The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethics!

[Jillybean]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

I just read Samurai's post.

It says pot is anti-nausea... Uhh. If pot always made me nauseous does that mean I was allergic to it or something?!

No, it could have meant that the smoke made you nauseous. But that is not the only way to ingest marijuana. You could try edibles and then also vaporizers that has less smoke content and more water vapor and THC. And in all honesty, vaporizers are the least harmful to the lungs and best way to judge just how much marijuana is needed to be ingested. With eating it, it takes a while for your body to absorb it and you will not know if you ate too much.

And I have a friend who is allergic to marijuana which sucks because she actually loves smoking (she became allergic after she had her child). And her throat closed up and she got a rash around her mouth.

Ahh! That makes sense. I only ever smoked it. If my paranoia over getting arrested ever subsides... I will have to try vaporizers. I don't know anything about marijuana. LOL! Never even bought my own... The boys at school always did.
& thanks for the image!

Why is it that someone like me, who's never smoked pot in the last ... oh 8 years ... now suddenly really wants a vaporizer!?!

 

[southsamurai]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

I just read Samurai's post.

It says pot is anti-nausea... Uhh. If pot always made me nauseous does that mean I was allergic to it or something?!

possibly? i know two people allergic to cannabis in all its varieties and they both experienced nausea before they went into anaphylaxis. i assume you didnt have that response or would have mentioned it as well. a milder allergic response would still include swelling of the mucous membranes and lung tissues, at the very least an itchy rash lol.

more likely is a senstitivity to it, meaning that your system reacts very strongly to THC, or the other cannabinoids. in that case all sorts of unpleasant side effects are possible that arent typical to a non-sensitive user.

most likely is the dosage was high for your tolerance. back when i was a regular (read daily, multiple times a day) user people would always come to me when they wanted a joint's worth for occasional use. since the stuff i got was fairly potent if i bought it, or was extremely potent if i grew it they tended to over do it quite a bit. my mom once smoked a bowl with me and was on her butt for 8 hours with nausea, unable to stand up to go pee from the dizziness as well (which resulted in much laughter from both of us). at the same time i just had a nice giggly buzz going with my friend who was smoking the same stuff.

 

[Rebecca Buck]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Re: Mental health issues and anxiety while smoking...

I've been a daily smoker since about two years ago, and rather frequently since my senior year of highshool. Up until about November of last year I never had any problems other than the usual 'stoner anxiety' where you think the cops are around every corner.

But then around November, I ended up in a dark place in my life. I lost my job, I had no money, I still had bills piling up, and this was right as I was getting started camming, which was a really big, sudden change for me that caused me to quickly reevaluate my feelings about my relationship and other stuff related to it. So, even though I was still working like mad and making the same money, my thoughts would simply not shut down.

In the past, to quiet my brain, I would smoke. But at this point, I did not learn how to deal with the thoughts and anxieties I was having before hand. So when I smoked, instead of it being a normal daily stressful thing, I ended up developing a full on existential panic attack. I laid on my bed for an hour, writhing, convinced that if I fell asleep that was surrender and my spirit would just up and exit my body. I wasn't concerned with 'dying' I was concerned with the literal fact that I was going to essentially fall asleep, and wake up looking down at myself.

That was the first thing that happened. After that, I battled with depression for about two months. If I wasn't on cam, I was usually hiding in my bedroom under the covers because if I was around people I became a mess. But I couldn't be in the house by myself either. I simultaneously pushed people away and clung to them.

Once or twice I tried weed again to try and make it stop but it never did, it'd just kick me back to the dark place. I was really worried that my time with weed was over, because there were a lot of things I still loved and missed about it.

Finally, after I got a month's prescription of anti-anxiety medication, supplements (New Mood and Alpha Brain by Onnit actually helped more than the pills did, I feel.) and regular meditation made me take better care of my mental health and begin to see things in a less scary, more hopeful way. I stayed away from weed more, and I didn't miss it for a while. It wasn't until I gave myself permission to have fun and enjoy the feelings that weed gave me that I was able to smoke it again.

Long story short: Weed can make your mental health problems worse if you don't already have a handle on them. My family has a history of depression and anxiety. I thought smoking would help alleviate those problems but it doesn't always. Sometimes you have to put on your big girl pants and be in your own head for a while without all that smoke.

I really enjoy weed. I'm planning to open up a bakery and headshop in one of the states where it was legalized, as well as sell custom glass pieces and grow my own stuff. I try not to flaunt it, since I find that kind of annoying as well (Maybe not as annoying as most, but still. Calm down bro.) and I also try to respect it.

 

[Brad]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

If my stupid state would finally make it available I will gladly trade my script to Norco for the pleasure of growing my own medicine. I am no expert but I can share my experiences. I am 48 years old. I have smoked pot on and off for over 30 years now. I notice no ill effects from it. I have not become any dumber because I have smoked it and if anything I have become wiser with age, which is how it's supposed to work. I sold it for 15 years but quit when my son was born. I mainly sold to my friends and not in any huge amounts (quarters, halves, ounces) but I was technically a dope dealer none the less. For the record I have never ever been busted for anything other then a speeding ticket.

