Some Of The Real Cons Of Marijuana Use

[chicago]

P.S. A bloke walks into his GP, and his GP says, 'Mate, I've got some bad news and I've got some even worse news for you..."
The bloke says, "Omg, so what's the bad news?"
"You've only got 24 hours to live!"
The bloke says, "Jesus, what's the even worse news, Doc?
"I've been trying to call you since yesterday..."
Great joke, but for argument's sake, let's keep the joke going...
The bloke says, "I've only got 24 hours to live? How do you know?"
"Well, because I'm a doctor with a wealth of experience..."
The bloke says, "Is that the best you've got? I demand to see some info to support your claims..."

So wait, are you saying doctors can't be wrong just because they're not paid to be? On what planet does that make sense? I don't care what kind of doctor tells me I have 24 hours to live, I'm getting a second opinion.

And if one doctor, priest, police officer, or teacher gives me their opinion on marijuana, I'm definitely not going to take it as fact just because they have a framed license hanging on the wall.

This may really blow your mind, xion, but sometimes people are wrong, get their facts mixed up, or mis-speak, even doctors.

 

[xionking]

So wait, are you saying doctors can't be wrong just because they're not paid to be? On what planet does that make sense? I don't care what kind of doctor tells me I have 24 hours to live, I'm getting a second opinion.

And if one doctor, priest, police officer, or teacher gives me their opinion on marijuana, I'm definitely not going to take it as fact just because they have a framed license hanging on the wall.

This may really blow your mind, xion, but sometimes people are wrong, get their facts mixed up, or mis-speak, even doctors.

A "framed licence"? This guy didn't go and get his forklift licence over a weekend, it's a degree that takes years....

You haven't really blown my mind, Annie. I am aware people can be wrong, but in saying that, I don't think my GP would receive wrong information, and then regurgitate it to my father.

And no, I'm not saying doctors can't be wrong. You share the same planet as me, Annie, and I love my side a lot better than yours. 🙂

Red Image, who was involved in this epidemiological analysis of marijuana smoking and cancer, what kind of sample was used and what was this work Tashkin and his co-workers did? Dude, you can quote whatever the fuck you want, but just support it. ''Harm Reduction Journal 2005", and I'm meant to admit that my GP is wrong just because you quote something from a four year old Journal I've never even heard of. C'mon man...

-Xionking

-Xionking

 

[Redmage]

Red Image, who was involved in this epidemiological analysis of marijuana smoking and cancer, what kind of sample was used and what was this work Tashkin and his co-workers did? Dude, you can quote whatever the fuck you want, but just support it. ''Harm Reduction Journal 2005", and I'm meant to admit that my GP is wrong just because you quote something from a four year old Journal I've never even heard of. C'mon man...

Just how many biomedical journals have you heard of? So far you haven't left me thinking that you're on top of that game.

For example, had you bothered to click through the link I gave the footnotes in that article would have answered all your questions. Dr. Tashkin is the Medical Director of the Pulmonary Function Laboratory in the Division of Pulmonaiy & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. His paper describes several studies, including one with 1022 participants and a long-term study of 65,000 HMO patients.

So, yeah, you're meant to admit your GP was wrong. Or you misunderstood him. Or whoever relayed his statements to you misrepresented him. However the mistake happened, the idea that marijuana is "50 times more carcinogenic than tobacco" is not supported by research. Not even close.

 

[xionking]

Just how many biomedical journals have you heard of? So far you haven't left me thinking that you're on top of that game.

For example, had you bothered to click through the link I gave the footnotes in that article would have answered all your questions. Dr. Tashkin is the Medical Director of the Pulmonary Function Laboratory in the Division of Pulmonaiy & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. His paper describes several studies, including one with 1022 participants and a long-term study of 65,000 HMO patients.

So, yeah, you're meant to admit your GP was wrong. Or you misunderstood him. Or whoever relayed his statements to you misrepresented him. However the mistake happened, the idea that marijuana is "50 times more carcinogenic than tobacco" is not supported by research. Not even close.

No, Redimage, that's not correct. The information you've collected is from several studies that disagree with what my GP said. It does not mean my GP is wrong. They are studies with their own conclusions, just like studies he would have gathered information from, and drawn his own conclusions from.

So, what you're saying pretty much is that these biomedical studies are the be all and end all when it comes to investigating the potential harm marijuana use has? That's called ignorance.

You're also very arrogant, the way you dismiss everything that I say, your "I'm right because I say so" and also the way you assume that my father would misinterpret out GP. My father is a very smart man, and I highly doubt he would tell his own children false information, especially when it comes to potentially saving his daughter's life, and like I've already said, it's not in my GP's interest to give out information that's bullshit. I'm sure he's read many more biomedical journals then you, my friend.

