EPTNCI admits cannabinoids are anti-tumor and anti-cancer - P…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
naggerNZ
New Zealand708 Posts
| ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On April 03 2011 10:16 EscPlan9 wrote: It also can exacerbate existing anxiety issues. Nearly everyone I know who quit did it to avoid the feelings of paranoia, anxiety, and laziness that results from using it often. you mean mind altering drugs can have bad side affects for people who struggle with mental issues, gosh, first drug to ever had a side affect. using this logic we should ban paracetamol because some people sometimes get heart burn | ||
|
LilClinkin
Australia667 Posts
1. Hallucinations (any sensory perception in a person which was not due to a real world stimulus, can be visual, auditory, touch, smell, or taste). 2. Delusions (a fixed, unshakable false belief in something not believed by the majority of people (thus excluding things like religion)). 3. Thought disorder (disordered pattern of thought. There are many types of thought disorder, generally only assessed by a third party performing a mental state examination. Many people suffering thought disorder have poor insight and are unaware of this). Acute psychosis does not mean you are going to go crazy and grab an axe and kill people (although it is theoretically possible if you're hallucinating zombies and are deluded into believing everyone is a zombie who wants to kill you). It does not mean you'll be in this state forever. In weed smokers, it will usually fade away as your body excretes the drugs. In a small susceptible population of people, weed smoking puts them at extremely high risk of developing chronic forms of psychosis such as schizophrenia. Population rates of schizophrenia are about 1/100. Let's say you and your 4 friends love smoking weed and believe it's 100% safe. Chances are in your life times, if you're all saying "smoking weed is absolutely safe, ignore the quaks" to 20 people you meet each, one of you will have falsely informed a susceptible individual who could then go on to develop chronic psychosis. I'm not pro-weed or anti-weed, personally I hate smoking it because I don't like the high, and I green out at low dose. If you want to smoke it, that's your prerogative. What I do hate is people not properly informing themselves, or worse, spreading false information due to pre-conceived bias. 1% is low on a per-person basis because most of us wouldn't even know 1000 people by name, but on a population basis 1% becomes a high number of people. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 03 2011 10:22 Uldridge wrote: LMAO The tumor cells get so high they start to eat themselves. Shit's hilarious even on molecular level HAHAHAHAHAAHA oh shit im not contributing am i but still, that's fucking hilarious | ||
|
Skoe420
United States44 Posts
On April 03 2011 10:41 LilClinkin wrote: Smoking weed can cause symptoms of acute psychosis, any one who argues against this is an idiot or does not understand the definition of psychosis, which are presence of any of the following 3: 1. Hallucinations (any sensory perception in a person which was not due to a real world stimulus, can be visual, auditory, touch, smell, or taste). 2. Delusions (a fixed, unshakable false belief in something not believed by the majority of people (thus excluding things like religion)). 3. Thought disorder (disordered pattern of thought. There are many types of thought disorder, generally only assessed by a third party performing a mental state examination. Many people suffering thought disorder have poor insight and are unaware of this). Acute psychosis does not mean you are going to go crazy and grab an axe and kill people (although it is theoretically possible if you're hallucinating zombies and are deluded into believing everyone is a zombie who wants to kill you). It does not mean you'll be in this state forever. In weed smokers, it will usually fade away as your body excretes the drugs. In a small susceptible population of people, weed smoking puts them at extremely high risk of developing chronic forms of psychosis such as schizophrenia. Population rates of schizophrenia are about 1/100. Let's say you and your 4 friends love smoking weed and believe it's 100% safe. Chances are in your life times, if you're all saying "smoking weed is absolutely safe, ignore the quaks" to 20 people you meet each, one of you will have falsely informed a susceptible individual who could then go on to develop chronic psychosis. I'm not pro-weed or anti-weed, personally I hate smoking it because I don't like the high, and I green out at low dose. If you want to smoke it, that's your prerogative. What I do hate is people not properly informing themselves, or worse, spreading false information due to pre-conceived bias. 1% is low on a per-person basis because most of us wouldn't even know 1000 people by name, but on a population basis 1% becomes a high number of people. yes but more or less those people are going to have a psychotic episode if they smoke weed or not, so you cant just simply say marijuana is going to be the reason for you to have a psychotic episode. If you get 100 people in a room the chances are if they do drugs or not there is still going to be that 1% chance that sooner or later they are going to freak out and do something labeled as schizophrenia. | ||
|
Hinanawi
United States2250 Posts
| ||
|
This is Aru
United States91 Posts