From my experiences I will say that pot is far less destructive then booze. I had to quit booze almost 11 years ago as it got out of hand with me. I've seen booze destroy peoples lifes and families. I have seen guys with "wet brain" and one is a long time customer of ours here at the shop. My wife just adores him and always spends extra time helping him out since much of his brain is now mush. NONE of my long time pot head friends have this problem. And there are a number of us that have smoked for a long time. So because of this I don't buy that it is harmful. I need evidence and proof and have seen neither so far.

In 2008 my health started to go to hell. I was eventually diagnosed with both the Hashimotos and Sarcoidosis diseases. My thyroid quit working and I have 2 small spots of cancer (one on the thyroid and one on a lung). I was diagnosed with arthritis in my knees at age 18 which ended my career in sports. I also had a bad motorcycle accident at age 19. It bent my spine and I have had lower back pain ever since. My lower back has gotten worse over time. The disc bulges on occasion and there are both bone spurs and arthritis there now too. So as mentioned I have been on pain killing meds for a long time now. Used to be Vicodin ES then switched to Norco as it has less filler crap (which is bad for my liver). I do not abuse them nor have I ever got high on them. I know some people do as I have plenty of folks hit me up for some over the years. I use it for my pain and usually take one every morning with my thyroid med.

As I said I will gladly trade my script for legalized pot. I started smoking it again a few years ago when I was having trouble sleeping. I used to have a script for sleeping pills but we do not have insurance right now and I can barely pay for the thyroid and pain meds. I have tried what seems like every over the counter remedy and other scripts for my insomnia, which is a side effect of my disease, and only 1 script ever worked. That was the Lunesta and there was no generic available. I also noticed how much better the pot relieves my back pain.

I also know the difference between taking a few hits in the morning and getting fucking baked. Again, I tend to get annoyed when I see it discussed with such black and white views. You can smoke a bit and get the relief while not looking like Spicoli from Fast Times. Just like I only take 1 Norco rather then 2 or 3.

For me it works great. I know quite a few other cancer patients who agree too. Especially those on chemo. I've hooked a few people up and it is one of the few times that I actually wished I was still dealing. I am also talking about plain old green swag. Not the high end stuff sold at the legal dispensaries and on the streets that costs 3 times as much. In fact a few of my friends grow it outside right here in town. It's easy to grow as I grew some back when I was in my early 20s. I am tired of the government keeping me from it. But that is also one of the reasons I think it has taken so long to become legalized. So many just say legalize and tax the hell out of it. Well there are two problems with that. The first is that anyone can grow it themselves which is harder to tax and secondly why the hell should it be taxed so heavily anyway?

Of course I understand that many may "abuse" it and use it just to get high. I know that feeling myself just as I know the feeling I got from booze, or gambling, or smoking cigs, or sex, or eating, or shopping, or...well, you get the idea here. Just because you use or do something does not automatically mean you are addicted to that thing or that it is harmful.

For anyone who wants to argue against it I will be happy to answer questions. 30+ years of smoking it and I have seen a ton over that time. I KNOW what pot is and what it does. I don't need a study to tell me that.
:thumbleft:

 

[Shaun__]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

I really enjoy weed. I'm planning to open up a bakery and headshop in one of the states where it was legalized, as well as sell custom glass pieces and grow my own stuff. I try not to flaunt it, since I find that kind of annoying as well (Maybe not as annoying as most, but still. Calm down bro.) and I also try to respect it.

I do not know about your particular type of business, but dispensaries are not allowed by the IRS to deduct their expenses when they file their taxes. You should check into that when you start making your budgets and plans for your future. If your profit margins are too low, taxes could really hurt you.

 

[Rose]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

I'd really like to see it legalized for one basic reason, I really like gardening. Plants take in carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, that's great for the environment. I'd like to grow my own so that I could say I have one more neato plant in my garden that gives back to the environment.

Granted, BJ is seriously allergic to the hemp in marijuana so I'd have to be very careful how I grew it, but it would be worth it to me. There's something very rewarding about watching a seed that you planted grow into this beautiful plant that gives back to its world. Plus, I think the leaves would compliment my petunias quite nicely. :twocents-02cents:

I have other reasons I'd like to see it legalized and regulated too, but I won't know how strong my stances on that are until we find out if my health problems come back after baby is born. Basically, chronic pain is a bitch. Especially when it keeps you from living a 'normal', functioning life as a productive part of society.

 

[Brad]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Basically, chronic pain is a bitch. Especially when it keeps you from living a 'normal', functioning life as a productive part of society.

Thank you for that Rose!
:handgestures-salute:

I have had to change doctors a few times. The one who originally diagnosed me and helped me so much had to quit due to a creep ex husband. She was THE greatest doctor I have ever known. So I was spoiled and the ones after her all paled in comparison. Being on Norco makes some doctors all freaked out. I understand the concerns but I have had more drug tests, blood tests, CT scans (with contrast of course-feels like you peed yourself), MRI scans, etc. then I can remember. All of this is well documented in my records. After one new doctor started giving me some speech about how they don't usually prescribe pain meds (or some nonsense like that) I told her that I was in my late 40's and I will not be treated like a freaking child over pain meds and either you give them to me or I will find another doctor, period. Of course then after actually looking at my records it was fine but I also didn't stay with that doctor too long. I don't need an attitude from my doctor.

It still pisses me off and many times I have told my wife that if a doctor had to live with the pain that I live with they would be running for the drug closet. That was why I smiled when I read what Rose had posted. It is nice to see someone who cares more about those of us that really do need it versus those who seem to be more upset over the people that may abuse it. Sometimes it really does suck living in pain and as a perfect example I still get embarrassed at times when I have to ask my wife to put my socks on my feet for me because I can't bend over far enough to do it myself.

