Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

127 | 128 | 129

 ... 954

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 20

Next

NinjaTech

NinjaTech

Minneapolis, MN
November 2003

MAY 01, 2007 02:20 PM

halfjack said:
ok. this is tired. if you smoke pot and you think it's not hurting you, you're an idiot. you probably were before you started smoking, but the pot ain't helping you. yes, it causes brain damage. yes, it's addicitng. you don't need medical science to back that one up if you're head isn't completely up your ass. and yes, alcohol and cigarettes are damaging to you to, and for those idiots that have posted that nobody posts research on the negative effects of those, SHUT UP. i've heard nothing but dribble about liver and cancer and meetings and second hand smoke since long before you decided that sublime is the greatest band of all time.

THEY'RE ALL BAD. GET OVER IT.

you wanna smoke pot? fine. but admit that it's addictive, admit it makes you depressed, boring, and stupid. and yes, admit that since it's obviously sticking a fork in your brain, it can certainly cause paranoia and psychoses.

we've all heard the jokes about how stoners don't get in car accidents or start fights. and we all know that that's also partially a load of crap. they do. a lot. because alcohol AND pot cause stupidity. yeah, drunkards start more fights. but stop trying to pretend like your shit don't stink. the whiskey will kill my liver while the pot kills your brain.

i'm so tired of you whiney fuckin stoners. it's self-righteous, self-delusional morons like you that made me want to stop smoking in the first place.

and let me just clarify, for those that weren't paying attention, and we know who you are, that this me ranting about people who smoke pot and think that it's harmless/good for you, and not people who smoke pot.



Sounds like you could use a jay yourself.

electrogreen

electrogreen

Canton, IL
April 2006

MAY 01, 2007 02:20 PM

bullshit. What were the THC levels? The medical stuff the government gives out is a mix of leaves and stems, they dont use the bud. So with the test results they have I would say they didn't use the stuff they give to the sick folks.

You know this was probably like the Heath/Tulane study in 1974. They used monkeys for their tests. They gave the monkeys 63 columbian-strength joints through a sealed mask in five minutes. The equivalent of 30 joints a day. They started to die within 90 days. They cut them open and found dead brain cells. They said it was from the pot. They were being suffocated. Three to five minutes with no oxygen can cause brain damage...dead brain cells. They do these half assed tests and only tell you what they want you to think. Pot does not cause brain damage, you can say I am wrong but you are full of shit yourself.

It seems like most people are stuck on the medical side of it all. Then go on about people wanting to smoke it all the time. What about Biomass fuels, paper, rope, textiles and fabric, canvas, paints and such, food oils...and a lot of other shit that would clean up the world and save the trees and such? And what about the medical uses for asthma, tumors, glaucoma, nausea relief, epilepsy, back pain, muscle spasms, arthritis, headaches and who knows how many others? But Dupont and all the pharmaceutical companies give a lot more cash to the government than a bunch of farmers. When we run out of our fossil fuels...the kind we are at war over...there will be the panic and riots and such but then maybe they will turn to what we used in the past. Maybe.

Two_D

Two_D

I'm lost
April 2005

MAY 01, 2007 02:39 PM

so smoking weed mellows you out but discussing it pisses you off. odd

elysianfielder

elysianfielder

Los Angeles, CA
March 2003

MAY 01, 2007 03:00 PM

muller said:
You think the carpet pissers did this?



Well, we don't KNOW, Dude.

Sydni

Sydni

SUICIDEGIRL

Washington, USA

MAY 01, 2007 03:06 PM

Yeah man, it really tied the room together!

MrStitches

MrStitches

Brooklyn, NY
November 2003

MAY 01, 2007 03:33 PM

Yeahhh, that's basically why I stopped smoking it. For a few years I never once got paranoid while smoking pot. Then I started getting paranoid every time I smoked. Which isn't all that fun to me.

jkwilborn

jkwilborn

Phoenix, AZ
August 2006

MAY 01, 2007 03:33 PM

Since pot is considered as a drug with no use, how did they come about getting any anyway? The government won't let ANYONE test it since it a "drug with no know use" how did they get them to do this which is illegal? I think it's a pile of shit, one because the only reason they would be paranoid is that they may get arrested! I think thats enough of a reason to be paranoid. It's been used everywhere around the world for difference medical resaons. I used it in California, under doctor approval, and found that it worked better than the mixture of Oxycotone and Avenza (which is a synthitic morphine) Yet I had to go underground to buy it! This is come idiot that wants to ensure that it is never really evaluated! Blow them off!

