NIDA and weed

[tyler_52]

NIDA: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DRUG ABUSE

"A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1 500 pounds of marijuana in FIFTEEN MINUTES to induce a leathal response" -NIDA

The government can't tax it, thats the only reason why its illegal,
the gov., Media (fox news), doctors, and teachers, all say that pot is bad, but they never tell you why, only what isnt true besides the people that say, its illegal so i dont wanna get caught up in it, that is okay and understandable,
but dont be a sissy and fall under the propaganda of the government ,, ya sure pot can make you cough, but you shouldnt just turn around and say that its going to kill you, you ever try holding your breath for a long time,, that can kill you, but is it illegal, no. So why lie about it ? its all because the gov. revolves around money and if they cant make a profit on it, its illegal ... if no one agrees with me please post a replie and tell me something i dont already know/ :lol:

[Kaleidoscope Eyes]

Actually, holding your breath for a long time won't kill you--you'll start breathing again as soon as you pass out. xP Assuming that you tape your nose and mouth shut, or put a plastic bag over your head, though, suicide is still technically against the law... You just don't tend to go to jail for suicide attempts, unless you seriously endanger others in the process.

*Pot isn't as bad as the media often makes it out to be but it does have its consequences, whether you recognize them or not.
Some people are idiots and can't use it responsibly, and give all pot-smokers a bad rep.
*Inhaling ANY type of smoke, whether it be tobacco, weed, or the smoke from a campfire, can cause damage due to a lot of exposure over time. It's simply not meant to be in your lungs, that's why you cough.
*If marijuana were legal, I think the government probably could tax it the same way they tax tobacco. AND they could regulate it the same way as well, putting a minimum age requirement on it, which I think is something they'd like to do given how much they tell kids not to do drugs. They can't tax it now because it's illegal to even grow it, let alone sell it.

To make a long story short, marijuana isn't as bad as the media would likely have you believe. It's not harmless either, though. Believe it or not, you actually can find some objective reports on the topic (or as close as possible, in any case). Some people preach the extreme if-you-smoke-weed-you-will-fail-at-life viewpoint, and I think you're preaching something closer to the other extreme which is weed-never-hurt-anyone-it's-just-the-government-keeping-us-from-having-fun. I believe, though, that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[tyler_52]

ya but you could get brain damage

[sebbie]

NIDA: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DRUG ABUSE

"A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1 500 pounds of marijuana in FIFTEEN MINUTES to induce a leathal response" -NIDA

The government can't tax it, thats the only reason why its illegal,
the gov., Media (fox news), doctors, and teachers, all say that pot is bad, but they never tell you why, only what isnt true besides the people that say, its illegal so i dont wanna get caught up in it, that is okay and understandable,
but dont be a sissy and fall under the propaganda of the government ,, ya sure pot can make you cough, but you shouldnt just turn around and say that its going to kill you, you ever try holding your breath for a long time,, that can kill you, but is it illegal, no. So why lie about it ? its all because the gov. revolves around money and if they cant make a profit on it, its illegal ... if no one agrees with me please post a replie and tell me something i dont already know/ :lol:

So you only argument for the legalisation of cannabis is because a user can't overdose on it... :yawn: . Consider points like :

-Gateway drug argument: People who use weed may be more likely to use other drugs.

-Psychologically dependence: Users may become mentally addicted to a substance.

-Links to mental illness: Studies are being carried out into this. There is thought to be a link with the use of cannabis and things like schizophrenia.

-Effects of smoking: Users who use cannabis may operate machinery/drive with delayed reaction times increasing the risk etc

-Use of cannabis with tobacco: Users who smoke it with tobacco increase the risk of cancer and related problems, also cannabis smoke contains some carcinogenic chemicals.

[jinzo22]

So you only argument for the legalisation of cannabis is because a user can't overdose on it... :yawn: . Consider points like :

-Gateway drug argument: People who use weed may be more likely to use other drugs.

-Psychologically dependence: Users may become mentally addicted to a substance.