 

[Rose]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Basically, chronic pain is a bitch. Especially when it keeps you from living a 'normal', functioning life as a productive part of society.

Thank you for that Rose!
:handgestures-salute:

I have had to change doctors a few times. The one who originally diagnosed me and helped me so much had to quit due to a creep ex husband. She was THE greatest doctor I have ever known. So I was spoiled and the ones after her all paled in comparison. Being on Norco makes some doctors all freaked out. I understand the concerns but I have had more drug tests, blood tests, CT scans (with contrast of course-feels like you peed yourself), MRI scans, etc. then I can remember. All of this is well documented in my records. After one new doctor started giving me some speech about how they don't usually prescribe pain meds (or some nonsense like that) I told her that I was in my late 40's and I will not be treated like a freaking child over pain meds and either you give them to me or I will find another doctor, period. Of course then after actually looking at my records it was fine but I also didn't stay with that doctor too long. I don't need an attitude from my doctor.

It still pisses me off and many times I have told my wife that if a doctor had to live with the pain that I live with they would be running for the drug closet. That was why I smiled when I read what Rose had posted. It is nice to see someone who cares more about those of us that really do need it versus those who seem to be more upset over the people that may abuse it. Sometimes it really does suck living in pain and as a perfect example I still get embarrassed at times when I have to ask my wife to put my socks on my feet for me because I can't bend over far enough to do it myself.

While my chronic pain is different and comes with other complications that prevent me from leading a 'normal' life, I can understand how you feel and where you're coming from. My issues started when I was 13 years old and caused lots of havoc during my teenage years. It made for a very crazy home life. :? It still blows my mind that the first thing offered to fix my situation was narcotics from my first doctor, and I'm glad my parents made the executive decision to say no and find me a new doctor. Because of my pregnancy, I'm 'cured' at the moment, but there's an extremely high chance it will all come back after delivery. I could also get really lucky and stay 'cured' after delivery, but the likelihood of that is pretty slim and then my family and I will have to deal with raising a newborn and my chronic issues. We haven't figured out how we're going to do that yet.

Before we got pregnant or were trying to get pregnant, I was on lots of prescription medication that really f'ed my body up. Eventually BJ and I made the decision to self medicate with pot before bed every night so that I could function on my own more often without all the narcotics or extra hormones. There were still bad days, but for the most part I could go to school, cam and run our home without being laid up in bed all day from pain or side effects from narcotics. It allowed him to go back to work like normal without worrying about me and it let me feel a lot more independent because I could smoke just enough to take the edge off but not walk around giggling at everyone all day.

I'm 21 now and have been dealing with this in some form or fashion since 13 and I'll most likely be dealing with it for the rest of my life, so I totally understand where you're coming from with wanting to function and dealing with doctors. It's easier to just nibble on a green cookie or take a couple puffs and then go on about my life like nothing's wrong with me.

 

[Just Me]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

There are some reasons to think that marijuana smoking might increase lung cancer risk. Many of the cancer-causing substances in tobacco are also found in marijuana. Marijuana contains more tar than cigarettes. (Tar is the sticky, solid material that remains after burning, which is thought to contain most of the harmful substances in smoke.) Marijuana cigarettes (joints) are typically smoked all the way to the end, where tar content is the highest. Marijuana is also inhaled very deeply and the smoke is held in the lungs for a long time. And because marijuana is an illegal substance, it is not possible to control what other substances it might contain.

But those who use marijuana tend to smoke fewer marijuana cigarettes in a day or week than the amount of tobacco consumed by cigarette smokers. For example, a light smoker may smoke half of a pack of cigarettes a day (10 cigarettes), but 10 marijuana cigarettes in a day would be very heavy use of marijuana. In one study, most people who smoked marijuana did so 2 to 3 times per month. The lesser amount smoked would make it harder to see an impact on lung cancer risk.