Jack

LostLucy

LostLucy

USA
December 2006

MAY 01, 2007 03:33 PM

Alcohol in moderation has some benefit. Arsinic has some virtues in small doses.

Like even french fries, weed has negative and positive health effects & emotional effects.

BUT it sucks that they would use the effects of THC on schizophrenics as an argument against legalization.

We could do a similar study using third control group of schizophrenics who drink a quart of Jack Daniels. If they have hallucinations and erractic behavior, will we return to prohibition?

DUDE. pass the bong.

surreal

SocietysPliers

SocietysPliers

Ocala, FL
October 2004

MAY 01, 2007 03:50 PM

chimehouse said:

SocietysPliers said:
Piss-poor science is better exemplified by suggesting that because they use the term "THC" to refer to subjects who had smoked or eaten marijuana means the other components of the marijuana would have no effect. That just maks no sense. They use the term "THC" because that's the main active ingredient, like alcohol is in liquor.



Please go read the actual report on the research, along with the clinical methodology before you start "explaining" things to people. If you think they used actual cannabis for this test, you are completely lost. If I'm wrong, then please send me a link to your info. I'd need to see where it says they used the same stuff they're warning the public about. Last I knew, no stoner was using POT INTERVENIOUSLY!

No one in either of those three clinical trials used cannabis in its natural form. Hell, they didn't even use it in naturally extracted form. They used isolates. The next time someone outside of a clinical environment experiences induced psychosis from a cannabinoid isolate, would you please call me? There'd be people I'd need to meet...

Sorry about that. I should have read the article but my dial-up's especially slow right now (I think my ISP is high wink), and te page took too long to load, and I went on the basis of what previous tests ahave been. Apparently, and I see this now, they've come up with a less expensive way to fuck up pot. I searched for "extract THC" and came up with mostly ways of making whatwe used to call "Hash oil" in the 70s and 80s. Like these. But if it was a cannabinOID they used, then it wasn't even THC, but would have been a synthetic closer to Marinol, thus further rendering the study invalid. Which is no shock, as the study was suspect from the getgo, to say the least.

But seriously, why the capital letters and exclamation point? (The conductors of the bogus study would probably attribute it to marijuana psychosiswink.) I'll should reread all the comments, I suppose, but I don't recall any mention of "intervenous" (which, if there were such a word, would mean "between the veins"), or even intravenous, or any other parenteral ingestion of marijuana or any of its components. I truly hope no one suggests/suggested trying that. I hope no one's ever actually done that. The whole thought of it screams "Bad Idea!"

Anyway, although I won't discount the possibility of ANY drug-induced psychoses, because they DO exist, (I personally experienced marijuana-related paranoia in 1979 and never experienced anything remotely similar without it), as I've said all along, there's nothing about this "study" that seems valid. It's a bogus study.

Westley

Westley

Vatican City
April 2004

MAY 01, 2007 03:58 PM


"Did you hear? Pot can have negative side effects for some people."

DevilsReject

DevilsReject

Cleveland, OH
February 2007

MAY 01, 2007 04:04 PM

AlterEgo said:
Personally I believe liquor places people under the influence at a higher risk than smoking some bud. Realistically, how many people do you know that drive reckless while high?



the girl that hit my truck head on and did this:



Of course she wasn't reckless, she wasn't out doing donuts or anything like that, she was just high and dozed off behind the wheel and crossed the double yellow lines nearly killing my father and totaling my property.

One of the charges she got filed against her was reckless operation, along with a DUI.

Reckless = Driving while you're impaired. I don't care what drug or drink your on.

Try another argument, because "Smoking pot and driving isn't as dangerous as drinking and driving" doesn't sway me to believe that it should be decriminalized. Neither does the "Pot isn't as bad Alcohol" argument, it's still bad for you.

ZenTrixter

ZenTrixter

Portland, OR
October 2002

MAY 01, 2007 04:05 PM

Respect, SocietysPliers...