-Links to mental illness: Studies are being carried out into this. There is thought to be a link with the use of cannabis and things like schizophrenia.

-Effects of smoking: Users who use cannabis may operate machinery/drive with delayed reaction times increasing the risk etc

-Use of cannabis with tobacco: Users who smoke it with tobacco increase the risk of cancer and related problems, also cannabis smoke contains some carcinogenic chemicals.

You can get psychologically addicted to anything... Studies have shown that marijuana does not cause cancer. Studies have shown that people who smoke marijuana tend to be safer drivers. And you must think that alcohol should also be illegal right? Because the effects are obviously much worse.

- Causes thousands of deaths, and ER visits every year due to accidents and overdose.

- Damages liver, brain, and various other vital organs.

- Causes intoxication and judgement lapses, sometimes causing unwanted sex/pregnancies.

- Addiction.

[tyler_52]

You can get psychologically addicted to anything... Studies have shown that marijuana does not cause cancer. Studies have shown that people who smoke marijuana tend to be safer drivers. And you must think that alcohol should also be illegal right? Because the effects are obviously much worse.

- Causes thousands of deaths, and ER visits every year due to accidents and overdose.

- Damages liver, brain, and various other vital organs.

- Causes intoxication and judgement lapses, sometimes causing unwanted sex/pregnancies.

- Addiction.

you cant overdose .... lolololol

[Kaleidoscope Eyes]

I think they were talking about alcohol when they mentioned overdose, Tyler.

[sebbie]

You can get psychologically addicted to anything... Studies have shown that marijuana does not cause cancer. Studies have shown that people who smoke marijuana tend to be safer drivers. And you must think that alcohol should also be illegal right? Because the effects are obviously much worse.

- Causes thousands of deaths, and ER visits every year due to accidents and overdose.

- Damages liver, brain, and various other vital organs.

- Causes intoxication and judgement lapses, sometimes causing unwanted sex/pregnancies.

- Addiction.

Studies have shown that cannabis contains carcinogens, which could potentially cause cancer.

Also this debate is nothing to do with legality of alcohol.

[INFERNO]

NIDA: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DRUG ABUSE

"A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1 500 pounds of marijuana in FIFTEEN MINUTES to induce a leathal response" -NIDA

The government can't tax it, thats the only reason why its illegal

Not true. If the government makes it legal then they can tax the hell out of it. Consider tobacco, if it were illegal, then obviously governments couldn't legally tax it. However, once it becomes legal, then they can tax it. Also, the amount needed and time needed is purely theoretical as no such study has been done on humans.


the gov., Media (fox news), doctors, and teachers, all say that pot is bad, but they never tell you why, only what isnt true besides the people that say, its illegal so i dont wanna get caught up in it, that is okay and understandable
but dont be a sissy and fall under the propaganda of the government ,, ya sure pot can make you cough, but you shouldnt just turn around and say that its going to kill you, you ever try holding your breath for a long time,, that can kill you, but is it illegal, no. So why lie about it ? its all because the gov. revolves around money and if they cant make a profit on it, its illegal ... if no one agrees with me please post a replie and tell me something i dont already know/ :lol:

Various scientific studies have shown that smoking weed is actually pretty unhealthy, more unhealthy than smoking cigarettes. There is of course plenty of propaganda that is out there trying to sell the idea that weed is bad for various reasons and they usually are rather nonsensical.

You can get psychologically addicted to anything... Studies have shown that marijuana does not cause cancer. Studies have shown that people who smoke marijuana tend to be safer drivers. And you must think that alcohol should also be illegal right? Because the effects are obviously much worse.

- Causes thousands of deaths, and ER visits every year due to accidents and overdose.

- Damages liver, brain, and various other vital organs.

- Causes intoxication and judgement lapses, sometimes causing unwanted sex/pregnancies.

- Addiction.

I'm somewhat confused as to why in a thread about marijuana, we are discussing the legality and health concerns of alcohol.