It has been hard to study whether there is a link between marijuana and lung cancer because it is not easy to gather information about the use of illegal drugs. Also, many marijuana smokers also smoke cigarettes. This makes it hard to know how much of the risk is from tobacco and how much might be from marijuana. In the very limited studies done so far, marijuana use has not been strongly linked to lung cancer, but more research in this area is needed.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/lungcancer-smallcell/detailedguide/small-cell-lung-cancer-risk-factors
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United States and is considered by young adults to be the illicit drug with the least risk. On the other hand, marijuana smoke contains several of the same carcinogens and co-carcinogens as the tar from tobacco, raising concerns that smoking of marijuana may be a risk factor for tobacco-related cancers. We reviewed two cohort studies and 14 case-control studies with assessment of the association of marijuana use and cancer risk. In the cohort studies, increased risks of lung or colorectal cancer due to marijuana smoking were not observed, but increased risks of prostate and cervical cancers among non-tobacco smokers, as well as adult-onset glioma among tobacco and non-tobacco smokers, were observed. The 14 case-control studies included four studies on head and neck cancers, two studies on lung cancer, two studies on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, one study on anal cancer, one study on penile cancer, and four studies on childhood cancers with assessment of parental exposures. Zhang and colleagues reported that marijuana use may increase risk of head and neck cancers in a hospital-based case-control study in the United States, with dose-response relations for both frequency and duration of use. However, Rosenblatt and co-workers reported no association between oral cancer and marijuana use in a population-based case-control study. An eightfold increase in risk among marijuana users was observed in a lung cancer study in Tunisia. However, there was no assessment of the dose response, and marijuana may have been mixed with tobacco. Parental marijuana use during gestation was associated with increased risks of childhood leukemia, astrocytoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma, but dose-response relations were not assessed. In summary, sufficient studies are not available to adequately evaluate marijuana impact on cancer risk. Several limitations of previous studies include possible underreporting where marijuana use is illegal, small sample sizes, and too few heavy marijuana users in the study sample. Recommendations for future studies are to (1) focus on tobacco-related cancer sites; (2) obtain detailed marijuana exposure assessment, including frequency, duration, and amount of personal use as well as mode of use (smoked in a cigarette, pipe, or bong; taken orally); (3) adjust for tobacco smoking and conduct analyses on nonusers of tobacco; and (4) conduct larger studies, meta-analyses, or pooled analyses to maximize statistical precision and investigate sources of differences in results. Despite the challenges, elucidation of the association between marijuana use and cancer risk is important in weighing the benefits and risks of medical marijuana use and to clarify the impact of marijuana use on public health.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The association between marijuana smoking and lung cancer is unclear, and a systematic appraisal of this relationship has yet to be performed. Our objective was to assess the impact of marijuana smoking on the development of premalignant lung changes and lung cancer.
METHODS:
Studies assessing the impact of marijuana smoking on lung premalignant findings and lung cancer were selected from MEDLINE, PSYCHLIT, and EMBASE databases according to the following predefined criteria: English-language studies of persons 18 years or older identified from 1966 to the second week of October 2005 were included if they were research studies (ie, not letters, reviews, editorials, or limited case studies), involved persons who smoked marijuana, and examined premalignant or cancerous changes in the lung.
RESULTS:
Nineteen studies met selection criteria. Studies that examined lung cancer risk factors or premalignant changes in the lung found an association of marijuana smoking with increased tar exposure, alveolar macrophage tumoricidal dysfunction, increased oxidative stress, and bronchial mucosal histopathologic abnormalities compared with tobacco smokers or nonsmoking controls. Observational studies of subjects with marijuana exposure failed to demonstrate significant associations between marijuana smoking and lung cancer after adjusting for tobacco use. The primary methodologic deficiencies noted include selection bias, small sample size, limited generalizability, overall young participant age precluding sufficient lag time for lung cancer outcome identification, and lack of adjustment for tobacco smoking.
CONCLUSION:
Given the prevalence of marijuana smoking and studies predominantly supporting biological plausibility of an association of marijuana smoking with lung cancer on the basis of molecular, cellular, and histopathologic findings, physicians should advise patients regarding potential adverse health outcomes until further rigorous studies are performed that permit definitive conclusions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

The potential for marijuana smoking to predispose to the development of respiratory malignancy is suggested by several lines of evidence, including the presence of potent carcinogens in marijuana smoke and their resulting deposition in the lung, the occurrence of premalignant changes in bronchial biopsies obtained from smokers of marijuana in the absence of tobacco, impairment of antitumor immune defenses by delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, and several clinical case series in which marijuana smokers were disproportionately over represented among young individuals who developed upper or lower respiratory tract cancer. Additional well designed epidemiological and immune monitoring studies are required to determine the potential causal relationship between marijuana use and the development of respiratory infection and/or cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

What is funny is the people going on and on about the healthful benefits of smoking pot sound just like people did about tobacco smoking before the studies were completed. The one advantage of smoking marijuana over tobacco smoking is generally people smoke less marijuana. Smoking anything is not good for your health. There are very few medications that are taken by inhalation, and surprise they are all to treat lung diseases/disorders. The benefits in those situations outweigh the long term risks of inhaling the medications.

 

[Shaun__]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

What is funny is the people going on and on about the healthful benefits of smoking pot sound just like people did about tobacco smoking before the studies were completed. The one advantage of smoking marijuana over tobacco smoking is generally people smoke less marijuana. Smoking anything is not good for your health. There are very few medications that are taken by inhalation, and surprise they are all to treat lung diseases/disorders. The benefits in those situations outweigh the long term risks of inhaling the medications.

Funny how some people go on and on about how dangerous cannabis is before the studies were completed.

LOS ANGELES, March 12, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The following is a statement by Advocates for the Disabled and Seriously Ill:

In a recent report, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the Federal government's National Institutes of Health (NIH), stated that marijuana "inhibited the survival of both estrogen receptor–positive and estrogen receptor–negative breast cancer cell lines." The same report showed marijuana slows or stops the growth of certain lung cancer cells and suggested that marijuana may provide "risk reduction and treatment of colorectal cancer."

Full article.

National Cancer Institute, full disclosure this does say you may increase your chances of prostate cancer. I doubt women should worry about that though.

 

[Brad]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

What is funny is the people going on and on about the healthful benefits of smoking pot sound just like people did about tobacco smoking before the studies were completed. The one advantage of smoking marijuana over tobacco smoking is generally people smoke less marijuana. Smoking anything is not good for your health. There are very few medications that are taken by inhalation, and surprise they are all to treat lung diseases/disorders. The benefits in those situations outweigh the long term risks of inhaling the medications.