Anyway, although I won't discount the possibility of ANY drug-induced psychoses, because they DO exist, (I personally experienced marijuana-related paranoia in 1979 and never experienced anything remotely similar without it)



No one worth their hash--so to speak--would say otherwise. Here's what I'm trying to illustrate. You know the phrases "apples to apples" -vs- "apples to oranges"? Okay, this is what I refer to as "apples to bowling balls". This is something I just posted in another group...

Anybody who uses or studies cannabis seriously will not dispute that THC may trigger psychosis. All you ever need do to get an inkling of THC's potential to do so is remember back to the first time you ever "over-did it" with pot (particularily with an oral medication [ala "hash brownies", etc]). THC has a fantastic ability to ring the same cognitive centers of the brain that many psychosis are opperating in. What troubles me, though, about this study is that they keep saying that they tested "pot". They did nothing of the kind! They tested a THC isolate. That's NOT POT! (ask anyone who is forced to take dronabinol if it feels or acts like cannabis in any way, shape or form.) The subjects in that study would--in my opinion--show a TOTALLY DIFFERENT RESULT if they each smoked cannabis. NONE OF THE STUDIES DID THIS. So the study is completely invalid from the get-go. They even say that CBD modifies THC!! SO WHY NOT FUCKING TEST THEM TOGETHER???? I mean, good Krist, how much of a rocket scientist do you have to be to figure out that they're testing one thing, then extrapolating the results far beyond the scope of the data with nothing but fallacious inference?

Has no one ever heard of a syllogism before?

a) THC exacerbates psychosis

b) Cannabis contains some THC

therefore:

c) Using cannabis must exacerbate psychosis



Last I checked, Socrates is still mortal (that's a syllogistic joke, for all you wacky philo types...)



Anyways, I apreciate where you're coming from, SP. I'm just trying to get people to see that, for many of us--pro or nopro--this is terrible science...

SocietysPliers

SocietysPliers

Ocala, FL
October 2004

MAY 01, 2007 04:07 PM

jkwilborn said:
Since pot is considered as a drug with no use, how did they come about getting any anyway? The government won't let ANYONE test it since it a "drug with no know use" how did they get them to do this which is illegal? I think it's a pile of shit, one because the only reason they would be paranoid is that they may get arrested! I think thats enough of a reason to be paranoid. It's been used everywhere around the world for difference medical resaons. I used it in California, under doctor approval, and found that it worked better than the mixture of Oxycotone and Avenza (which is a synthitic morphine) Yet I had to go underground to buy it! This is come idiot that wants to ensure that it is never really evaluated! Blow them off!
Jack

I was wondering that, too, but perhaps since it's no longer a Schedule 1 "no medical use" CDS nationwide (there IS medical marijuana in some states) it is easier to obtain permission to study it than, say LSD-25 or heroin. chimehouse suggested that the test was done with a cannabinoid isolate (avoiding an amateur attempt at teaching chemistry, the suffix "oid" means 'like' or "resembling") rather than the actual components of marijuana, but according to the article, they used THC and CBD (cannabidiol), both actual components of the plant. Either way, it's not a valid test of effects of marijuana unless they ingest marijuana in a way real people do.

If anyone knows how they got permission, let us know. I bet a bunch of people here would LOVE to participate!

SocietysPliers

SocietysPliers

Ocala, FL
October 2004

MAY 01, 2007 04:09 PM

chimehouse said:
Anyways, I apreciate where you're coming from, SP. I'm just trying to get people to see that, for many of us--pro or nopro--this is terrible science...

Agreed 100%!

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
I'd have said 110%, but what kind of science would THAT have been?tongue

ZenTrixter

ZenTrixter

Portland, OR
October 2002

MAY 01, 2007 04:19 PM

SocietysPliers said:
is easier to obtain permission to study it than, say LSD-25 or heroin.



Absolutely and utterly wrong, my friend. Respectfully, you need to go read up at MAPS.ORG...

chimehouse suggested that the test was done with a cannabinoid isolate (avoiding an amateur attempt at teaching chemistry, the suffix "oid" means 'like' or "resembling"wink rather than the actual components of marijuana



Ummm... cannabinoids are naturally occuring. The suffix "-oid" in this case does not refer to the cannabis compounds as being "fake" or "less than", but derrived from origination. "Cannabinoids" means "derrived from or like cannabis" like endogonious cannabinoids that are already in the human body, like them or not.

but according to the article, they used THC and CBD (cannabidiol), both actual components of the plant.



No. Cannabinoid in this case is used to mean any compound or isolate that is molecularly identical to a constituant cannabinoid.