Studies have shown that smoking weed is much more harmful than smoking cigarettes and you would need multiple cigarettes to get the same effect as one marijuana joint.

There are of course some correlational studies relating marijuana use to testicular cancer (and other forms of cancer too).

[Biolink]

I'm somewhat confused as to why in a thread about marijuana, we are discussing the legality and health concerns of alcohol.

Studies have shown that smoking weed is much more harmful than smoking cigarettes and you would need multiple cigarettes to get the same effect as one marijuana joint.

There are of course some correlational studies relating marijuana use to testicular cancer (and other forms of cancer too).

Solid evidence is better to support your argument than.

"Well, studies have shown that it contains carcinogens so you MIGHT develop something"

Fact > Maybe. Especially when you have arguments from the other side that are just as big, and especially when no one ever known has suffered through those problems. Even then, I suspect that you'd have to go through an unrealistic amount of marijuana for it to even reach that point. Its easy enough to go through a pack of cigarettes a day, but most people that want to function won't smoke even close to a packs worth of marijuana on an every week basis.

It does contain carcinogens, but really its probably not near enough to be relevant. You have people that have been living hemp lifestyle for decades and they are OK. Point blank no one knows what it does yet. There are good arguments from both sides.

EDIT:

Finally

Studies have shown that smoking weed is much more harmful than smoking cigarettes and you would need multiple cigarettes to get the same effect as one marijuana joint.

Okay have you ever smoked marijuana before, or are you stating facts from 2nd hands sources without 1st hand experience? You could smoke 2 or 3 packs worth of cigarettes in a row, and not get anywhere close to the effects of marijuana. Cigarettes are a stimulant. They are going to boost you up, then make you crash and want more once the effects wear off. Marijuana is a psychoactive drug. It contains a wide variety of effects. Its been shown to work as a stimulant, a depressant, and even a mildly effective pain killer. Need I go on about other things. A bunch of cigarettes wouldn't be close to smoking one marijuana joint because....

1) They aren't even from the same genus of plant, so they aren't even relatives in that sense(That one plant is stronger than the other, so we only smoke the weaker plant to get the milder effects.... Ummmm no).

2) They effect different chemistry within the body = Totally different effects. Not only because of the chemistry within the body, but because the plants are in different families.

Hmmm Salvia is a plant. I wonder if I smoke a bunch of cigarettes will I achieve the effects of Salvia:what:

[sebbie]

Solid evidence is better to support your argument than.

"Well, studies have shown that it contains carcinogens so you MIGHT develop something"

Fact > Maybe. Especially when you have arguments from the other side that are just as big, and especially when no one ever known has suffered through those problems. Even then, I suspect that you'd have to go through an unrealistic amount of marijuana for it to even reach that point. Its easy enough to go through a pack of cigarettes a day, but most people that want to function won't smoke even close to a packs worth of marijuana on an every week basis.

It does contain carcinogens, but really its probably not near enough to be relevant. You have people that have been living hemp lifestyle for decades and they are OK. Point blank no one knows what it does yet. There are good arguments from both sides.



You might smoke a 100 cigarette a day and not get cancer, you might smoke 1 and end up with lung cancer, that is all "luck of the draw". Also you can not disregard that one of the most popular ways people smoke it is mixed with tobacco



EDIT:

Finally

Okay have you ever smoked marijuana before, or are you stating facts from 2nd hands sources without 1st hand experience? You could smoke 2 or 3 packs worth of cigarettes in a row, and not get anywhere close to the effects of marijuana. Cigarettes are a stimulant. They are going to boost you up, then make you crash and want more once the effects wear off. Marijuana is a psychoactive drug. It contains a wide variety of effects. Its been shown to work as a stimulant, a depressant, and even a mildly effective pain killer. Need I go on about other things. A bunch of cigarettes wouldn't be close to smoking one marijuana joint because....

1) They aren't even from the same genus of plant, so they aren't even relatives in that sense(That one plant is stronger than the other, so we only smoke the weaker plant to get the milder effects.... Ummmm no).