I really do not remember anyone saying that smoking cigs was actually good for you but I am 48 so maybe that was before my time. I have heard many people state that smoking pot is either just as bad or worse health wise then smoking cigs. So here is my take on that from my experiences. Besides my other health issues I also have COPD. Before we lost our insurance I took Spiriva every day through an inhaler and I also have a few Ventolin rescue inhalers. It was pretty bad and if I did any type of strenuous physical activities I would run out of breath quickly. Scared my wife a few times. I smoked cigs for 33 years so I didn't blame anyone but myself. I finally had to quit and my last cig was the morning of the last Superbowl. Within a few weeks my lungs returned (which was much faster then I had anticipated-I was pleasantly shocked) and what was once nearly impossible for me is again possible. I can run/jog, ride a bicycle, go up as many stairs as needed without stopping to rest, and many other activities I couldn't do before. Yet I still smoke pot as I have for those same 33 years. Just sharing my actual experiences and you can take it from there.
:thumbleft:

 

[sweetiebatman]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Tried weed once when I was a student back in the day.. did absolutely nothing for me so its not something i have ever partaken in again, I know a shitload of people who do, or did and fair play to them if you are enjoying yourself, and no one else is getting hurt then carry the duck on!

There are obvious medical benefits to its use too

 

[Just Me]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

What is funny is the people going on and on about the healthful benefits of smoking pot sound just like people did about tobacco smoking before the studies were completed. The one advantage of smoking marijuana over tobacco smoking is generally people smoke less marijuana. Smoking anything is not good for your health. There are very few medications that are taken by inhalation, and surprise they are all to treat lung diseases/disorders. The benefits in those situations outweigh the long term risks of inhaling the medications.

Funny how some people go on and on about how dangerous cannabis is before the studies were completed.

LOS ANGELES, March 12, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The following is a statement by Advocates for the Disabled and Seriously Ill:

In a recent report, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the Federal government's National Institutes of Health (NIH), stated that marijuana "inhibited the survival of both estrogen receptor–positive and estrogen receptor–negative breast cancer cell lines." The same report showed marijuana slows or stops the growth of certain lung cancer cells and suggested that marijuana may provide "risk reduction and treatment of colorectal cancer."

Full article.

National Cancer Institute, full disclosure this does say you may increase your chances of prostate cancer. I doubt women should worry about that though.

Directly from the study they cite :

Cannabinoids, constituents of marijuana smoke, have been recognized to have potential antitumor properties. However, the epidemiologic evidence addressing the relationship between marijuana use and the induction of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is inconsistent and conflicting.

I keep finding, which is sad, that news reports, even from the most reputable news sites, on studies are not greatest source of information. Too often I read or see a story about some study and when I go to the study they are supposedly reporting on they either misunderstand the study, report studies that are not from peer reviewed scientific journals, or get the facts wrong.

Also, I am not going on and on about the dangers of smoking cannabis before the studies are complete. Someone made the claim that it was completely harmless and had no ill effects, that it was some kind of wonder medicine that is being kept from the public. :roll: I just wanted to point out that the scientific community does not agree with that claim.

 

[PunkInDrublic]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Someone made the claim that it was completely harmless and had no ill effects, that it was some kind of wonder medicine that is being kept from the public. :roll:

Strange, I see no such claims. Still in complete denial about the medicinal benefits I see.

I've been giving "stoner" music a lot of play lately. Never really gave any of it a chance growing up, thought it was all just crappy hippie music. Anyone got any recommendations on 60's or 70's smoking music? I have Bob Dylans greatest hits and a few Doors albums, that's about it.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'

Dudes awesome.

 

[JickyJuly]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Also, I am not going on and on about the dangers of smoking cannabis before the studies are complete. Someone made the claim that it was completely harmless and had no ill effects, that it was some kind of wonder medicine that is being kept from the public. :roll: I just wanted to point out that the scientific community does not agree with that claim.

The act of burning pot is what makes smoking it unhealthy. Anything you smoke is harsh on the lungs. Cloves, cigarettes, heroin, pot whatever if you're inhaling smoke, your lungs are taking a little hit (pun intended). So, those studies can say "Smoking pot is harmful" and be telling the truth. However, they're putting a spin on it. They're making an obvious statement and trying to make it sound like it means more than it really does. Misleading. If a "study" starts out with a bias or a goal to mislead readers, it's automatically not to be trusted.

 

[LadyLuna]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Also, I am not going on and on about the dangers of smoking cannabis before the studies are complete. Someone made the claim that it was completely harmless and had no ill effects, that it was some kind of wonder medicine that is being kept from the public. :roll: I just wanted to point out that the scientific community does not agree with that claim.

The act of burning pot is what makes smoking it unhealthy. Anything you smoke is harsh on the lungs. Cloves, cigarettes, heroin, pot whatever if you're inhaling smoke, your lungs are taking a little hit (pun intended). So, those studies can say "Smoking pot is harmful" and be telling the truth. However, they're putting a spin on it. They're making an obvious statement and trying to make it sound like it means more than it really does. Misleading. If a "study" starts out with a bias or a goal to mislead readers, it's automatically not to be trusted.

Also, all these studies focus on smoking it. None about vaping it, and the only bad thing I've heard about edibles is the possibility to overdose because it takes awhile to hit you.