-Xionking

 

[cabalist]

No, Redimage, that's not correct. The information you've collected is from several studies that disagree with what my GP said. It does not mean my GP is wrong. They are studies with their own conclusions, just like studies he would have gathered information from, and drawn his own conclusions from.

So, what you're saying pretty much is that these biomedical studies are the be all and end all when it comes to investigating the potential harm marijuana use has? That's called ignorance.

You're also very arrogant, the way you dismiss everything that I say, your "I'm right because I say so" and also the way you assume that my father would misinterpret out GP. My father is a very smart man, and I highly doubt he would tell his own children false information, especially when it comes to potentially saving his daughter's life, and like I've already said, it's not in my GP's interest to give out information that's bullshit. I'm sure he's read many more biomedical journals then you, my friend.

Okay, so stop keeping us all in suspense. What sources did your GP get his information from? Being such a smart man, surely your father asked him?

 

[Radiohead 7140]

wow, a post about smokin a little pot got pretty heated.

i think people should answer under the assumption that if it were legal, and whats inherently bad about it. obviously its breaking the law, but debating whether breaking the law is categorically wrong is a whole other (and very very challenging) discussion.

that said, the aspects of being high i dont enjoy started outweighing the parts i do enjoy years ago. so i stick to crack

 

[Redmage]

No, Redimage, that's not correct. The information you've collected is from several studies that disagree with what my GP said. It does not mean my GP is wrong. They are studies with their own conclusions, just like studies he would have gathered information from, and drawn his own conclusions from.

They are studies performed by specialists in this field, which your GP is not, by definition. They are precisely the sorts of people to whom your own doctor would defer. And I frankly don't believe that your GP read any studies that supported what you claim he said. I can't find any such study, and I'm pretty good at that type of search. This leads me to conclude that either...

1. Your GP didn't say what you think he said - he was misunderstood or misrepresented to you.
2. He spoke with good intentions, but from personal bias. In other words, he made a common human mistake.

Tell you what - you claim that the fact that you, personally, haven't heard of a journal means that it's not very important. If that's true, then you must be very familiar with the literature on this subject. So you find the study or studies that your GP used to form his opinion and post them here. If you don't know how to do that, then it's time you admitted that you're simply talking through your hat here. It's gone on long enough.

So, what you're saying pretty much is that these biomedical studies are the be all and end all when it comes to investigating the potential harm marijuana use has? That's called ignorance.

No, that's called science.

You're also very arrogant, the way you dismiss everything that I say, your "I'm right because I say so" and also the way you assume that my father would misinterpret out GP.

I made no such assumption; I drew a conclusion based on evidence. I have a Master's Degree in Medicinal Chemistry. I used to teach pharmacists - this is exactly the sort of information that I am trained to find and interpret. No study in the literature supports the statement that your GP allegedly made. That leaves two possibilities: either he didn't say that, or he spoke in error.

Your father may have misinterpreted him, or you may have. Or he may have simply made a mistake. I don't know which of these is the case, but I know that the statement that you attribute to your doctor is false.

If this makes you unhappy, that's unfortunate. But it is what it is.

 

[Fangz]

Well if the weed is unfiltered then wouldn't it be stronger than cigarette smoke which has a filter? That GP's comment actually made sense to me.

 

[chicago]

Well if the weed is unfiltered then wouldn't it be stronger than cigarette smoke which has a filter? That GP's comment actually made sense to me.

Filter or not, weed that hasn't been laced doesn't have the additives that cigarettes have.

 

[Mephistopheles]

No, that's called science.

I personally already gave up, I admire your patience.

 

[Redmage]

Well if the weed is unfiltered then wouldn't it be stronger than cigarette smoke which has a filter?

No, because contrary to tobacco advertising and popular belief, filters do not make cigarettes safer.

That GP's comment actually made sense to me.

You don't determine whether or not something is true by deciding that it "makes sense" - not if you have any other way. That's just a guess, when you come right down to it. We can check the facts behind this claim, and the facts don't support it.

 

[Mephistopheles]

No, because contrary to tobacco advertising and popular belief, filters do not make cigarettes safer.

Most brilliant thing is that light cigarettes give you just as much cancer as the regulars.

 

[xionking]

No, because contrary to tobacco advertising and popular belief, filters do not make cigarettes safer.

You don't determine whether or not something is true by deciding that it "makes sense" - not if you have any other way. That's just a guess, when you come right down to it. We can check the facts behind this claim, and the facts don't support it.

