drugs yay or nay?
- Thread starter all_for_war
- Start date
flow
Regular Member
- Oct 3, 2008
- 356
- 112
There have been LSD-related deaths but you will have a lot of trouble finding documented LSD overdose deaths.
While that may be true, all you have to do is look at the diseases that cigarette smokers have, and then look at pot smokers.
Also Dr. Tashkin of UCLA did a study which determined that even long term, heavy cannabis smoking did not lead to lung cancer.
While that may be true, all you have to do is look at the diseases that cigarette smokers have, and then look at pot smokers.
Also Dr. Tashkin of UCLA did a study which determined that even long term, heavy cannabis smoking did not lead to lung cancer.
Last edited:
Phunky
Power Member
- Aug 23, 2009
- 518
- 286
Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.
Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.
Sources:
- Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. ?Legalization: Panacea or Pandora?s Box.? New York. (1995): 36.
- Turner, Carlton E. The Marijuana Controversy. Rockville: American Council for Drug Education, 1981.
- Nahas, Gabriel G. and Nicholas A. Pace. Letter. ?Marijuana as Chemotherapy Aid Poses Hazards.? New York Times 4 December 1993: A20.
- Inaba, Darryl S. and William E. Cohen. Uppers, Downers, All-Arounders: Physical and Mental Effects of Psychoactive Drugs. 2nd ed. Ashland: CNS Productions, 1995. 174.
the450man
Junior Member
- Jan 15, 2009
- 198
- 62
the ignorance and stupidity in this thread is making me laugh
just because a drug is "natural" dosnt make it "ok". Your body dosnt know the difference, drugs act on receptors in the brain, generally as agonists or antagonist. (agonists activate a receptor while antagonists block the receptor).
The problem comes from up regulation/down regulation of receptors from chronic abuse hence the addiction and tolerance potential of certain drugs.
Did you know ghb is found naturally in the brain? Did you know meth acts as dopamine in the brain? (chemical structures are so similar your body dosnt know the difference but its not entirely that simple). I could go on and on.
just because a drug is "natural" dosnt make it "ok". Your body dosnt know the difference, drugs act on receptors in the brain, generally as agonists or antagonist. (agonists activate a receptor while antagonists block the receptor).
The problem comes from up regulation/down regulation of receptors from chronic abuse hence the addiction and tolerance potential of certain drugs.
Did you know ghb is found naturally in the brain? Did you know meth acts as dopamine in the brain? (chemical structures are so similar your body dosnt know the difference but its not entirely that simple). I could go on and on.
vivalafeva
Elite Member
- Sep 16, 2008
- 1,514
- 748
i hate that i see this thread on the homepage again and again, its foolish and I wish it woud just be closed already...
How come I get the feeling that the OP is under the age of 16
also all of you saying that weed kills are very wrong....sure smoke is bad for you, and may cause cancer in the long run, but def not marijuana. If you were to only use a vaporizer or edibles, there would be 0 risk of developing lung cancer...
How come I get the feeling that the OP is under the age of 16
also all of you saying that weed kills are very wrong....sure smoke is bad for you, and may cause cancer in the long run, but def not marijuana. If you were to only use a vaporizer or edibles, there would be 0 risk of developing lung cancer...
Last edited:
I wouldn't be so quick to label anything as fact especially when quoting those old sources.
Recreational use of drugs, IMHO, is foolish but for those who choose to abuse, at least be informed.
- Marijuana Damages DNA And May Cause Cancer, New Test Reveals
ScienceDaily (June 15, 2009) ? Using a highly sensitive new test, scientists in Europe are reporting "convincing evidence" that marijuana smoke damages the genetic material DNA in ways that could increase the risk of cancer.
- Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers
ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2008) ? A new study finds that the development of bullous lung disease occurs in marijuana smokers approximately 20 years earlier than tobacco smokers.
- Marijuana Component Opens The Door For Virus That Causes Kaposi's Sarcoma
ScienceDaily (Aug. 2, 2007) ? The major active component of marijuana could enhance the ability of the virus that causes Kaposi's sarcoma to infect cells and multiply, according to a team of researchers at Harvard Medical School.
Singh et al. Evaluation of the DNA Damaging Potential of Cannabis Cigarette Smoke by the Determination of Acetaldehyde Derived N2-Ethyl-2′-deoxyguanosine Adducts. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 2009; 22 (6): 1181 DOI: 10.1021/tx900106y
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119415132/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Respirology, Volume 13 Issue 1, Pages 122 - 127, Published Online: 9 Jan 2008
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801112156.htm
American Association for Cancer Research (2007, August 2). Marijuana Component Opens The Door For Virus That Causes Kaposi's Sarcoma. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 25, 2009,
Headline: "...could increase the risk of cancer."
"However, there has been uncertainty over whether marijuana smoke has the same effect."
"However, it has been difficult to measure DNA damage from acetaldehyde with conventional tests."
"...implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development"
Doesn't seem like they've proved much at all.
First one pretty much did it for me, if they call that a form of proof then I really don't feel a need to read anymore.
"However, there has been uncertainty over whether marijuana smoke has the same effect."