 

[Shaun__]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Another problem is that every strain of cannabis has a different combinations of chemicals. That means all the studies that are not supplying the cannabis are basically testing the results of randomly selected items from a local pharmacy and drawing conclusions from that. That is a good reason it is so hard to pin down results, but based on the number of things that are listed as giving people in California cancer, it may just be everything in the world is bad for you.

Also some of what is being tested could be covered in pesticides, and that stuff is very unsafe I think.

 

[Brad]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Someone made the claim that it was completely harmless and had no ill effects, that it was some kind of wonder medicine that is being kept from the public. :roll:

Strange, I see no such claims. Still in complete denial about the medicinal benefits I see.

I've been giving "stoner" music a lot of play lately. Never really gave any of it a chance growing up, thought it was all just crappy hippie music. Anyone got any recommendations on 60's or 70's smoking music?

I am not a hippie nor have I ever been one. I am more of a mod or punk. BUT if you want good stoner tunes you have to start with Pink Floyd.
:thumbleft:

Zep and Ozzie era Sabbath are good too as is older Rush. In fact the entire 2112 album is made for getting high to.


Others would be Cream, BOC, Deep Purple, etc. Hell, just come over and borrow whatever you need.

 

[Brad]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

I keep finding, which is sad, that news reports, even from the most reputable news sites, on studies are not greatest source of information. Too often I read or see a story about some study and when I go to the study they are supposedly reporting on they either misunderstand the study, report studies that are not from peer reviewed scientific journals, or get the facts wrong.

Also, I am not going on and on about the dangers of smoking cannabis before the studies are complete. Someone made the claim that it was completely harmless and had no ill effects, that it was some kind of wonder medicine that is being kept from the public. :roll: I just wanted to point out that the scientific community does not agree with that claim.

I am a living, breathing 30+ year study. I thought I made that pretty clear in sharing my experiences. Would you rather hear the truth from someone who has lived it or do you just want to discuss random studies done by a bunch of nerds in lab coats?


You continue to focus on some claim of "wonder medicine" which I don't even understand. I have pointed out it's advantages as a pain killer, sleep aid, and for reducing nausea. Plus it is great for relaxing socially. Much better then booze imo. I have never said anything about it curing cancers or it being some wonder drug. I also discussed the major difference in effects on my lungs vs cigarettes which has been a huge difference.

I am more then willing to discuss it but let's discuss reality rather then just posting links to some studies.

 

[LadyLuna]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Controlled studies are the best proof.

However, there aren't any controlled studies on the subject, so the next best thing are actual experiences.

Also, I know for a fact that things which will kill one person will kill another. Cause, we're all different, you know? This is why I don't think that substances should be controlled as heavily.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Controlled studies are the best proof.

However, there aren't any controlled studies on the subject, so the next best thing are actual experiences.

Also, I know for a fact that things which will kill one person will kill another. Cause, we're all different, you know? This is why I don't think that substances should be controlled as heavily.

You didn't quote so I'm not sure if you're talking about lack of controlled studies on one specific point or just the general benefits vs. drawbacks of usage.

If it's just in general... http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884

 

[LadyLuna]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Controlled studies are the best proof.

However, there aren't any controlled studies on the subject, so the next best thing are actual experiences.

Also, I know for a fact that things which will kill one person will kill another. Cause, we're all different, you know? This is why I don't think that substances should be controlled as heavily.

You didn't quote so I'm not sure if you're talking about lack of controlled studies on one specific point or just the general benefits vs. drawbacks of usage.

If it's just in general... http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884

Apologies, my post was in response to Brad's seeming disregard of the idea of studies.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Controlled studies are the best proof.

However, there aren't any controlled studies on the subject, so the next best thing are actual experiences.

Also, I know for a fact that things which will kill one person will kill another. Cause, we're all different, you know? This is why I don't think that substances should be controlled as heavily.

You didn't quote so I'm not sure if you're talking about lack of controlled studies on one specific point or just the general benefits vs. drawbacks of usage.

If it's just in general... http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884

Apologies, my post was in response to Brad's seeming disregard of the idea of studies.

Ah, i understand now. disregard my previous post then. :-D

 

[Zoomer]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

For an item worth over twenty thousand dollars for a five pound bag I can understand peoples willingness to commit crimes. However, if the average HEAVY user smokes an ounce a day that means, once legalized, a 400 day supply could be bought for only an hour or two working at a regular job. I'm not aware of any person in the world willing to risk smuggling, theft or murder to pay for that. We don't have those crimes associated with alcohol and cigarettes now, there's no reason to believe they would exist if marijuana were legalized.

Fair enough, mass production will make it cheap. Are we assuming mass consumption won't happen? Do we assume each individual can grow sufficient quantities to satiate their appetite? Do we assume that supply will outstrip demand to keep the prices low? No packaging, transport... I don't know I've not really looked at how "projections" show usage altering nor how many home plants can keep one person stoned all year round.

How much does Tobacco cost again... ? Or is Tobacco a hugely expensive plant to grow compared to cannabis? I heard it isn't that hard to grow it, but I'm guessing there's a good reason people don't (other than having to dry it out obviously - which probably ups the cost considerably. But then won't Marijuana require drying to an extent as transportation "fresh" will result in degradation or something else growing on it will it not? At least when farmed anyway). I didn't say it, but I was specifically thinking of Tobacco at the time of posting.

