"The £8m trial found THC did help to ease MS symptoms, but there was no evidence it slowed its progression." thats what he said..
You do, of course, realize that the effect of the scheduling is exactly to restrict scientific research that might challenge the "consensus," right? And that the initial designation was itself politicized? Not that the consensus hasn't already changed. Heck, you can be legally prescribed synthetic drugs that have the exact same primary active ingredient as marijuana. If you think that marijuana policy in the USA is a matter of simple, good-faith medical opinions then I have a bridge I'd love to sell you...
Both. Some have lost there jobs. Some have OD'd An some have done both. An some have dealt with the law An moonshine is a "drug" that is made illegally, an sometimes its contaminated an could make you ill or kill you. MJ may lead to slower driving reflexes an lead to a auto crash that may kill you or get you in trouble with the law So Both...
I believe it does have legitimate medical purposes. http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/images/pdfs/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17.pdf Exactly. Not too illegal…not too legal…just right. California’s little goldilocks or should I say gold rush. And if you think that California is going to pave the way then I have a bridge I’d love to sell you… You’re right. It is politicized and guess where the majority of voters who opposed Prop 19 reside. Yep, the good ole :m:Emerald Triangle :m:. The very ones who argued heavily for its medicinal purposes want it to remain illegal. You see, illegal substances bring a larger profit margin than legal ones, silly boy. It would threaten our economic livelihood.
Obviously any kind of smoke going into your lungs is bad for you. But most people will say, but I only smoke 2 or 3 joints a day compared to a pack or two of cigarettes. 1. People tend to hold in the MJ smoke to get a better high. How long you hold that hit in might equal 3 or 4 puffs on a cigarette. 2. How many MJ smokers have you ever met that don't also smoke tobacco products (most often cigarettes)? So your getting a double smoke whammy and that's got to be worse than smoking either one without the other. 3. Pot smokers like to get together to pass the joint or bong and most of them will be smoking cigarettes while the joint is being passed. So you will be in a place with a heavy dose of secondary smoke. Maybe several times a week. 4. Pot smokers as a rule don't get much exercise and tend to eat more than none pot smokers, and suffer the long term effects of that. 5. I never met a pot smoker that wasn't ready to justify his/her habit.
True, but then we don't get tobacco OD's very often either. So the long term health issues are of some concern. If they aren't willing to ban tobacco I don't feel they should ban pot either. For the people that smoke pot all the time the high is not much of a distraction and doesn't even compare to being drunk, so I really fail to see what the problem with legalization is.
Rather than post up my collection of formal medical cannabinod research studies I will share this tidbit with you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Top 10 Cannabis Studies the US Government Wished it Had Never Funded 10) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY: A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002. 9) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON’T RUIN YOUR LIFE: Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept. 1997 THE “GATEWAY EFFECT” MAY BE A MIRAGE: Marijuana is often called a “gateway drug” by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical “associations” indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana – implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained “without requiring a gateway effect.” More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what’s most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504. 7) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART I): The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, “the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement.” And what data exist show “little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use.” In other words, there is no proof that prohibition – the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century – reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America’s Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don’t Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193. 6) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART II): DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE “GATEWAY EFFECT”?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found no differences except one: Lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its “tolerant” marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842. 5) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I): Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice’s lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602. 4) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II): In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, “in a dose-dependent manner” (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, “Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer,” AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997. 3) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III): Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn’t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728. 2) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV): Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006. 1) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE: In response to passage of California’s medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana’s medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, “Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana.” While noting potential risks of smoking, the report added, “we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting.” The government’s refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government “loves to ignore our report … they would rather it never happened.” Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006 * I have quite a bit more on this topic as well. The reason that the US government retains, supports, funds and pushes Prohibition is simple enough though. If the huge sums of cash Americans spend on cannabis (and other 'controlled substances') imported from Mexico is lost, the Mexican economy will tank and crash taking everyone else's economy with it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
True, but the vast majority of pot users smoke it. One extraction method I liked was making cannibal butter. You boil good quality pot in water for about 30 minutes then add a stick of butter. Stir it in real good for about another 10 minutes. It will absorb all the cannibal then poor it through a strainer to get the roughage out of it, then put the solution in the refrigerator and the now very green butter will solidify on top of the water. It will be smooth and non gritty, you can spread it on bread and eat it that way, but green butter on bread is kind of a turn off. But it makes very good non gritty brownies. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!:m:
Many cannabis smokers have switched to what are called vaporizers. Those devices allow the user to inhale the active ingredients (called cannabinoids - not cannibals) with actually combusting the cannabis. There is no smoke then and the dosage can still be closely titrated, unlike eating the active ingredients in cannabutter http://www.vaporizers.com/
Many cannabis smokers have also switcher over to what is called crystal meth. It's slightly more harmful than cannabis but you don't do it as often. Stophini, you?
Are you kidding me? Where are you getting your information? More harmful - YES Don't do it as often - NO (Maybe if your just getting started)Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think the underlying concept came from the board game Shoots and Ladders. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You're so fucking off. Reality is reality no matter what. Whether it's "altered" or norm-nourished by society's prescribed standards, it all nonetheless boils down to… interaction.