On April 03 2011 07:16 dANiELcanuck wrote: he Feds have also cracked down on a lot of "legal and approved" dispensaries in California and Montana recently. This would lead me to believe it's just about the money, and the government doesn't want you to grow your own natural medicine when they can "force" you to buy it at ridiculous prices from a pharmacy. This is just a Federal vs State Government pissing match. They are "legal" by California law, but not by United States law, etc. | ||
|
dANiELcanuck
Canada217 Posts
On April 03 2011 10:47 This is Aru wrote: This is just a Federal vs State Government pissing match. They are "legal" by California law, but not by United States law, etc. Of course. But isn't there a section in the constitution that allows States to make their own laws separate from Federal regulations? I don't want this to be an argument on whether or not it should be legalized or if the Feds should leave individual States alone. I just wanted to share information with people to educate them enough they can make their own decisions on what medicines they want to use. | ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
On April 03 2011 07:16 dANiELcanuck wrote: Whole article can be found below. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4 A man from my Province was giving people cannabis extract for free as a medicine and cure for lots of ailments for years, cancer being one of them. He's now hiding out in Europe evading charges. How much proof do people need? At the very least, this leaves the Feds in a tough spot with marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic/drug. ** I don't want this thread to become a flame war between anti-cannabis activists and "stoners". I just want to share the information with you. Let's not get sick. edit: It should also be noted that the medicinal effects are through ingestion or topical application. When you smoke cannabis you lose nearly all medicinal qualities of the plant. I think it should be noted that the (I believe it was)DEA gave rights to the big pharmaceutical companies to use chemicals derived from cannabis. The Feds have also cracked down on a lot of "legal and approved" dispensaries in California and Montana recently. This would lead me to believe it's just about the money, and the government doesn't want you to grow your own natural medicine when they can "force" you to buy it at ridiculous prices from a pharmacy. One study means nothing.. how is this study made?? Is this a prospective cohort? a randomized double-blind experimental trial?? a review?? What are the study's limitations?? What are the adverse effects?? What dosage is required on rats?? Would that translate to a toxic dosage in humans?? I could continue posting questions unanswered. In science, one study means absolutely nothing. Particularly since you can use statistics to prove nearly anything. There might also be conflicts of interest involved. Remember the dude who said Measles vaccination caused autism?? Well that was fake, a fraud. These things happen. I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying one study alone is not nearly enough evidence to prove anything. This is not how it works. It does need to be studied further though. EDIT: At least the small amount of studies shown are listed on Pubmed. Also.. look at the authors. Many are made by the same team/people. Do they have any special interest in making this happen? EDIT2: Continuing the search, there's apparently not enough evidence supporting cannabis as treatment for any type of cancer. There's evidence good enough proving cannabis is a useful therapy for pain and chemotherapy side-effects. Nothing we didn't know already. | ||
|
Steel
Japan2283 Posts
 I have stopped being mad marijuana isn't legal. I just enjoy it and do your thing, and if it turns out that the effects really do help I think doctors will do the right thing and make at least medical marijuana legal; yet I think it shouldn't be the main argument for the legalization of marijuana I ain't hurting anybody by smoking weed and the fact I might cause some symptoms of psychosis (lol) shouldn't factor in its legality. I mean, it turns out Cigarettes kill you, yet its still legal =/ and this is what the problem really is...hypocrite laws stops us from doing something harmless. As a firm advocator or the harm principle I must say its pretty morally wrong  | ||
|
Keitzer
United States2509 Posts
Used for *getting high* = waste of time AND money | ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
On April 03 2011 10:58 Steel wrote: I have stopped being mad marijuana isn't legal. I just enjoy it and do your thing, and if it turns out that the effects really do help I think doctors will do the right thing and make at least medical marijuana legal; yet I think it shouldn't be the main argument for the legalization of marijuana I ain't hurting anybody by smoking weed and the fact I might cause some symptoms of psychosis (lol) shouldn't factor in its legality. I mean, it turns out Cigarettes kill you, yet its still legal =/ and this is what the problem really is...hypocrite laws stops us from doing something harmless. As a firm advocator or the harm principle I must say its pretty morally wrong I agree on this... They should either outlaw both of them, or allow them both. If I had to choose which, I'd say outlaw both, since cigarettes are a lot worser for everyone than the good marijuana could bring. | ||
|
Craton
United States17252 Posts
On April 03 2011 10:51 mordk wrote: One study means nothing.. how is this study made?? Is this a prospective cohort? a randomized double-blind experimental trial?? a review?? What are the study's limitations?? What are the adverse effects?? What dosage is required on rats?? Would that translate to a toxic dosage in humans?? Are double quotations really necessary after every single statement?? It's very annoying and comes off as incredibly condescending, which greatly detracts from the argument you're attempting. | ||