Oh look, another old guy who hates weed so much that it prevents him from using logic or common sense. Ol' Man River, Dat Ol' Man River, He mus' know sumpin' But don't say nuthin', He jes' keeps rollin', He keeps on rollin' along.

Who said I'm anti anything? If you cannot read that I am not attacking its "health giving" properties, but am attacking the fact that there's inconsistencies in scientific studies results (as they are utterly opposed to each other) which proves any claims are tenuous by either side as there is clearly something lacking in their execution (or maybe it's just too damned complicated due to other variables)... then... wait... who's blinkered?

But I must admit, reading personal insults is always fun and totally validates people's points 100%.

p.s. 33 is that old? Yes, I was born this age...

 

[Rebecca Buck]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Regarding stoner music: Sublime's album 40oz to Freedom is pretty much the first thing that gets put on when the bong is making its rounds. But really anything can be considered stoner music. Our group is all 22 and younger, and we listen to a good even mix of folk, chillstep, rock and reggae.

 

[Just Me]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Also, I am not going on and on about the dangers of smoking cannabis before the studies are complete. Someone made the claim that it was completely harmless and had no ill effects, that it was some kind of wonder medicine that is being kept from the public. :roll: I just wanted to point out that the scientific community does not agree with that claim.

The act of burning pot is what makes smoking it unhealthy. Anything you smoke is harsh on the lungs. Cloves, cigarettes, heroin, pot whatever if you're inhaling smoke, your lungs are taking a little hit (pun intended). So, those studies can say "Smoking pot is harmful" and be telling the truth. However, they're putting a spin on it. They're making an obvious statement and trying to make it sound like it means more than it really does. Misleading. If a "study" starts out with a bias or a goal to mislead readers, it's automatically not to be trusted.

Exactly what I said and what the studies have said. Any beneficial properties can and will be isolated. It has already been done for treating glaucoma and for use against side effects of chemotherapy. Where my bullshit meter gets set off is the claims that either, it is better to smoke it for the healthful benefits or the drugs that have been isolated from it don't work as well because they are not smoking it. You take the high away and people start falling off the medicinal use bandwagon. What most, who go on about the healthful benefits of smoking cannabis, really want is another legal high. That is perfectly fine, I even voted for it. It is certainly not anymore harmful than tobacco and alcohol and they are both legal.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Fair enough, mass production will make it cheap. Are we assuming mass consumption won't happen? Do we assume each individual can grow sufficient quantities to satiate their appetite? Do we assume that supply will outstrip demand to keep the prices low? No packaging, transport... I don't know I've not really looked at how "projections" show usage altering nor how many home plants can keep one person stoned all year round.

How much does Tobacco cost again... ? Or is Tobacco a hugely expensive plant to grow compared to cannabis? I heard it isn't that hard to grow it, but I'm guessing there's a good reason people don't (other than having to dry it out obviously - which probably ups the cost considerably. But then won't Marijuana require drying to an extent as transportation "fresh" will result in degradation or something else growing on it will it not? At least when farmed anyway). I didn't say it, but I was specifically thinking of Tobacco at the time of posting.

Mass consumption is a debatable point. No one 'knows' for sure since it hasn't happened here yet. I can only look at other countries that A) have had it against the law and then decriminalized it, and B) have it as totally legal to use.

Judging by those my best guess is that initially after making it legal there would be a dramatic rise in usage. But once the 'party' phase is over it's usage would actually diminish to lower than what it is today. I'll specifically point out the Netherlands. It's a place where usage for cannabis, and other drugs, is legal, yet they have lower usage than the rest of the European Union where it is not.

As for Tobacco, it's rather easy to grow. If you look online you can find many places that will sell you seeds. They are a bit expensive in my opinion. But once your first harvest is in you simply let one or two plants go to seed and you will have THOUSANDS of seeds. I've looked into growing it myself and it seems about the same level of difficulty as growing a tomato plant. From what I've read a garden area 8'X24' will provide a pack a day smoker with enough tobacco to last a year. The main problem is it's best to let them air dry for 2 or 3 years to mellow enough to be a good smoke.

The main cost in cigarettes seems to be the tax. But that brings me back to my point I mentioned earlier about taxing marijuana. If people are willing to pay that high of tax without resorting to black market on cigarettes, then marijuana taxation would be quite the source of revenue. If this were channeled into social programs to encourage people to get off the drug (much like the anti-cigarette atmosphere here in the U.S.) the usage would go down according to that analogy.

In my mind the main reason marijuana is illegal in the U.S. is not because of 'drugs are bad M'kay' mentality. It's industrial homicide by rival industries. As others have mentioned prior there are many other uses for the marijuana plant. Acre for acre the hemp plant produces more ethanol than corn (around 9 times as much if memory serves, don't quote me. Been a long time since I read up on it), produces more paper products than trees. Heck, it even makes better bird seed than anything we sell today. Believe it or not that was one of the major products of hemp; bird seed, because it gave more fat and energy to birds so the eggshells would be stronger. But I digress. All of the competing industries, at the last time it was legal, are the ones who really pushed for it's illegality. The truly sad thing is there's Industrial Hemp, which doesn't contain enough THC to get high from, that is also illegal in the U.S.. If it's really about fighting drugs why is that version illegal??? We are the only industrialized nation in the world who doesn't allow it's commercial usage.

