|
On February 28 2008 04:24 humblegar wrote:
I don't know why people that spent their lives researching people's health didn't just ask a random weed smoking dude how he felt, it would have saved a lot of money?
In addition I'll drop by my wife's work and tell the ones with psychosis triggered by weed to just get out of there, because after all, pyrogenetix is just fine and the rest is just propaganda.
Do you understand the rough ratio of having inactive psychosis to not having it? Now, do you know the percentage that gets activated by marijuana? Less than 1%. There simply are not enough cases for this to be a legitimate argument. Sorry. 
|
United States24554 Posts
On February 28 2008 04:59 Romance_us wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2008 03:28 micronesia wrote:
I agree with a few people here that too many people seem to think that weed has virtually no side effects. It's also a lot harder to make a case for banning alcohol in comparison to weed... alcohol, in proper amounts, is good, and/or neutral. That's not true for weed.
Edit: BTW I saw the OP's commercial with the girl who doesn't remember the weekend... but... did they actually say, or specifically imply weed? There are other explanations that work... Please don't post if you know absolutely nothing. Show me a medicinal case of CONSUMABLE alcohol please. And also, your logic is extremely flawed because you talk about "proper amounts" of alcohol... the amount of weed is takes to die from is astronomical, impossible to do with every day resources. Alcohol, on the other hand, may be slightly healthy in low dosage, but kills with a relatively low dosage also.
That fact that you are getting so upset implies that you are getting defensive (and for good reason). Obviously I know absolutely nothing, especially since alcohol IS found to have positive health effects under specific circumstances, such as modest amounts of wine over a long period of time (obviously I'm not talking about binge drinking JD). My logic is not at all flawed, you just missed my point entirely. When I brought up the idea of 'proper amounts' I meant that, just like with wine, it's easier to make a case if you can point out positive effects. Point to some positive effects of weed. Well, for medicinal purposes, you can make a case. But, it's much more difficult to make a case for at home use (as opposed to alcohol). I'm not even saying weed should be banned, necessarily; I'm just drawing comparisons.
Edit: btw, we aren't talking about DEATH so while you are busy insulting me, please avoid making grand, sweeping assumptions, that I'm talking about what will kill you.
|
United States22883 Posts
Alcohol kills with a relatively low dosage? Relative to an Olympic sized swimming pool?
|
On February 28 2008 05:18 Jibba wrote:
Alcohol kills with a relatively low dosage? Relative to an Olympic sized swimming pool?
Serious? Alcohol poisoning happens all the fucking time, especially in colleges and among people who don't know their "limit". It's impossible to die from smoking marijuana, on the short term (yes, smoking is bad and causes lung cancer, etc).
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 28 2008 05:29 Meta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2008 05:18 Jibba wrote:
Alcohol kills with a relatively low dosage? Relative to an Olympic sized swimming pool? Serious? Alcohol poisoning happens all the fucking time, especially in colleges and among people who don't know their "limit". It's impossible to die from smoking marijuana, on the short term (yes, smoking is bad and causes lung cancer, etc).
So demolishing 25 beers is a relatively low dosage?
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On February 28 2008 05:14 micronesia wrote:
especially since alcohol IS found to have positive health effects under specific circumstances. alcohol per se - none - the only example you can find is small amounts of red wine because of other substances other than alcohol; and usually the negative effects of alcohol in the wine offset by much any possible benefit from the other substances in it (including water and the flavinoid family of compounds - note that an extra glass of water a day also have a positive health effect lol, marketing, you got to luv it!)
alcohol per se does not have any positive health effect unless you use it as a surface disinfectant and even then if you use it wrong it will cause more harm than good lol
|
On February 28 2008 04:24 humblegar wrote:
I don't know why people that spent their lives researching people's health didn't just ask a random weed smoking dude how he felt, it would have saved a lot of money?
In addition I'll drop by my wife's work and tell the ones with psychosis triggered by weed to just get out of there, because after all, pyrogenetix is just fine and the rest is just propaganda.
