MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
But every post is so full of nonsense, ignorance and hate how could I choose?
No More Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
simple fuckwit they would be the ones where i say what you claim...
MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
I love how folks spout off without knowing what they are spouting off about. Ginja apparently thinks it is ok for a medical cannabis patient to be arrested for child abuse. Please read the thread yourself so that you may form your own independent opinion. I do stand 100% behind what I have posted. It is no lie that cannabis research in this country since the Stamp Act has been completely fucked and only very recently has positive research flourished. We now know that smoking cannabis does not cause lung cancer, is a very promising treatment for cancer, boosts the immune system, is an anti inflammatory that does not cause stomach issues as with aspirin and such and so much more.
If you consider cannabis to be a medicine than why would giving a medicine to a child be wrong?
Moebius
Well-Known Member
I didn't know this. To my mind any carbon based organic compound when fully combusted could give of carcinogens.
'Vaping' as opposed to 'smoking' maybe different.
I'll let others who know more on this issue comment.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
its the partial combustion that releases carcinogens and your right it comes from all burning organic material
"PAHs are one of the most widespread organic pollutants. In addition to their presence in fossil fuels they are also formed by incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as wood, coal, diesel, fat, tobacco, and incense."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon
wasting your time telling him tho as he doesnt seem to realise the simple part about medicine does not automatically = safe for kids
Moebius
Well-Known Member
No truly scientific journal would ever describe any medicine or treatment as 'safe', much more likely they'll be described in terms of clinical outcomes.
I don't believe the issue is with highly provocative statements like "Who the fuck lets their kids get high? " ... Ive not read the thread fully but to my mind the issue is that some parents are looking for alternatives to the current pharmacological based medicines for their sick children.
Also, small amounts of cannabis given to a child is unlikely IMO to cause any mental defects to a child. That's just silly. And if it was a toss up between ameliorating the discomfort of a sick child with Cannabis or with conventional painkillers, well I think I would choose the one that works for 'MY' child. and to hell with the world.
Moebius
Well-Known Member
Maybe semantics here but -
Logic dictates a substance cannot achieve a state of full combustion without being previously partially combusted. ergo. 'any carbon based organic compound when fully combusted could give of carcinogens.'
I am aware a fully combusted substance is just ash.
but your clarification is welcome.
MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
All I ask is you read
I chose the Washington Post as my source however there are many others please research anyone who believes me full of shit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006
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.
Moebius
Well-Known Member
Will definitely read up on this when I get more than 5 minutes.All I ask is you read
I chose the Washington Post as my source however there are many others please research anyone who believes me full of shit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006
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.
Thanks.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
cherrypicking articles i see
http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer#evidence
[h=2]Evidence on cannabis and cancer[/h] Several research studies have shown a link between cannabis and cancer. But other studies have shown no link. This makes it difficult to say exactly what the risk is. There have been a couple of systematic reviews that have tried to draw some conclusions on this.
In 2005 a review looked at the results of several studies into marijuana use and cancer risk. The researchers looked at 2 cohort studies and 14 case control studies. The case control studies involved many different types of cancer. Results were mixed and the researchers could not make any firm conclusions about the risk of cancer. It was also difficult to draw conclusions because of limitations in the studies. They included small numbers of people, involved too few heavy marijuana users and possibly underreported marijuana use in those countries where it is illegal.
In 2006 a systematic review looked at marijuana use and lung cancer risk. Although they could not find a significant link between marijuana and cancer, the reviewers reported that smoking marijuana increased tar exposure and caused changes to the lining of the small tubes in the lungs. They recommended that, until we have more definite evidence, doctors should warn people of the possible harmful effects of marijuana smoking. A New Zealand study in 2008 compared people with lung cancer to people who did not have lung cancer and found that regular cannabis use does increase the risk of lung cancer.
In early 2006 doctors reported on a possible link between cannabis and bladder cancer. Smoking is one of the main causes of bladder cancer. This study looked at men with bladder cancer under the age of 60, who had smoked marijuana, and compared them to men who hadn’t smoked it. The study showed that marijuana may be a possible cause of bladder cancer. But as the study was small, researchers need to investigate further to find out for certain.
A 2009 study showed an increase in risk of testicular cancers in cannabis smokers compared to non cannabis smokers. The researchers say there was still an increase in risk after they accounted for tobacco and alcohol use. But the study was too small to draw any definite conclusions, so we still need more research into this.
Two American studies found that cannabis seemed unlikely to increase cancer risk. One, in 2006, found that there was an increased risk of cancers of the upper airways and digestive system (for example, the mouth, throat and food pipe). But when they adjusted the data to account for smoking cigarettes and other common risk factors, they found that the link with cannabis disappeared. In their data, it didn't seem to be the cannabis that was increasing the risk, but other factors such as smoking tobacco. They concluded that if cannabis did affect cancer risk, the effect was likely to be small. The other study, in 2009, looked at head and neck cancers. They found that risk of head and neck cancers in smokers and drinkers seemed to be lower in people who smoked cannabis as well. But this is only one study and we would need more research to show whether this was a reliable finding or not.
Finally, there is laboratory research looking at the effect of some chemicals in cannabis smoke on cancer cells. There is evidence that some of these substances can kill prostate cancer, breast cancer and brain tumour cells in the lab. The researchers do point out that using these pure substances in the lab is very different from smoking cannabis. They used far higher concentrations of each substance in their tests than you could get from smoking cannabis.
So at the moment we don't have clear evidence either way. We do know that smoking is unhealthy. And that, like tobacco, cannabis contains cancer causing substances. Therefore it would seem likely to increase cancer risk. But we need more research to know this for sure.
http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer#evidence
[h=2]Evidence on cannabis and cancer[/h] Several research studies have shown a link between cannabis and cancer. But other studies have shown no link. This makes it difficult to say exactly what the risk is. There have been a couple of systematic reviews that have tried to draw some conclusions on this.