<cough cough>
1) The information the GP presented was not misinterpreted, and the info the GP received was also not misinterpreted.
2) That GP has told me the same shit he told my father when I told him I was smoking dope.
3) You can't say I'm wrong, because you the information you have to provide me is in itself bias. So stop showing to me that you're complete lack of social skills come about because of complete arrogance (I know people with science degrees that are total up themselves wankers, and I don't want to think of you that way).

You reek of arrogance Mr. Master of Biochemistry, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The 'I'm right because I say so' attitude is all too common in your kind of breed.

Keep in mind that all the samples, your scientific gibadigoo does not take away from the reality of life. I've seen all too many people destroy themselves on this shit, how many people have you seen?

Have you personally seen marijuana play the role a 'gateway drug'? Has it interfered in your life (and I'm not saying because I smoke) to the point where you'd be reasonable enough to say, "Well, fuck these studies...they can say whatever they want, but this shit is dangerous and it's bad news on every level."

These scientists put a bunch of people in a room for a study that is not at all a correct representation on how this drug affects an individual, and ultimately how it affects society. The information I provided isvery real and very true, and I am not wrong, because the information has been written as a result of people seeing the reality affects of marijuana on individuals in today's society.

Show me a peer-reviewed study explaining how marijuana doesn't have the potential to destroy families, destroy lives and one's ability to reach his or her full potential.

I think that's what the OP was looking for. The real 'cons'. Not the Biochemistry gibberigoo you want to argue just because you have nowhere else to show off your Masters of Wankery.

You're so dismissive of what anybody else because you are so sure you are right.

Tell me this: Why would the information my GP receives be less credible then the information you receive? Why? Tell me, please...you are so sure you are right...I really want to know how the studies that you provide seem more credible than the information my GP gave to my father.

I'm not talking about whether the information was misinterpreted because I trust completely that my Dad would not misinterpret information. I would just like to know what makes you think that your information is more credible, more plausible than the information my GP has to offer.

Redimage, you are the most niave person I've met in my entire life. Honestly, you are. You say my GP is wrong, you say my father's wrong, you say I'm wrong, you say the OP is wrong...it's fucking hilarious. So...

...I wouldn't normally wish this on people, but I really wish you have a kid who falls down the path of experimenting with marijuana just experimenting, and then please...refer to you biochem "peer reviewed studies" and tell me how in the fucking world that shit is gonna help you in understanding the "non-peer group studies" real massive negative affects marijuana has.

-Xionking

 

[Mephistopheles]

You're so dismissive of what anybody else because you are so sure you are right.

Tell me this: Why would the information my GP receives be less credible then the information you receive? Why? Tell me, please...you are so sure you are right...I really want to know how the studies that you provide seem more credible than the information my GP gave to my father.

I'm not talking about whether the information was misinterpreted because I trust completely that my Dad would not misinterpret information. I would just like to know what makes you think that your information is more credible, more plausible than the information my GP has to offer.

-Xionking

Because a GP is supposed to know a little bit about alot of things so he can determine whether or not anything serious is going on in which case he will send the patient in for specialized care. Science however is something completely different. Science is about conducting research and then describing that in an article sent in for peer review. This means that the article that is published is about valid research. Now you must know something about scientists. There is almost nothing a scientists enjoys more than proving another scientists is wrong. So what this basically means is that as soon as something is published alot of other people start doing similar research to see if the theory initially proposed is true.

So if you have a peer reviewed article that has been published some time ago without being proven wrong, you can imagine that it contains alot of truth. However your GP does not read specific literature containing these articles, because they are very specific and are mostly published in journals covering that field. (unless they are published in magazines such as Science or Nature, but that is highly unlikely)

GPs are not trained to know the specifics of the effects of marihuana use and so rely mostly on what they have learned during the time that they went to medschool.

 

[xionking]

GPs are not trained to know the specifics of the effects of marihuana use and so rely mostly on what they have learned during the time that they went to medschool.

But GPs have a wealth of experience dealing first hand with patients who are fucking themselves on marijuana.

So, why then would a GP's information hold any less ground than a scientist's? I mean, no offence, Red Image, but your peer-reviewed studies simply fail to take so many fucking things into consideration. Crime, socio-economics, how rife the drug is within a community, whether adolescence is being affected by marijuana, these are the fucking cons.

I'm a school teacher, I don't have a degree in science, but I promise you that a 'peer-reviewed study' means sweet fuck all when you take a look around and see firsthand how the drug is actually destroying people.

Step outside your lab for once and stop being blinded by bio giberigoo.

-Xionking

 

[chicago]

But GPs have a wealth of experience dealing first hand with patients who are fucking themselves on marijuana.