"However, it has been difficult to measure DNA damage from acetaldehyde with conventional tests."
"...implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development"
Doesn't seem like they've proved much at all.
First one pretty much did it for me, if they call that a form of proof then I really don't feel a need to read anymore.
Phunky
Power Member
- Aug 23, 2009
- 518
- 286
Those articles do the same old propaganda dance that I've seen for many years. It may cause this or may cause that. Inconclusive results = no deal. Marijuana can be an all natural source of fuel, fiber (for rope, clothing, etc), paper, food, medicine, stress relief, and good times with friends. Show me another plant that can accomplish this. It's not illegal because it is bad for us. It became illegal because of greed, lies, and racism. It remains illegal solely because of greed since it would turn around our industry and take money from the greedy people from pharmaceutical's, oil guru's, etc. Did you know prisons tax dollars based on how many people are locked up? Full prisons = full pockets. So they just arrest a shitload of nonviolent "criminals" and lock them up for years. Nobody is arguing that marijuana will get you high so I don't know why so many responses are arguing the definition of a drug and bringing chemistry into it.
Nathan B
Regular Member
- Nov 22, 2008
- 395
- 301
Best post ever.
Thanks for this. Made me think about how we're taught and about how a post like this that is 100% honest is so much more convincing.
Last edited:
DrJekyll
Senior Member
- Aug 2, 2007
- 831
- 710
well the assumption that weed smokers will smoke less therefore not get cancer is wack thinking. thats just like saying cholesterol does not clog arteries because someone that was tested injested very little of it.
My friend smoked more weed than any person I know that smoked cigs [my dad smoked 3 packs a day] he had to pack the bowl before he went to sleep as he fired it up before he even put his glasses on or got out of bed. So it was HEAVY use.
so your proof is also my proof.
My friend smoked more weed than any person I know that smoked cigs [my dad smoked 3 packs a day] he had to pack the bowl before he went to sleep as he fired it up before he even put his glasses on or got out of bed. So it was HEAVY use.
so your proof is also my proof.
You don't need drugs but I'm fucking sure it's the other way around...
Seriously stay away and just IM, make money!
Your body produces its own natural high after an amazing workout (endorphins)... when you sleep (very very potent substance gets released)... sex... list goes on.
Seriously stay away and just IM, make money!
Your body produces its own natural high after an amazing workout (endorphins)... when you sleep (very very potent substance gets released)... sex... list goes on
.
edvoltage1
Regular Member
- Sep 13, 2008
- 214
- 73
Drugs are not cool and even though marijuana is pretty much harmless it still isnt cool. Also i dont want my child to see me high like wtf kind of parent would i be? I would never even smoke a cigarette,(smoking is disgusting) i dont want black lungs lol
I agree, it's not true that people will smoke less, it is however a personal choice which makes it quite variable per-user.
But you also got to remember the "need" to smoke, honestly there is no "feeling" to light up like tobacco has. Also you got to take into account that the high of cannabis last a lot longer than tobacco, thus at the end of the day (of course this is all depending on the user) you will smoke less cannabis than one would tobacco.
Also, either your friend or Father been diagnosed with any form of cancer?
You know, at the end of the day it's a personal choice all the way around. This thread reminds me of the other cannabis-based poll, which had something like do you use drugs? and the answers were "yes" or "no, I'm lame".
Which is just wrong, and honestly so is the OP's post, quite childish in a sense and that's the very reason cannabis and anything based around it impedes people opening their minds and actually talking about the topic at hand.
I mean, why should they when such a childish post (OP's) is brought forth on a very serious topic that needs talked about.
Which is just wrong, and honestly so is the OP's post, quite childish in a sense and that's the very reason cannabis and anything based around it impedes people opening their minds and actually talking about the topic at hand.
I mean, why should they when such a childish post (OP's) is brought forth on a very serious topic that needs talked about.
DrJekyll
Senior Member
- Aug 2, 2007
- 831
- 710
Friend died of lung cancer.
fortunately my father quit cigs.
Ironically I am not against weed and those that smoke it. But it has its dangers just like alcohol will destroy your liver, but you don't see warning labels on it [not that I have seen anyway]
Phunky
Power Member
- Aug 23, 2009
- 518
- 286
You are obviously set in your ways and that's OK. I thought I would offer insight on the issue since marijuana HAS NOT ever been linked as the sole source of lung cancer. However, all of the other reasons I listed HAVE BEEN proven to cause lung cancer. I don't understand why someone would pick the only reason that has no proof backing it. However, each to their own.
DrJekyll
Senior Member
- Aug 2, 2007
- 831
- 710
well you say there is no proof, but you are wrong. Most people will not smoke that much and not be effected.
can I point you to a useless post on the internet, no i can not. Can I tell you what I know is the reason of death from the people that treated him? yes.
And no I am not upset or angry, i enjoyed the small debate. I wish you well.
can I point you to a useless post on the internet, no i can not. Can I tell you what I know is the reason of death from the people that treated him? yes.
And no I am not upset or angry, i enjoyed the small debate. I wish you well.