To me competing industries are why it's illegal, it has nothing to do with getting high. Anyway I look at it I think it's just bad legislation that never should have been put into place in the first place.

 

[PunkInDrublic]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

reading personal insults is always fun and totally validates people's points 100%.

I don't think anything said was personal insults.

 

[Shaun__]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Also, I am not going on and on about the dangers of smoking cannabis before the studies are complete. Someone made the claim that it was completely harmless and had no ill effects, that it was some kind of wonder medicine that is being kept from the public. :roll: I just wanted to point out that the scientific community does not agree with that claim.

The act of burning pot is what makes smoking it unhealthy. Anything you smoke is harsh on the lungs. Cloves, cigarettes, heroin, pot whatever if you're inhaling smoke, your lungs are taking a little hit (pun intended). So, those studies can say "Smoking pot is harmful" and be telling the truth. However, they're putting a spin on it. They're making an obvious statement and trying to make it sound like it means more than it really does. Misleading. If a "study" starts out with a bias or a goal to mislead readers, it's automatically not to be trusted.

Exactly what I said and what the studies have said. Any beneficial properties can and will be isolated. It has already been done for treating glaucoma and for use against side effects of chemotherapy. Where my bullshit meter gets set off is the claims that either, it is better to smoke it for the healthful benefits or the drugs that have been isolated from it don't work as well because they are not smoking it. You take the high away and people start falling off the medicinal use bandwagon. What most, who go on about the healthful benefits of smoking cannabis, really want is another legal high. That is perfectly fine, I even voted for it. It is certainly not anymore harmful than tobacco and alcohol and they are both legal.

You may want to get your bullshit meter checked.

Marinol is More Psychoactive Than Natural Cannabis

Patients prescribed Marinol frequently report that its psychoactive effects are far greater than those of natural cannabis. Marinol's adverse effects include: feeling "high," drowsiness, dizziness, confusion, anxiety, changes in mood, muddled thinking, perceptual difficulties, coordination impairment, irritability, and depression.32 These psychoactive effects may last four to six hours.33 About one-third of patients prescribed Marinol report experiencing one or some of these adverse effects.34

Marinol’s oral route of administration is responsible, in part, for its heightened psychoactivity compared to inhaled cannabis. Once swallowed, Marinol passes from the stomach to the small intestine before being absorbed into the bloodstream. Following absorption, Marinol passes through the liver where a significant proportion of the drug is metabolized into other chemicals.35 One of these chemicals, 11-hydroxy-THC, may be four to five times more potent than natural THC,36 and is produced in greater quantities.37 Thus, patients administered Marinol experience the psychoactive effects of both THC and 11-hydroxy-THC, greatly increasing the likelihood that they will suffer from an adverse psychological reaction. By comparison, only minute quantities of 11-hydroxy-THC are produced when cannabis is inhaled.38 Moreover, Marinol lacks the compound cannabidiol, which possesses anxiolytic activity and likely modifies and/or diminishes much of THC's psychoactivity in natural cannabis.39

 

[trotskyleon]

Re: The 4/20 Thread: Weed, Counterculture, Politics and Ethi

Judging by those my best guess is that initially after making it legal there would be a dramatic rise in usage. But once the 'party' phase is over it's usage would actually diminish to lower than what it is today. I'll specifically point out the Netherlands. It's a place where usage for cannabis, and other drugs, is legal, yet they have lower usage than the rest of the European Union where it is not.

You legalise it, people/businesses will want to tap into the market. Supply will increase dramatically unless its licensed. Generally if supply increases prices will drop. Sure you can tax it, but tax is normally on the price or markup. So basically you can sell more for less as you can grow more. Shifting workers from "productive" jobs to pot planting isnt good for the economy.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-06/a ... se/3761106

The main cost in cigarettes seems to be the tax. But that brings me back to my point I mentioned earlier about taxing marijuana. If people are willing to pay that high of tax without resorting to black market on cigarettes, then marijuana taxation would be quite the source of revenue. If this were channeled into social programs to encourage people to get off the drug (much like the anti-cigarette atmosphere here in the U.S.) the usage would go down according to that analogy.

Cost of legal ciggys vs cost of black market ciggys. Sure you can grow it and its cheap, but if its readily available and in multiple varietys why would you bother? I mean how many people actually grow their own vegetables..If we all did it would be a lot cheaper but not all of us do.

People are willing to pay a high price for ciggys because its addictive. The high price is there to deter new smokers and not existing ones. It just ruins the lives of existing smokers to some extent, as try and get the cash to buy ciggys. Imagine all the robberies, muggings due to the high cost of cigarrettes? It is a false belief to think that legalising something like marijuana will reduce the crime rate (in real numbers terms it may but all you are doing is increasing severity of the crime).

Comparing the Netherlands to rest of the Europe, is a bit like comparing Afghanistan to USA. The main reason why cannabis usage in Netherlands is low, is because of their culture and environment rather than the legal status of marijuana. As I said, its the culture that matters. Australia has one of the highest % usage of cannabis in the world, it has nothing to do with marijuana being illegal, its simply the culture (and its a bad one).

To me competing industries are why it's illegal, it has nothing to do with getting high. Anyway I look at it I think it's just bad legislation that never should have been put into place in the first place.

For sure! YOu want productive industries that add value to the nation. But to suggest there will be an increase in tax revenue is wishful thinking. Tax is all politics and is rarely about economics.