Cannabis Legalisation

[fruit loops are my kink]

lol

[zappian]

I guess someone had better tell the scientific community then:

 

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=marijuana+long+term+use+study+scholarly&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=3qnQVLrNA8LLmAW5moKwAg&ved=0CBoQgQMwAA

 

Yeah keep in mind humans have used cannabis for about 600 years.

 

It would be much easier for scientists to conduct studies if it wansnt a schedule I narcotic.

 

Think about it according to the FDA marijuana is as bad as heroin, I dont think anyone in america agrees with that.

[fruit loops are my kink]

I haven't read the thread and I'm not joining in any current debate, just leaving my thoughts for any one to ponder:

 

When forming opinions on subjects like this it is important to try and consider the realities of arguments that compare alcohol and other substances to marijuana.  Alcohol consumption is orders of magnitude higher than weed consumption,  thus a fair comparison cannot be made in general terms.

 

There is a great deal of study into the effects of weed.  The following are well founded research results that cannot easily be dismissed (unless you don't care much for science):

 

-Long term use lowers IQ and is associated with a shrinking of the OFC (orbitofrontal cortex). Links between the OFC size and IQ are not established in control groups.

-Long term users also showed increased brain connectivity, which demonstrated why long term users, even though they had lower IQ's, appeared to function normally.

-It takes up to a week for THC levels to drop back to normal after a heavy session, indicating that even though users report feeling fine and totally in control, reflex's and cognitive responses can be limited.

 

My take,  On a chemical/biological level it is at best much better than alcohol and at worst the same.  As far as cognitive impairment goes I would suggest that, legal or not, don't drive for at least 4 days after consumption. And for good measure try to avoid it if you already have a genetic predisposition to any form of psychosis.

 

http://www.brainhealth.utdallas.edu/blog_page/study-shows-marijuanas-long-term-effects-on-the-brain

not a good study due to the low number of participants. doesnt include variables such as how active the individuals brain is when not smoking. as for THC reduction in blood it can take up to a month depending on the persons metabolism (higher metabolism reduces THC levels faster). Im not fully convinced. while they're on the right track, they need better participant numbers in their study

[fruit loops are my kink]

Yeah keep in mind humans have used cannabis for about 600 years.

 

It would be much easier for scientists to conduct studies if it wansnt a schedule I narcotic.

Think about it according to the FDA marijuana is as bad as heroin, I dont think anyone in america agrees with that.

theyve used it for MUCH longer than that

[mr moose]

the study has a significantly small amount of test subjects and a higher number of control subjects. while they may have some truth to it im not fully convinced all variables were taken into account. while they are on the right track a better study would have more tests subjects and equal number of control subjects (if possible) and taking variables into account such as stress, day to day brain activity (i.e how much the persons brain is active during the day when not smoking). also it may take even longer for thc levels to drop to normal (up to one month) depending on the metabolism of the individual. (high metabolisms get rid of THC faster) so to conclude im not sure whether that is a good study to rely on

 

Nearly all the studies have the same result, it's pretty hard to dispute now:

 

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/7/887.short

http://www.neurology.org/content/59/9/1337.short

http://www.neurology.org/content/66/5/737.short

 

they are all well established and peer reviewed.

[fruit loops are my kink]

Yeah keep in mind humans have used cannabis for about 600 years.

 

It would be much easier for scientists to conduct studies if it wansnt a schedule I narcotic.

 

Think about it according to the FDA marijuana is as bad as heroin, I dont think anyone in america agrees with that.

earliest use dates back to the 3rd millenium BC. they used cannabis for weaving. wasnt later till they smoked it but not much later

[mr moose]

Yeah keep in mind humans have used cannabis for about 600 years.

 

It would be much easier for scientists to conduct studies if it wansnt a schedule I narcotic.

 

Think about it according to the FDA marijuana is as bad as heroin, I dont think anyone in america agrees with that.

 

Not too sure what you are trying to say, it sounds like you don't think there are many studies into it, although there are literally hundreds if not thousands.

[ShadowCaptain]

Not sure I really approve of it BUT I think its better than alcohol and tobacco ..so maybe restrict those and allow cannabis

[zappian]

Nearly all the studies have the same result, it's pretty hard to dispute now:

 

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/7/887.short

http://www.neurology.org/content/59/9/1337.short

http://www.neurology.org/content/66/5/737.short

 

they are all well established and peer reviewed.

I dont doubt that marijuana has some effect on the brain.

But keep in mind you roll the dice with every substance

 

Alchool :

 

-You can get killed if you decide to drive under the influence.

-It has adverse effects on the liver and tissues.

-It might cause adverse effects on the brain.

-It might cause loss of control and accidents.

-It might cause all kind of cancers in various organs etc.