2) They effect different chemistry within the body = Totally different effects. Not only because of the chemistry within the body, but because the plants are in different families.

Hmmm Salvia is a plant. I wonder if I smoke a bunch of cigarettes will I achieve the effects of Salvia:what:

Of course you could smoke several packs of cigarettes and would not have any marijuana effect. That is because they contain different chemicals for a start cannabis smoke contains THC (The chemical that gets you high)

Are you trying to argue the legality of cigarettes in this by saying they are more dangerous than smoking cannabis? Because I am not entirely sure what you are trying to debate here :what:

[Kahn]

*Addiction*
*Laziness*
*Irresponsible*

Those are just three of the things my Step dad is and he smokes weed. He is much more. Even though it cannot be lethal towards you it can make you a walking zombie. The living dead is what a pot head really is.

[Biolink]

You might smoke a 100 cigarette a day and not get cancer, you might smoke 1 and end up with lung cancer, that is all "luck of the draw". Also you can not disregard that one of the most popular ways people smoke it is mixed with tobacco



Of course you could smoke several packs of cigarettes and would not have any marijuana effect. That is because they contain different chemicals for a start cannabis smoke contains THC (The chemical that gets you high)

Are you trying to argue the legality of cigarettes in this by saying they are more dangerous than smoking cannabis? Because I am not entirely sure what you are trying to debate here :what:

Spliffs are gross. People do it, but usually because of a lack of marijuana so they want to even out the joint or because potency is high, and the person doesn't want to get that high. But then again, smoking marijuana diluted with half tobacco isn't exactly smoking only marijuana.

I hear spliffs(Zoots some over there might call them) are fairly popular overseas. Not so over here. If you get some good even halfway potent, why ruin by putting tobacco in it? Might be a correlation between smoking spliffs overseas, and it not really being that popular stateside because the price for marijuana cost a lot less in Europehttp://www.economist.com/images/ga/2007w37/Cannabis.jpg

Did you even read the post I quoted which said and I quote:

Studies have shown that smoking weed is much more harmful than smoking cigarettes and you would need multiple cigarettes to get the same effect as one marijuana joint.

I was explaining it to INFERNO, that you aren't going to get the same effects because the plants aren't even related. Nicotine vs THC. Totally different chemistry compounds.

[tyler_52]

You might smoke a 100 cigarette a day and not get cancer, you might smoke 1 and end up with lung cancer, that is all "luck of the draw". Also you can not disregard that one of the most popular ways people smoke it is mixed with tobacco



Of course you could smoke several packs of cigarettes and would not have any marijuana effect. That is because they contain different chemicals for a start cannabis smoke contains THC (The chemical that gets you high)

Are you trying to argue the legality of cigarettes in this by saying they are more dangerous than smoking cannabis? Because I am not entirely sure what you are trying to debate here :what:

when i say that marijuana isnt so much bad for you, i only mean pot .. i know about poppers and ppl shouldnt do them ... there horrible for you .. (tabaco.. lol)

[INFERNO]

Solid evidence is better to support your argument than.

"Well, studies have shown that it contains carcinogens so you MIGHT develop something"

Solid evidence doesn't exist, both sides of the argument are conflicting. If you want solid evidence or fact, then too bad, doesn't exist.


Okay have you ever smoked marijuana before, or are you stating facts from 2nd hands sources without 1st hand experience? You could smoke 2 or 3 packs worth of cigarettes in a row, and not get anywhere close to the effects of marijuana. Cigarettes are a stimulant. They are going to boost you up, then make you crash and want more once the effects wear off. Marijuana is a psychoactive drug. It contains a wide variety of effects. Its been shown to work as a stimulant, a depressant, and even a mildly effective pain killer. Need I go on about other things. A bunch of cigarettes wouldn't be close to smoking one marijuana joint because....

1) They aren't even from the same genus of plant, so they aren't even relatives in that sense(That one plant is stronger than the other, so we only smoke the weaker plant to get the milder effects.... Ummmm no).