Xeofreestyler
Belgium6771 Posts
On April 03 2011 11:01 Keitzer wrote: Medical use = perfectly fine (for me) Used for *getting high* = waste of time AND money Where do you draw the line if it helps you relax mentally? | ||
|
Flakes
United States3125 Posts
On April 03 2011 11:01 Keitzer wrote: Medical use = perfectly fine (for me) Used for *getting high* = waste of time AND money Law enforcement chasing down people *getting high* in their homes = bigger waste of time and money | ||
|
Nyx
Rwanda460 Posts
On April 03 2011 07:18 Sufficiency wrote: What are the side effects of cannabis? arbittersssssss | ||
|
Kordox
Denmark142 Posts
On April 03 2011 09:58 hawliet wrote: it affects short term memory...i'm not a scientist but if you mess with your short term memory... then nothing can go to the long therm memory  Yeah, while you're stoned. It's not permanent. | ||
|
gesgi
United States36 Posts
On April 03 2011 10:51 mordk wrote:In science, one study means absolutely nothing. That, dear sir, is a blatant lie. Do the leg work, be meticulous and your study will mean a lot more than absolutely nothing. Things get more complicated when statistics are involved, as they often are in medical studies. But do the statistics right and your study will have an impact. EDIT: At least the small amount of studies shown are listed on Pubmed. Also.. look at the authors. Many are made by the same team/people. Do they have any special interest in making this happen? Scientific studies often require specialists and study specific instrumentation. If a group is focused on cannabinoid research you shouldn't be surprised to find most of their papers are on the subject. It's like saying Einstein had a secret agenda because he only published physics papers. | ||
|
chonkyfire
United States451 Posts
On April 03 2011 10:45 Skoe420 wrote: yes but more or less those people are going to have a psychotic episode if they smoke weed or not, so you cant just simply say marijuana is going to be the reason for you to have a psychotic episode. I don't think you even understand what you're trying to say | ||
|
Silmakuoppaanikinko
799 Posts
On April 03 2011 10:41 LilClinkin wrote: It's a bit liberal to call this a 'definition', this is a guideline at best. One of the things which is really why a lot of people don't take psychiatry that seriously, the extreme vagueness of many terms used therein which are also obviously a continuum with many a grey area in between.Smoking weed can cause symptoms of acute psychosis, any one who argues against this is an idiot or does not understand the definition of psychosis, which are presence of any of the following 3: 1. Hallucinations (any sensory perception in a person which was not due to a real world stimulus, can be visual, auditory, touch, smell, or taste). 2. Delusions (a fixed, unshakable false belief in something not believed by the majority of people (thus excluding things like religion)). 3. Thought disorder (disordered pattern of thought. There are many types of thought disorder, generally only assessed by a third party performing a mental state examination. Many people suffering thought disorder have poor insight and are unaware of this). Point is, unlike cancer, there are no objective criteria for 'psychosis', the only way to diagnose it is a subjective 'professional opinion', what one psychiatrist may consider a psychosis another might not with no objective way to determine which is 'wrong', let alone the philosophical question if 'wrong' even exists in such a case. So what criteria did they use to determine psychoses in these tests / researches I wonder? You can't really perform blind diagnoses because you can tell from people if they are high, and you still need a psychiatrist to talk to people to subjectively 'diagnose' such a psychosis, with all the power of suggestion that implies. More technically: 1: There is no sensory perception not due to a real world stimulus, every hallucination ultimately starts with a real world stimulus, the question is how much does the mind warp this to something different. This line is very subjective and dives into the philosophical of what is 'real' and what is not. Essentially, a normal bloke in a world full of colour blind people would be called insane because he keeps insisting that a red and a green ball are fundamentally different and no one sees it. A psychotic patient put in a salt bath with no sound and no vision won't hallucinate anything, no stimulus, no thoughts, no hallucinations. 2: 'Majority' is a very vague term which is with respect to a culture, time, and space, this definition also dictates that many of the greatest minds were 'psychotic' because they were well ahead of their time with brilliant beliefs the masses couldn't accept. 3: Thought disorder is also an extremely vague term and greatly depends on the perceiver. I've seen videotapes of certified experts in certain specializations told to act out a crazy man and then simply ramble on about correct things in their certain specializations, of course, the psychiatrist, not a specialist in that field, couldn't understand it and classified it as crazy, incoherent rambling, while it was extremely coherent and if it was said to a peer it would be perceived as accurate, but simply in a strange voice. Power of suggestion gets you pretty far. Isn't this a delusion of the psychiatrist by the way? | ||
| ||
