did you follow up on that article, to go to the universities or scientific labs websites that did the studies (if there were studies) for back up. Or did you just "believe" what was written there?
You see from birth we are taught to "believe" but fortunately for me I was taught by a grade school teacher not to believe anything I heard or read until I found definitive proof. The reason I did not read the article is because I simply don't care what they say, If I want to smoke pot I will smoke it, in fact I smoked my first joint in 1964, and from there many every day until sometime in 1990. I used to go to work on high rise buildings high on pot every day working on swing scaffolds with nothing but 5 2x12 planks between me and 20 stories of air. I don't have to justify my actions by reading some article on the internet because you said to read it. I did the act and I take responsibility for my actions, and if I get diseased from smoking pot it ain't anybodies fault but my own.
And by the way you can't tell me I am wrong because all I said is
smoking any organic substance puts carcinogens in your lungs. Prove that statement to be untrue, and I will read your article. But you have to direct me to a university study that lasted 5 years or more to make me believe anything.
I was simply trying to get you to read material based on studies by credible people. There are a lot of myths around pot. This isn't the be all end all group of studies that put to rest all the lies about pot. The studies were ended by President Ford around 1976. Other countries have done studies where pot is legal. The smokers have done pt for damn near all their adult life.
If you chose not to read the article I posted, you have no idea if my point is credible or not. You have no idea if the studies were done for a 5b year period or a 20 year period. Your arguments are baed solely on your very limited experience alone. That's just not enough to convince anyone of anything. In fact, it just adds more myth to the problem surrounding pot and it's effects. We don't need myth, belief, thoughts, religious bias, or any other non-evidence based crap to get to the bottom of any question or problem. Not if you want to truely solve problems and answer questions. And the lengh of time a study is conducted in doesn't determine it's value.
"The one thing that amazes me is that people believe what they read, did you follow up on that article, to go to the universities or scientific labs websites that did the studies (if there were studies) for back up. Or did you just "believe" what was written there?"
What makes you think I believe anything? I didn't say I believe this to be true. I simply provided you case studies by credible people within this article. And you wouldn't have posted this if you were to have read the article because the answers are in the article. The name of thestudies, the name of the people doing the study, etc. These people are professors at universities, like UCLA, doctors and so on. Much more qualified than a construction worker who got high before going to work for 20 years or so. It's just insane for you to post stuff like this when the answer to what your questioning has already been provided.
I'd like to see new studies done. Extensive studies with todays technology. However, my point is that pot isn't as harmful as alcohol or cigs as far as long term illness and disease is concerned.....but it's illegal. Why is that? Why do you think that is? People have smoked pot for years and never got cancer. Why is that? Some say that chemicals in the pot counter the cancer causing agents. But pot hasn't caused one case of cancer. That's a fact. So why is it illegal? Some say pot is addictive, some say it's not. Both alcohol and cigs are addictive for sure, and their legal. So why is pot illegal? Pot has proven effective medically, cigs and alcohol are not. So, why is pot illegal, even for medical use? Some answers are given in the article that are interesting. Doesn't mean new evidence won't prove them wrong. But for now, what we have is what we have. And the facts are that pot doesn't cause cancer, no matter what's in the smoke. So your point is useless. It's probably not good for me to stand on the side of a busy interstate in Atlanta and breath the fumes from all the cars going by.....but it does no long term damage, as far as I know. Farmers breath terd air from cows and pigs etc....can't b e good for them, but it dosn't cause cancer and I'm pretty sure no one has died from breathing in air off a fresh terd. ;D ;D ;D
The redneck in me just has to come out and ruin everything. ;D
By the way, "turd" is spelled with a "U." ;) ;D