2) They effect different chemistry within the body = Totally different effects. Not only because of the chemistry within the body, but because the plants are in different families.


What does it matter whether or not they're different plants and have different chemical properties? Yes they will react differently in your body, however, when you smoke them, the damage you will receive will have similarities. The effects are not going to be entirely different, some will be different but not all. Having different chemical properties isn't going to make the effects completely different. For example, morphine reacts on mu and kappa receptors, while nalaxone only reacts on mu receptors. The two have different chemical structures yet they have similarities in what they affect. Let's take another example, carbamazepine and phenobarbital, both are anti-convulsant or anti-seizure medications, both have different chemical structures yet they have similar effects. Thus, having different chemical structures doesn't mean their effects will be completely different nor of the same severity.

I'm curious though, why do you think that two compounds with different chemical structures must have (and note the must) different physiological effects and different severities of the effects?

[CaptainObvious]

Why does everyone assume that everyone who uses weed smokes? I have a medical grade vaporizer. What are all your reasons as to why weed is so bad for my health? Simply the spectre of possible psychological addiction? Well, that's an extremely lame argument, since anything including video games, television, etc. etc. can be psychologically addictive.

[Biolink]

Solid evidence doesn't exist, both sides of the argument are conflicting. If you want solid evidence or fact, then too bad, doesn't exist.



What does it matter whether or not they're different plants and have different chemical properties? Yes they will react differently in your body, however, when you smoke them, the damage you will receive will have similarities. The effects are not going to be entirely different, some will be different but not all. Having different chemical properties isn't going to make the effects completely different. For example, morphine reacts on mu and kappa receptors, while nalaxone only reacts on mu receptors. The two have different chemical structures yet they have similarities in what they affect. Let's take another example, carbamazepine and phenobarbital, both are anti-convulsant or anti-seizure medications, both have different chemical structures yet they have similar effects. Thus, having different chemical structures doesn't mean their effects will be completely different nor of the same severity.

I'm curious though, why do you think that two compounds with different chemical structures must have (and note the must) different physiological effects and different severities of the effects?

Well obviously that isn't always the case, chemically

I'm not getting the Morphine vs Naxolone argument. The chemistry is different and they even EFFECT different things, though they target some of the SAME. Morphine is used as a painkiller for severe pain. Naxolone though it targets many of the same receptors, its supposed to inhibit anymore absorption of opiate absorption and stop you from producing body chemicals like endorphins which make you feel euphoric. If counter drugs didn't target some of the same parts of the body in case of EMERGENCY what purpose would they have? The point is that you feel yourself having overdose symptoms so you use a drug that acts equally as fast(If not faster) to target whatever parts of your body that the drug is effecting, stop absorption, and counter the effects.

Maybe I should have expounded on that a little more when I said, different chemistry = Different Effects. Yes its true that, you can have drugs target the same things, but have different effects. You can even make drugs like Piperazines, that contain many different things, but all in all can produce similar effects to other drugs(Ecstasy).

I wasn't even talking about other drugs. I'm mainly talking about Marijuana chemistry vs Cigarette chemistry, because that's what I thought you meant(But you actually meant health effects, not physical effects, and by physical I mean the way they make you feel, not the physiology of what they effect in your body). If you smoke joints, then yes on average you will take in more carcinogens, but again they don't even target the same respiratory tracts. The carcinogens that you do take in for Marijuana smoke are going down your larger central passageways, where cigarette smoke penetrates the smaller peripheral one's. You combine that with the fact that on average a chain smoke smokes many more cigarettes than the average marijuana smoker does in a day, and you are bound to get different physiological effects.

Marijuana carcinogens can be reduced by way of vaporizer, and water pipes if you wanted to produce the same effects without worrying about some of the more serious possible complications you can get from smoking marijuana. Joint smoking is only one way to smoke marijuana. Though I assume you are only using the argument is because its the most popular way of smoking.