So, why then would a GP's information hold any less ground than a scientist's? I mean, no offence, Red Image, but your peer-reviewed studies simply fail to take so many fucking things into consideration. Crime, socio-economics, how rife the drug is within a community, whether adolescence is being affected by marijuana, these are the fucking cons.

I'm a school teacher, I don't have a degree in science, but I promise you that a 'peer-reviewed study' means sweet fuck all when you take a look around and see firsthand how the drug is actually destroying people.

Step outside your lab for once and stop being blinded by bio giberigoo.

-Xionking

So let's just get this straight, again.

RedMage offered proof, rife with footnotes and sources. You offered a story where someone may or may have not gotten their info straight.

And somehow you're right and no matter what proof is set before you, you're still going to say your doc is the God of Science?

Not all doctors have experience with people that do weed. Perhaps you're the only patient he had that smoked weed. Perhaps he only had one or two other such cases, where perhaps the outcomes were different. Whether you can call that experience is one thing in itself. Those outcomes could affect his medical opinion that he presented as fact, or that someone took as fact because it was coming from a doctor.

What the doctor probably said, when he found out you were doing dope, is that marijuana CAN cause problems, issues, devastation (whathaveyou) just as he would probably say to someone he found out had a cigarette habit.

 

[cabalist]

But GPs have a wealth of experience dealing first hand with patients who are fucking themselves on marijuana.

So, why then would a GP's information hold any less ground than a scientist's? I mean, no offence, Red Image, but your peer-reviewed studies simply fail to take so many fucking things into consideration. Crime, socio-economics, how rife the drug is within a community, whether adolescence is being affected by marijuana, these are the fucking cons.

Do you by chance know who conducts the research to gain the scientific knowledge which is used in the education/training of doctors?

While you're thinking about it, I'll give you a clue: SCIENTISTS (Hope that doesn't make it too easy for you.)

I'm a school teacher, I don't have a degree in science

I never would have guessed..... 🙄

but I promise you that a 'peer-reviewed study' means sweet fuck all when you take a look around and see firsthand how the drug is actually destroying people.

Step outside your lab for once and stop being blinded by bio giberigoo.

I have another riddle for you. Where does the information which doctors are trained/educated with come from?

Again I'll just give you a little clue: PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDIES. (And again, I hope that doesn't make it too easy for you.)

 

[xionking]

So let's just get this straight, again.

RedMage offered proof, rife with footnotes and sources. You offered a s

I offer reality. Not biochem giberigoo. Take it or leave it.

-Xionking

 

[cabalist]

I offer reality. Not biochem giberigoo. Take it or leave it.

Biochem "giberigoo"? As in, say, a "brain irritation"?

 

[Redmage]

But GPs have a wealth of experience dealing first hand with patients who are fucking themselves on marijuana.

They have even more experience with people who are messing themselves up with food. It doesn't mean that food is bad. It means that those who misuse it often need the services of a physician.

Crime, socio-economics, how rife the drug is within a community, whether adolescence is being affected by marijuana, these are the fucking cons.

Pick one of those that isn't caused or made worse by the fact that it's illegal.

I offer reality. Not biochem giberigoo. Take it or leave it.

In other words your "reality" prefers to ignore what science has to say. As you wish. When facts become irrelevant to conclusions, the discussion is pretty much over.

 

[Redmage]

<cough cough>
1) The information the GP presented was not misinterpreted, and the info the GP received was also not misinterpreted.
2) That GP has told me the same shit he told my father when I told him I was smoking dope.
3) You can't say I'm wrong, because you the information you have to provide me is in itself bias. So stop showing to me that you're complete lack of social skills come about because of complete arrogance (I know people with science degrees that are total up themselves wankers, and I don't want to think of you that way).

If your doctor was not misinterpreted, then we're back to Choice #2: He was mistaken.

There was no "bias" in the studies I showed you, unless you use that word to mean "tending to disprove what I prefer to believe." It certainly was biased in that direction.

You reek of arrogance Mr. Master of Biochemistry, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The 'I'm right because I say so' attitude is all too common in your kind of breed.

I'll bet you see no irony at all in saying that "my kind of breed reeks of arrogance." Am I right?

Keep in mind that all the samples, your scientific gibadigoo does not take away from the reality of life. I've seen all too many people destroy themselves on this shit, how many people have you seen?

I've seen people destroy themselves with drugs - including perfectly legal drugs. I've seen people destroy themselves with cars too. The difference between me and you is that I don't assume that an individual's mistakes indicate a general problem. I go out and find evidence to decide that one way or another.