It only triggers psychosis in those predisposed to it. it doesn't cause it. If you're predisposed, a shit day at work, a major break up or any number of things could cause that.
|
On February 28 2008 05:42 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2008 05:29 Meta wrote:On February 28 2008 05:18 Jibba wrote:
Alcohol kills with a relatively low dosage? Relative to an Olympic sized swimming pool? Serious? Alcohol poisoning happens all the fucking time, especially in colleges and among people who don't know their "limit". It's impossible to die from smoking marijuana, on the short term (yes, smoking is bad and causes lung cancer, etc). So demolishing 25 beers is a relatively low dosage?
Alcohol is dependent on body weight. For somebody who weighs 100 pounds, it is very plausible that 10 or so beverages at 5% alcohol could cause death, where for a 300 pound person it would get them mildly drunk. Now take the same weights and lets turn the 5% alcohol into 5% THC in a bowl. The 100 pound person can smoke 25 bowls and pass out, but be perfectly fine. The 300 pound person can do the same thing, and also be perfectly fine. I don't really see your argument.
|
On February 28 2008 05:02 Romance_us wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2008 04:24 humblegar wrote:
I don't know why people that spent their lives researching people's health didn't just ask a random weed smoking dude how he felt, it would have saved a lot of money?
In addition I'll drop by my wife's work and tell the ones with psychosis triggered by weed to just get out of there, because after all, pyrogenetix is just fine and the rest is just propaganda. Do you understand the rough ratio of having inactive psychosis to not having it? Now, do you know the percentage that gets activated by marijuana? Less than 1%. There simply are not enough cases for this to be a legitimate argument. Sorry.
Actually, I have never even heard of the term inactive psychosis.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 28 2008 05:45 Physician wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2008 05:14 micronesia wrote:
especially since alcohol IS found to have positive health effects under specific circumstances. alcohol per se - none - the only example you can find is small amounts of red wine because of other substances other than alcohol; and usually the negative effects of alcohol in the wine offset by much any possible benefit from the other substances in it (including water and the flavinoid family of compounds - note that an extra glass of water a day also have a positive health effect lol, marketing, you got to luv it!) alcohol per se does not have any positive health effect unless you use it as a surface disinfectant and even then if you use it wrong it will cause more harm than good lol
BAM!
|
On February 28 2008 05:14 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2008 04:59 Romance_us wrote:On February 28 2008 03:28 micronesia wrote:
I agree with a few people here that too many people seem to think that weed has virtually no side effects. It's also a lot harder to make a case for banning alcohol in comparison to weed... alcohol, in proper amounts, is good, and/or neutral. That's not true for weed.
Edit: BTW I saw the OP's commercial with the girl who doesn't remember the weekend... but... did they actually say, or specifically imply weed? There are other explanations that work... Please don't post if you know absolutely nothing. Show me a medicinal case of CONSUMABLE alcohol please. And also, your logic is extremely flawed because you talk about "proper amounts" of alcohol... the amount of weed is takes to die from is astronomical, impossible to do with every day resources. Alcohol, on the other hand, may be slightly healthy in low dosage, but kills with a relatively low dosage also. That fact that you are getting so upset implies that you are getting defensive (and for good reason). Obviously I know absolutely nothing, especially since alcohol IS found to have positive health effects under specific circumstances, such as modest amounts of wine over a long period of time (obviously I'm not talking about binge drinking JD). My logic is not at all flawed, you just missed my point entirely. When I brought up the idea of 'proper amounts' I meant that, just like with wine, it's easier to make a case if you can point out positive effects. Point to some positive effects of weed. Well, for medicinal purposes, you can make a case. But, it's much more difficult to make a case for at home use (as opposed to alcohol). I'm not even saying weed should be banned, necessarily; I'm just drawing comparisons. Edit: btw, we aren't talking about DEATH so while you are busy insulting me, please avoid making grand, sweeping assumptions, that I'm talking about what will kill you.