 

Who thinks marijuana is 100% safer is delusional , BUT i believe in harm reduction and marijuana properly consumed is safer than

other substances.

[fruit loops are my kink]

Nearly all the studies have the same result, it's pretty hard to dispute now:

 

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/7/887.short

http://www.neurology.org/content/59/9/1337.short

http://www.neurology.org/content/66/5/737.short

 

they are all well established and peer reviewed.

again they all have a low number of participants. the last one only had 20. 20!!!! not enough for a convincing study as all scientists know. I know what im talking about considering im in college studying to become one. 

[mr moose]

again they all have a low number of participants. the last one only had 20. 20!!!! not enough for a convincing study as all scientists know. I know what im talking about considering im in college studying to become one. 

fine, you find me a study that says otherwise.

[fruit loops are my kink]

fine, you find me a study that says otherwise.

im not saying it doesnt have an effect on the brain. im just saying there isnt any sufficient data to prove it. such low numbers could completely ruin a study due to a wide range of variables. thats simply all my point is. im not trying to "one up" you im just saying there isnt a good study done yet. something i hope to rectify in the future once i get my degree

[Ivyk]

If you look past the fact that you are smoking weed, it's actually a lot better for you than alcohol. And i enjoy a good puff from time to time. So yea.. i'm in! 

 

- Oh, and my birthday is 4/20 lol

It's not BETTER for you than alcohol, it's less bad.

I know a couple people who smoke weed on a regular base but they mix it with tobacco, that makes it a lot worse because of the addictive substances in tobacco.

[fruit loops are my kink]

It's not BETTER for you than alcohol, it's less bad.

I know a couple people who smoke weed on a regular base but they mix it with tobacco, that makes it a lot worse because of the addictive substances in tobacco.

alcohol has no medicinal properties. marijuana does. read over the thread and you'll find studies that help my point

[Butterfish]

It's not BETTER for you than alcohol, it's less bad.

I know a couple people who smoke weed on a regular base but they mix it with tobacco, that makes it a lot worse because of the addictive substances in tobacco.

Yea that's basically what i said, just rephrased. 

[zappian]

I dont think anyone can make the argument that alchool does less harm than VAPORIZED marijuana.

 

Guys there is no excuse to smoke it anymore , a decent vaporizer is 100 bucks and will save a lot of money.

 

In the long run.

[mr moose]

im not saying it doesnt have an effect on the brain. im just saying there isnt any sufficient data to prove it. such low numbers could completely ruin a study due to a wide range of variables. thats simply all my point is. im trying to "one up" you im just saying there isnt a good study done yet. something i hope to rectify in the future once i get my degree

 

With hundreds saying one thing and none saying the reverse and all being peer reviewed in respected journals (most cited several times, even one upto 187 times) I just can't be dismissive of it.

 

A few more:

 

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/156/4/319.short

 

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/178/2/116.short

 

 

alcohol has no medicinal properties. marijuana does. read over the thread and you'll find studies that help my point

 

Absolutely.  Although there are the odd one or two that disagree (for what ever reason), I find more studies that support  this.

 

I don't smoke, rarely drink and avoid most unhealthy situations, however I would toke weed before I got in a race car.

 

EDIT: @fruit loops are my kink   I don't feel you are trying to one up me, It comes across more as trying to be rational.  I just disagree.

[KemoKa]

http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/study-smoking-marijuana-not-linked-with-lung-damage/this link is the longest study of marijuana smoking vs tobacco smoking researched to date starting in the 80s with 5115 young adults participating. it shows that not only does marijuana improve lung health and capacity, it also has cancer reducing agents in the lungs in particular the study was concluded with " Whatever the cause, it seems that those who argue that marijuana is harmful because of its smoke are going to have to find a different line of attack". so obviously saying you know about this doesnt mean anything when you cant back it up with proof or evidence. im not saying your against legalisation im just saying that you've been misinformed and if you would like to be better educated on the subject then click on the link above

I'm sorry, but there are plenty of other studies showing a decrease in memory retention in weed users, and I do have sources to back it up. Here's one.

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2013/12/marijuana-users-have-abnormal-brain-structure--poor-memory.html

 

Lung health and capacity increases and cancer-reducing agents in weed smoke? sounds magical. It also sounds ridiculous. You don't increase lung capacity by breathing carbon monoxide and dioxide. your lungs' capacity is determined by how strong your diaphragm is. It said nothing about the average blood oxygen level, which will almost certainly have been reduced. Lack of oxygen has been proven over and over again to kill brain cells. It happens at a chemical level. The capacity has nothing to do with how well your lungs function, it's a direct result of the muscle exercise that smoking weed gives the lungs. The idea is to suck in the gas and hold it as long as possible. That'll be a detriment to your oxygen levels, your brain, and thus your overall health.