Tell me this: Why would the information my GP receives be less credible then the information you receive? Why? Tell me, please...you are so sure you are right...I really want to know how the studies that you provide seem more credible than the information my GP gave to my father.

I have no idea what information your doctor gave your father. All I know is

What you say > your father said > your doctor said.

Which is part of your problem here, and part of what you can't see. But, assuming for a moment that your doctor actually did say what you say your father says he said, here's why I find an actual study more credible.

People can say anything. They can often even believe what they're saying. If someone makes what seems like an extraordinary claim, then it's usually wise to test it to see if it's true. If a man offers to sell me a car and claims that it gets 500 miles per gallon of gasoline, I'm going to want to see some proof. I'm not just going to take his word for it, even if he's a famous automotive engineer. I'm going to want to give that car (preferably several of those cars) to independent teams and have them drive for a few thousand miles and actually measure the mileage.

So too with your doctor. You claim that your father claims that your doctor claims that marijuana is 50 times more carcinogenic than tobacco. That's an extraordinary claim. If it's true, then we should see pot users dropping like flies from self-inflicted cancers. So, we turn to the evidence. We look at thousands of marijuana users over the course of years and we see if there really is an epidemic of tumors among them.

When we do that we find that no such epidemic exists. Therefore the claim is wrong.

 

[Iggy pop]

I have seen studies that state that marijuana smoke is dangerous to the lungs, but to be honest I don't think think is a major issue if it does. Huffing gasoline and household cleaners are dangerous, but I would not want to make those illegal. Furthermore, I think more harm is done keeping it illegal, because of the violence of the illegal trade. If you die an early death from smoking Marijuana, you at least made that personal choice. The violence surrounding the illegal trade can effect people who never made the choice to smoke.

 

[cabalist]

I have seen studies that state that marijuana smoke is dangerous to the lungs, but to be honest I don't think think is a major issue if it does. Huffing gasoline and household cleaners are dangerous, but I would not want to make those illegal. Furthermore, I think more harm is done keeping it illegal, because of the violence of the illegal trade. If you die an early death from smoking Marijuana, you at least made that personal choice. The violence surrounding the illegal trade can effect people who never made the choice to smoke.

Agreed. And what I find somewhat ironic (if not hypocritical as well) is that some seem to grasp at any possible potential for harm as sufficient justification to maintain the legal status quo even while they themselves may likely be using perfectly legal products every day with the potential for much greater harm with much less effort, such as the substances you mention, and, as I suggested in an earlier post, many common over-the-counter and prescription drugs which many people take every day.

In fact, I've known at least two people personally who have attempted to take their own lives just in the past few years using overdoses of drugs which they had been prescribed by their own doctors, at least one of them coming very close to succeeding, and likely surviving only thanks to her son coincidentally and completely unexpectedly returning home from work earlier than usual that day, finding her unconscious and rushing her to the ER.

And it just so happens that both of these women who attempted to take their lives were regular pot smokers. Anyone have any guesses as to why neither of them bothered attempting to do themselves in by overdosing on the deadly "killer weed"? You don't suppose it could be because they both knew well that it would be all but impossible to consume a dangerous overdose of pot, that in fact almost any other substance they might have in their house at the time might prove an easier means of so doing?

But people apparently just seem to assume that because pot has been illegal for so long there must be some good reason for it. And there is. Just no good reason that serves the greater public good, but only certain special interests who profit from the status quo, everything else being merely rationalizations to attempt to justify its legal status -- since most people truly do seem virtually scared to death of any kind of radical change in any laws, nearly always just assuming that there must be some good reason that things are as they are.

 

[Dussicar]

Oh, Jesus fucking christ!!!!

Somebody please legalise marijuana before this thread gets locked!!!!!

TEH POT USE STATISTYX AKORDIN TO DUSICARz:

The pros:

1. A general sense of well being.

2. You mellow out some.

3. Laughter is the best medicine...Even uncontrollable laughter that has absolutely no fucking point whatsoever.

The cons:

1. You realise that Transformers: The Movie has a super shitty soundtrack and that Leonard Nimoy was never cool to begin with.

2. your best friend licks his lips too much and now you want to punch him in the face.

3. If you didn't understand Akira the first time around, then you sure as fuck aren't gaining any headway now, you chronic, hot-boxing loser.

 

[Dussicar]

PS: I would like to thank those of you who mentioned that the use of Marjiuana is based on the person and not the drug itself.

The bottom line is that, like all intoxicants, it degrades the human body to some extent.

The problem is not, nor has been, the substance, but the user.

The same studies apply to alcohol, caffeine, cigarettes, and even heroine, should one be so inclined.

This, however, has been mentioned by several members both here in the thread and in past threads as well.