Yes, I'm getting very "defensive", just because I point out your blatant ignorance.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 28 2008 06:31 Romance_us wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2008 05:42 Jibba wrote:On February 28 2008 05:29 Meta wrote:On February 28 2008 05:18 Jibba wrote:
Alcohol kills with a relatively low dosage? Relative to an Olympic sized swimming pool? Serious? Alcohol poisoning happens all the fucking time, especially in colleges and among people who don't know their "limit". It's impossible to die from smoking marijuana, on the short term (yes, smoking is bad and causes lung cancer, etc). So demolishing 25 beers is a relatively low dosage? Alcohol is dependent on body weight. For somebody who weighs 100 pounds, it is very plausible that 10 or so beverages at 5% alcohol could cause death, where for a 300 pound person it would get them mildly drunk. Now take the same weights and lets turn the 5% alcohol into 5% THC in a bowl. The 100 pound person can smoke 25 bowls and pass out, but be perfectly fine. The 300 pound person can do the same thing, and also be perfectly fine. I don't really see your argument.
10 is not a relatively low dosage either. The point is that you're engaging in the same hysteria based propaganda as the people who make anti-marijuana ads.
|
United States24554 Posts
Physician, what are better sources than red wine? Are there comparable benefits to red wine in weed?
On February 28 2008 06:34 Romance_us wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2008 05:14 micronesia wrote:On February 28 2008 04:59 Romance_us wrote:On February 28 2008 03:28 micronesia wrote:
I agree with a few people here that too many people seem to think that weed has virtually no side effects. It's also a lot harder to make a case for banning alcohol in comparison to weed... alcohol, in proper amounts, is good, and/or neutral. That's not true for weed.
Edit: BTW I saw the OP's commercial with the girl who doesn't remember the weekend... but... did they actually say, or specifically imply weed? There are other explanations that work... Please don't post if you know absolutely nothing. Show me a medicinal case of CONSUMABLE alcohol please. And also, your logic is extremely flawed because you talk about "proper amounts" of alcohol... the amount of weed is takes to die from is astronomical, impossible to do with every day resources. Alcohol, on the other hand, may be slightly healthy in low dosage, but kills with a relatively low dosage also. That fact that you are getting so upset implies that you are getting defensive (and for good reason). Obviously I know absolutely nothing, especially since alcohol IS found to have positive health effects under specific circumstances, such as modest amounts of wine over a long period of time (obviously I'm not talking about binge drinking JD). My logic is not at all flawed, you just missed my point entirely. When I brought up the idea of 'proper amounts' I meant that, just like with wine, it's easier to make a case if you can point out positive effects. Point to some positive effects of weed. Well, for medicinal purposes, you can make a case. But, it's much more difficult to make a case for at home use (as opposed to alcohol). I'm not even saying weed should be banned, necessarily; I'm just drawing comparisons. Edit: btw, we aren't talking about DEATH so while you are busy insulting me, please avoid making grand, sweeping assumptions, that I'm talking about what will kill you. Yes, I'm getting very "defensive", just because I point out your blatant ignorance. "Please don't post if you know absolutely nothing." Lol, just 'pointing out' my supposed 'blatant ignorance' eh? It's especially ironic since most of what you said in response made no sense. But I have a feeling Physician will do what he usually does and shed some light, or at least provide some additional perspective.
|
On February 28 2008 06:19 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2008 04:24 humblegar wrote:
I don't know why people that spent their lives researching people's health didn't just ask a random weed smoking dude how he felt, it would have saved a lot of money?
In addition I'll drop by my wife's work and tell the ones with psychosis triggered by weed to just get out of there, because after all, pyrogenetix is just fine and the rest is just propaganda. It only triggers psychosis in those predisposed to it. it doesn't cause it. If you're predisposed, a shit day at work, a major break up or any number of things could cause that.
And you can tell if you are one predisposed for psychosis or not? What if a family member dies tomorrow, are you still not predisposed for psychosis?