Look, I'm not arguing "falsness". I'm saying that there's alot more in cannabis smoke or vapor than THC, yet they tested it alone. They also tested CBD alone. No one thought to test them together, like you get when you actually use cannabis? Who the hell gets straight THC??? wink

jkwilborn

jkwilborn

Phoenix, AZ
August 2006

MAY 01, 2007 04:21 PM

electrogreen said:
bullshit. What were the THC levels? The medical stuff the government gives out is a mix of leaves and stems, they dont use the bud. So with the test results they have I would say they didn't use the stuff they give to the sick folks.

You know this was probably like the Heath/Tulane study in 1974. They used monkeys for their tests. They gave the monkeys 63 columbian-strength joints through a sealed mask in five minutes. The equivalent of 30 joints a day. They started to die within 90 days. They cut them open and found dead brain cells. They said it was from the pot. They were being suffocated. Three to five minutes with no oxygen can cause brain damage...dead brain cells. They do these half assed tests and only tell you what they want you to think. Pot does not cause brain damage, you can say I am wrong but you are full of shit yourself.

It seems like most people are stuck on the medical side of it all. Then go on about people wanting to smoke it all the time. What about Biomass fuels, paper, rope, textiles and fabric, canvas, paints and such, food oils...and a lot of other shit that would clean up the world and save the trees and such? And what about the medical uses for asthma, tumors, glaucoma, nausea relief, epilepsy, back pain, muscle spasms, arthritis, headaches and who knows how many others? But Dupont and all the pharmaceutical companies give a lot more cash to the government than a bunch of farmers. When we run out of our fossil fuels...the kind we are at war over...there will be the panic and riots and such but then maybe they will turn to what we used in the past. Maybe.



tryphcycle

tryphcycle

Beaverton, OR
December 2002

MAY 01, 2007 04:32 PM

Bastardo said:

Margot_Dent said:

tryphcycle said:
BULLSHIT!!!!!

"Nearly half of the healthy subjects experienced psychotic symptoms when given the drug."

I have NEVER witnessed or heard about ANYONE getting psychotic after smoking weed! I dont give a rats ass about their "study"! This is just more BS along the lines of reefer madness!!!! ALL LIES!!!! The only ones that beleive it... are the non smokers and religious nuts!

fuck'em!



ah yes, since you've never seen of heard about it, it MUST not be true.

jesus christ.



Welllllllllllllll, I've never seen him make an intelligent post, and I'm sure it's never happened either.



LOL.... you people are SOOO funny!

SocietysPliers

SocietysPliers

Ocala, FL
October 2004

MAY 01, 2007 04:36 PM

chimehouse said:
No one thought to test them together, like you get when you actually use cannabis?

Yeah, that's another factor in the invalidity of the study. They must have been on dope when they planning this.

Who the hell gets straight THC???wink

And did they bring enough for the rest of the class? Back in the day, there was alleged THC going around but it was really phencyclidine.

chimehouse said:

SocietysPliers said:
is easier to obtain permission to study it than, say LSD-25 or heroin.

Absolutely and utterly wrong, my friend. Respectfully, you need to go read up at MAPS.ORG...

Any idea, then how they got permission, or how others do? Just curious. I know those involved in psychiatry who have tried and failed to get authorzation for work with LSD, and in fact, no of no recent US-based clinical studies with it, but yet marijuana still occsionally has studies, however bullshit they are, done on it (or its components). Why is that? (And I am going to follow that link).

st_even

st_even

Milwaukee, WI
September 2006

MAY 01, 2007 04:39 PM

SocietysPliers said:
Any idea, then how they get permission? Just curious.



The government grows its own marijuana.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

MAY 01, 2007 04:39 PM

NinjaTech said:
I especially enjoy the irony of Subrosa's tongue in cheek comment about "self-righteous annoyance" and then some of you people go out of the way to completely prove that comment right. Whatever.


I know. It's positively delicious, ain't it? biggrin


The only way legalization is ever going to happen in this country is if we have an honest, informed conversation of the positive and negative effects of smoking weed.



This might be my "paranoia" bubbling forth, but with the grip that the super industry of pharmaceuticals has around the United States financially, what are the chances that pot would be completely legalized? I mean honestly how much money would this industry lose? We can only speculate, but I would assume it would be in the billions. Also consider that if the United States dropped probation against marijuana how many other first through third world nations would follow suit thus increasing potential losses exponentially?