I find it strange how you cite a single source that says weed is not bad for you, but then when multiple sources stating the opposite are presented to you, you immediately dismiss them as bad studies because of a smaller test group. And then when asked to cite more sources, you ignore it.

Find a problem with my source other than sample size. was the MRI scanner wrong? is this university biased?

[KemoKa]

if you grabbed two trail runners, one who smokes weed frequently and the other who doesn't take any drugs at all, put them on a mountain trail and told them to leg it, who would tire first?
 

Would the stimulants in the marijuana motivate the smoking runner to run further?

Go on, make me laugh. No long-distance trail runner smokes anything.

[mr moose]

I'm sorry, but there are plenty of other studies showing a decrease in memory retention in weed users, and I do have sources to back it up. Here's one.

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2013/12/marijuana-users-have-abnormal-brain-structure--poor-memory.html

 

Lung health and capacity increases and cancer-reducing agents in weed smoke? sounds magical. It also sounds ridiculous. You don't increase lung capacity by breathing carbon monoxide and dioxide. your lungs' capacity is determined by how strong your diaphragm is. It said nothing about the average blood oxygen level, which will almost certainly have been reduced. Lack of oxygen has been proven over and over again to kill brain cells. It happens at a chemical level. The capacity has nothing to do with how well your lungs function, it's a direct result of the muscle exercise that smoking weed gives the lungs. The idea is to suck in the gas and hold it as long as possible. That'll be a detriment to your oxygen levels, your brain, and thus your overall health.

I find it strange how you cite a single source that says weed is not bad for you, but then when multiple sources stating the opposite are presented to you, you immediately dismiss them as bad studies because of a smaller test group. And then when asked to cite more sources, you ignore it.

Find a problem with my source other than sample size. was the MRI scanner wrong? is this university biased?

 

AS far as cancers go I don't think you'll find a study that shows a correlation let alone a causal link.  It might also be prudent to understand that all the current research regarding the effects on memory and cognitive function have shown to be reversible after cessation. 

[zappian]

if you grabbed two trail runners, one who smokes weed frequently and the other who doesn't take any drugs at all, put them on a mountain trail and told them to leg it, who would tire first?

 

Would the stimulants in the marijuana motivate the smoking runner to run further?

 

Depends smoking anything will damage your lungs and your resistance.

 

If one of the runners vaporized marijuana on a constant basis it wouldn't be a big deal.

[KemoKa]

AS far as cancers go I don't think you'll find a study that shows a correlation let alone a causal link.  It might also be prudent to understand that all the current research regarding the effects on memory and cognitive function have shown to be reversible after cessation. 

Of course. Many people who quit smoking become runners. running is an excellent way to get your lungs and cardio system back in shape, because it's the one thing that humans are fundamentally built to do, above any other animal species.

 

As for the cancer, well, just smoke doesn't cause cancer. Not normally, anyway. It's the carcinogens that tobacco smoke has in it that makes it so dangerous. Weed smoke, on the other hand has almost none of them, so I'd expect the cancer rate to be within margin of error.

Depends smoking anything will damage your lungs and your resistance.

 

If one of the runners vaporized marijuana on a constant basis it wouldn't be a big deal.

You're probably right, though I don't think that there's anything preventive in marijuana, any way you toke it.

[fruit loops are my kink]

AS far as cancers go I don't think you'll find a study that shows a correlation let alone a causal link.  It might also be prudent to understand that all the current research regarding the effects on memory and cognitive function have shown to be reversible after cessation. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/marijuana-and-cancer_n_1898208.htmlthere you go

[zappian]

Of course. Many people who quit smoking become runners. running is an excellent way to get your lungs and cardio system back in shape, because it's the one thing that humans are fundamentally built to do, above any other animal species.

 

As for the cancer, well, just smoke doesn't cause cancer. Not normally, anyway. It's the carcinogens that tobacco smoke has in it that makes it so dangerous. Weed smoke, on the other hand has almost none of them, so I'd expect the cancer rate to be within margin of error.

You're probably right, though I don't think that there's anything preventive in marijuana, any way you toke it.

 

Yeah like i said im not delusional to say it has no harm .

 

But im a big believer in harm reduction and i think its a better substitute to alchool and when eaten or vaporized there is no question about that.

 

Plus it honestly doesn't give you the type of hangover alchool does.

[fruit loops are my kink]

if you grabbed two trail runners, one who smokes weed frequently and the other who doesn't take any drugs at all, put them on a mountain trail and told them to leg it, who would tire first?

 

Would the stimulants in the marijuana motivate the smoking runner to run further?

Go on, make me laugh. No long-distance trail runner smokes anything.

read back on the post of marijuana vs tobacco. marijuana increases lung capacity meaing more oxygen intake into the body meaning more oxygen going to muscles meaning they run farther given that the two people have the same muscle mass and training regime