To me saying "it only ruins those lives" would make as much sense as "it only triggers psychosis". I will not comment on the 1% post other than that people are arguing about these numbers, and even 1% is a lot of people for a big country.
This only comes in addition to other, harder to measure, problems, in short summed up by "dropping out of society", i have seen this myself.
And if you use enough drugs, even "just" weed, others will notice it in your body language, your voice, your slightly altered way of responding a bit later a.s.o. This is really sad, because when your body and mind has changed this way, so has your perception, so you will not notice.
All this is of course just in addition to the COPD risks that are greatly increased for weed compared to normal smoking a.s.o., but I understand from earlier posts that those things are accepted as known risks? I meet COPD patients regularly and it is not a nice sight.
This list goes on forever, but just makes me sad. Take it easy and remember that some people actually try to work for other peoples health, not just spew propaganda. And at least in my country, the state mostly pays the bills when you get ill too.
|
On February 28 2008 06:33 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2008 05:45 Physician wrote:On February 28 2008 05:14 micronesia wrote:
especially since alcohol IS found to have positive health effects under specific circumstances. alcohol per se - none - the only example you can find is small amounts of red wine because of other substances other than alcohol; and usually the negative effects of alcohol in the wine offset by much any possible benefit from the other substances in it (including water and the flavinoid family of compounds - note that an extra glass of water a day also have a positive health effect lol, marketing, you got to luv it!) alcohol per se does not have any positive health effect unless you use it as a surface disinfectant and even then if you use it wrong it will cause more harm than good lol BAM!
all i saw in that article was that one scientist's research suggests that any possible brain growth due to alcohol leads people to alcohol dependency.
marijuana, on the other hand, has been shown to be less addictive than alcohol.
I don't see how anyone who has done sufficient research can say that alcohol is 'better' for you than marijuana.
|
On February 28 2008 07:06 humblegar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2008 06:19 Hawk wrote:On February 28 2008 04:24 humblegar wrote:
I don't know why people that spent their lives researching people's health didn't just ask a random weed smoking dude how he felt, it would have saved a lot of money?
In addition I'll drop by my wife's work and tell the ones with psychosis triggered by weed to just get out of there, because after all, pyrogenetix is just fine and the rest is just propaganda. It only triggers psychosis in those predisposed to it. it doesn't cause it. If you're predisposed, a shit day at work, a major break up or any number of things could cause that. And you can tell if you are one predisposed for psychosis or not? What if a family member dies tomorrow, are you still not predisposed for psychosis? To me saying "it only ruins those lives" would make as much sense as "it only triggers psychosis". I will not comment on the 1% post other than that people are arguing about these numbers, and even 1% is a lot of people for a big country. This only comes in addition to other, harder to measure, problems, in short summed up by "dropping out of society", i have seen this myself. And if you use enough drugs, even "just" weed, others will notice it in your body language, your voice, your slightly altered way of responding a bit later a.s.o. This is really sad, because when your body and mind has changed this way, so has your perception, so you will not notice. All this is of course just in addition to the COPD risks that are greatly increased for weed compared to normal smoking a.s.o., but I understand from earlier posts that those things are accepted as known risks? I meet COPD patients regularly and it is not a nice sight. This list goes on forever, but just makes me sad. Take it easy and remember that some people actually try to work for other peoples health, not just spew propaganda. And at least in my country, the state mostly pays the bills when you get ill too.
If there's a history of it in your family, then you'd be predisposed.
All the study said that we are talking about is that if someone who has latent psychosis—meaning they haven't shown symptoms yet—smokes weed, they might (might, as int be triggered. They already had psychosis.