I mean do you honestly feel an "open dialogue" is going to change anything? Now that is a pretty fucking romanticized (read:hippy). After how long... they now have evidence that pot increases paranoia in schizophrenics? Thats it? Mentally damaged people become more mentally damaged under the influence of drugs. Mind blowing. In direct contrast how many people are going to die do to alcohol tonight?


I'd say the chances of marijuana being legalized are greater now than they were 50 years ago. More informed people are willing to put themselves forward as pro-legalization. The more informed debate we have about it, the more that trend will continue. Now, I could just believe that because I believe in the marketplace of ideas. I didn't say that I wasn't an idealist on some level. I just said I wasn't a hippie.

Because hippies suck.


tryphcycle

tryphcycle

Beaverton, OR
December 2002

MAY 01, 2007 04:42 PM

halfjack said:
ok. this is tired. if you smoke pot and you think it's not hurting you, you're an idiot. you probably were before you started smoking, but the pot ain't helping you. yes, it causes brain damage. yes, it's addicitng. you don't need medical science to back that one up if you're head isn't completely up your ass. and yes, alcohol and cigarettes are damaging to you to, and for those idiots that have posted that nobody posts research on the negative effects of those, SHUT UP. i've heard nothing but dribble about liver and cancer and meetings and second hand smoke since long before you decided that sublime is the greatest band of all time.

THEY'RE ALL BAD. GET OVER IT.

you wanna smoke pot? fine. but admit that it's addictive, admit it makes you depressed, boring, and stupid. and yes, admit that since it's obviously sticking a fork in your brain, it can certainly cause paranoia and psychoses.

we've all heard the jokes about how stoners don't get in car accidents or start fights. and we all know that that's also partially a load of crap. they do. a lot. because alcohol AND pot cause stupidity. yeah, drunkards start more fights. but stop trying to pretend like your shit don't stink. the whiskey will kill my liver while the pot kills your brain.

i'm so tired of you whiney fuckin stoners. it's self-righteous, self-delusional morons like you that made me want to stop smoking in the first place.

and let me just clarify, for those that weren't paying attention, and we know who you are, that this me ranting about people who smoke pot and think that it's harmless/good for you, and not people who smoke pot.




...shorty after he so willfully crafts his latest anti pot rant, he pops his daily dose of WELLBUTRIN and thinks to himself... "fuck a hate drug users"!

st_even

st_even

Milwaukee, WI
September 2006

MAY 01, 2007 04:42 PM

Yeah, hippies suck! Know who else sucks? Jews!

whatever

Necia

Necia

San Francisco, CA
August 2005

MAY 01, 2007 04:43 PM

egocarib said:
what a load of b.s.

as usual.

The 1.1% schizophrenic figure is vastly inflated, mostly because the diagnostic statistical manual for mental illnesses is a joke. It takes practically nothing to fall into the category of a number of mental illnesses, and any of us could be diagnosed with a laundry list of them if a 'health professional' would care to try. The NIMH helps to spearhead this mass delusion.

For years the powers that be have been trying to scrape up the tiniest bit of evidence they can find to substantiate the legal status of marijuana, while simultaneously ignoring the effects of legal drugs, like alcohol and cigarettes, not to mention pharmacueticals which are a whole other sack of nails. st_even is correct, some of the things prescribed to people these days, especially schizophrenics and others who are percieved as having 'major' mental illnesses are quite disturbing.

and thank you for that, chimehouse



So, what credentials, exactly, give you the authority to declare the entirety of the DSM to be crap? surreal

Margot_Dent

Margot_Dent

Los Angeles, CA
February 2004

MAY 01, 2007 04:43 PM

st_even said:
Yeah, hippies suck! Know who else sucks? Jews!

whatever



yes. hating hippies is the same as hating jews. totally.

st_even

st_even

Milwaukee, WI
September 2006

MAY 01, 2007 04:46 PM

Margot_Dent said:

st_even said:
Yeah, hippies suck! Know who else sucks? Jews!

whatever



yes. hating hippies is the same as hating jews. totally.



It is. Hating anyone for their personal beliefs and/or lifestyle is the same. Predetermined stereotypes and character judgments are all the same. Prejudices are all the same.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 20

Next