In 2005 a review looked at the results of several studies into marijuana use and cancer risk. The researchers looked at 2 cohort studies and 14 case control studies. The case control studies involved many different types of cancer. Results were mixed and the researchers could not make any firm conclusions about the risk of cancer. It was also difficult to draw conclusions because of limitations in the studies. They included small numbers of people, involved too few heavy marijuana users and possibly underreported marijuana use in those countries where it is illegal.
In 2006 a systematic review looked at marijuana use and lung cancer risk. Although they could not find a significant link between marijuana and cancer, the reviewers reported that smoking marijuana increased tar exposure and caused changes to the lining of the small tubes in the lungs. They recommended that, until we have more definite evidence, doctors should warn people of the possible harmful effects of marijuana smoking. A New Zealand study in 2008 compared people with lung cancer to people who did not have lung cancer and found that regular cannabis use does increase the risk of lung cancer.
In early 2006 doctors reported on a possible link between cannabis and bladder cancer. Smoking is one of the main causes of bladder cancer. This study looked at men with bladder cancer under the age of 60, who had smoked marijuana, and compared them to men who hadn’t smoked it. The study showed that marijuana may be a possible cause of bladder cancer. But as the study was small, researchers need to investigate further to find out for certain.
A 2009 study showed an increase in risk of testicular cancers in cannabis smokers compared to non cannabis smokers. The researchers say there was still an increase in risk after they accounted for tobacco and alcohol use. But the study was too small to draw any definite conclusions, so we still need more research into this.
Two American studies found that cannabis seemed unlikely to increase cancer risk. One, in 2006, found that there was an increased risk of cancers of the upper airways and digestive system (for example, the mouth, throat and food pipe). But when they adjusted the data to account for smoking cigarettes and other common risk factors, they found that the link with cannabis disappeared. In their data, it didn't seem to be the cannabis that was increasing the risk, but other factors such as smoking tobacco. They concluded that if cannabis did affect cancer risk, the effect was likely to be small. The other study, in 2009, looked at head and neck cancers. They found that risk of head and neck cancers in smokers and drinkers seemed to be lower in people who smoked cannabis as well. But this is only one study and we would need more research to show whether this was a reliable finding or not.
Finally, there is laboratory research looking at the effect of some chemicals in cannabis smoke on cancer cells. There is evidence that some of these substances can kill prostate cancer, breast cancer and brain tumour cells in the lab. The researchers do point out that using these pure substances in the lab is very different from smoking cannabis. They used far higher concentrations of each substance in their tests than you could get from smoking cannabis.
So at the moment we don't have clear evidence either way. We do know that smoking is unhealthy. And that, like tobacco, cannabis contains cancer causing substances. Therefore it would seem likely to increase cancer risk. But we need more research to know this for sure.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
The research about finding more tar is completely useless. Herb that is dried and cured well produces FAR less tar than weed that is hastily dried and not cured. This is the type of study that can be manipulated the same sort of way some guy put a gas mask on monkeys and suffocated them to show that cannabis kills brain cells. Benzopyrene is a carcinogen that is created when lipids combust. Since all cannabinoids are lipids, cannabis will produce more benzopyrene the better it is. Those same cannabinoids have been found to have a range of anticancer effects. The link between cancer and cannabis has been studied extensively, the studies have been controlled in ranging degrees of bias from torching shitty uncured weed to vaping dank. Cannabis has been conclusively proven not to cause, agitate, catalyze, potentiate, complicate or even to have a synergistic negativity with cancer, but in every case, there is some indication of treatment. I have seen all the studies. I'm also going to be an oncologist when I grow up.
The study focuses on the carcinogens found in the tars of cannabis, not the amount of tars found in cannabis.
The average marijuana smoker puts 4 times the amount of tars into their lungs as those smoking cigarettes, and I doubt very much there have been medical studies on the proper cure of cannabis and its relation to tars.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Selective perception. Not only in the studies, but in your reading.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
got anything to back up what your saying ?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
The Ayurveda.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
you said you seen the studies can you not link to them
you talking about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I have seen all of the studies out there at one point or another, I keep up with that kind of thing. I also don't agree with big pharm being the only source of medicine and that all other sources are "atlernative" or "pseudo" and I think if they really cared about the effects of cannabis, even on toddlers, they would not give kids some of the SSRIs and ritalin and some of the other legal medicines that can be toxic. Indian herbal medicine has been practiced for millenia, so all of the information is well known. It is also much more effective than you probably think. Try neem leaf pills next time you have a bacterial infection, it is better than risking the creation of superbugs. If you trust Western Medicine blindly you are in for trouble, capitalism thrives on disease. I'll take the alternative.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You won't find a study that NIDA didn't falsify to keep Big Pharm exploiting you.
Cali chronic
Well-Known Member
Back on point with the Bush tax cuts... those are used by everyone BTW.. Although the rich enjoy more then the 50k a year worker. You will see your rate go up 2% across the board. I am not a Bush man other then the green. Yet, with that tax money; are you all ready to chip in 2% more so it can be sent to Somalia and Afghanistan? I am just curious if because you wear the Dem or Pub banner are you for it? Me?... NO! Watch this video to see the mistakes Obummer has made in plain simple English with no graphs or double talk. http://randpacusa.com/video5.aspx?pid=0614 I will create it's own thread for as many to see. Ron Paul even if you have to write him in, or is it Johnson the steady Turtle? Oh and I know about the Rand Paul and so called Romney endorsement, yet he cannot speak for his father...