What you're saying makes it seem like that weed is the source of psychosis, and that isn't the case.
|
Hahahah that's actually an amazingly funny idea for a short film or as you have in mind a commercial for showing the hypocrisy of those commercials.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 28 2008 07:18 Meta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2008 06:33 Jibba wrote:On February 28 2008 05:45 Physician wrote:On February 28 2008 05:14 micronesia wrote:
especially since alcohol IS found to have positive health effects under specific circumstances. alcohol per se - none - the only example you can find is small amounts of red wine because of other substances other than alcohol; and usually the negative effects of alcohol in the wine offset by much any possible benefit from the other substances in it (including water and the flavinoid family of compounds - note that an extra glass of water a day also have a positive health effect lol, marketing, you got to luv it!) alcohol per se does not have any positive health effect unless you use it as a surface disinfectant and even then if you use it wrong it will cause more harm than good lol BAM! all i saw in that article was that one scientist's research suggests that any possible brain growth due to alcohol leads people to alcohol dependency. marijuana, on the other hand, has been shown to be less addictive than alcohol.
It increases brain activity. I believe in the next stage of the test they found mice that had been given moderate amounts of beer (relative to 2-3 cans for a human), performed mazes better, especially when presented with the same one multiple times (better memory.)
I don't see how anyone who has done sufficient research can say that alcohol is 'better' for you than marijuana. I'm just playing devil's advocate in all of my posts here, but I get the feeling you haven't actually done your research. You like smoking pot and you've probably looked at facts or reports linked from some pro-marijuana organization or movement and settled upon that as reasonable justification. That's what most pro-marijuana supporters do and while it may be true that weed is less harmful/more helpful than alcohol/cigarettes, doing that type of "research" is like going to the NRA for gun safety information.
|
So how come your advertising against church.. lol
|
On February 28 2008 08:21 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2008 07:18 Meta wrote:On February 28 2008 06:33 Jibba wrote:On February 28 2008 05:45 Physician wrote:On February 28 2008 05:14 micronesia wrote:
especially since alcohol IS found to have positive health effects under specific circumstances. alcohol per se - none - the only example you can find is small amounts of red wine because of other substances other than alcohol; and usually the negative effects of alcohol in the wine offset by much any possible benefit from the other substances in it (including water and the flavinoid family of compounds - note that an extra glass of water a day also have a positive health effect lol, marketing, you got to luv it!) alcohol per se does not have any positive health effect unless you use it as a surface disinfectant and even then if you use it wrong it will cause more harm than good lol BAM! all i saw in that article was that one scientist's research suggests that any possible brain growth due to alcohol leads people to alcohol dependency. marijuana, on the other hand, has been shown to be less addictive than alcohol. It increases brain activity. I believe in the next stage of the test they found mice that had been given moderate amounts of beer (relative to 2-3 cans for a human), performed mazes better, especially when presented with the same one multiple times (better memory.) Show nested quote +I don't see how anyone who has done sufficient research can say that alcohol is 'better' for you than marijuana. I'm just playing devil's advocate in all of my posts here, but I get the feeling you haven't actually done your research. You like smoking pot and you've probably looked at facts or reports linked from some pro-marijuana organization or movement and settled upon that as reasonable justification. That's what most pro-marijuana supporters do and while it may be true that weed is less harmful/more helpful than alcohol/cigarettes, doing that type of "research" is like going to the NRA for gun safety information.
Na man I like alcohol way more than marijuana. I've just been around a lot of potheads and a lot of alcoholics, and the potheads were much less self-destructive than the alcoholics. Have you ever actually talked to a real-life alcoholic? They are the most pitiful people I've ever known. Sit in on an AA meeting or something, it's very depressing.
Potheads can, at least in most circumstances, hold a job and support themselves.
I've talked to med students about it too, and the concensus is pretty much that weed is certainly not worse for you than tobacco, unless you smoke weed like people smoke cigarettes (say, 2-3 joints a day).
Of course, it's really hard to get hard facts about it because of course 10 beers will be worse than 1 bowl, and 3 bowls is worse than 1 beer, etc.
I just hate seeing people who have never done either or looked into it at all and advocate against weed so relentlessly because "it's the law", as though the law is some devine, flawless entity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