[INFERNO]

Maybe I should have expounded on that a little more when I said, different chemistry = Different Effects. Yes its true that, you can have drugs target the same things, but have different effects. You can even make drugs like Piperazines, that contain many different things, but all in all can produce similar effects to other drugs(Ecstasy).

Different chemistry does NOT mean different effects. If you're arguing
that different compounds may have different effects, then I agree but if you're saying different chemistry must mean (I'm assuming that's what you're using the equals sign for) different effects, then no, that is completely wrong. The reason why I'm quite confused though is by your last line, you agree that different compounds may have different effects so I'm not understanding what you're argument is at all.


I wasn't even talking about other drugs.

No, you actually were talking about other drugs, such as your argument of different chemical formations of drugs and the morphine-naloxone argument.


I'm mainly talking about Marijuana chemistry vs Cigarette chemistry, because that's what I thought you meant(But you actually meant health effects, not physical effects, and by physical I mean the way they make you feel, not the physiology of what they effect in your body).

Health effects is heavily if not completely due to the physiological effects so I'm not sure how you think the two are different and I'm even less sure about what your argument here is also.


If you smoke joints, then yes on average you will take in more carcinogens, but again they don't even target the same respiratory tracts. The carcinogens that you do take in for Marijuana smoke are going down your larger central passageways, where cigarette smoke penetrates the smaller peripheral one's. You combine that with the fact that on average a chain smoke smokes many more cigarettes than the average marijuana smoker does in a day, and you are bound to get different physiological effects.

What is your evidence for this difference in respiratory pathology for marijuana and cigarette smoke?


Marijuana carcinogens can be reduced by way of vaporizer, and water pipes if you wanted to produce the same effects without worrying about some of the more serious possible complications you can get from smoking marijuana. Joint smoking is only one way to smoke marijuana. Though I assume you are only using the argument is because its the most popular way of smoking.

I use the argument I used because when someone says marijuana SMOKING, the idea that comes to mind is actually smoking. I'm not saying it's the only way to use marijuana, although if you wish to discuss the other methods of using marijuana, then go right ahead, although I'd prefer if you reserved the term "marijuana smoking" to mean actually puffing away on the joint. I don't intend to be rude on this, it's just so there's less confusion about the route of administration that we're talking about.

[The Joker]

Just because you can't OD on it doesn't make it good. People can die while attempting stupid things while stoned, having any kind of smoke in your lungs is a bad thing, most of the time the dealer puts in a lot of extra stuff that is really bad for you, etc.

I live in basically the weed capital of Canada...I would know.

[CaptainObvious]

Just because you can't OD on it doesn't make it good.

True.

People can die while attempting stupid things while stoned,

Theoretically true, empirically untrue. Marijuana does impair and so could indeed cause people to do such things, but the impairment it causes also tends to ward against such stupidity. Many people die doing stupid things while impaired by alcohol... exceptionally few while impaired by marijuana.


having any kind of smoke in your lungs is a bad thing,

True... but again, what's with everyone assuming everyone smokes marijuana? There's healthier ways to use the substance.

most of the time the dealer puts in a lot of extra stuff that is really bad for you,

This is untrue. Marijuana is rarely adultered by dealers, unlike other drugs. Especially in Canada.

I live in basically the weed capital of Canada...I would know.

And yet somehow you don't. (Oh, and - me too)

[INFERNO]

most of the time the dealer puts in a lot of extra stuff that is really bad for you, etc.

What evidence do you have of this? If the dealer were to do this, then what reason would they have assuming they're not charging an arm and a leg? The issue is, marijuana although usually illegal (excluding "medical marijuana") is not among the most hard-core and damaging of drugs, why would a dealer put more expensive drugs into the weed? It's more of a risk for them and more of a financial loss for them, so why would they bother?


I live in basically the weed capital of Canada...I would know.

Ah yes, since you live in an area where weed is common, you must somehow be blessed with such knowledge automatically. I assume that if someone lives in the area where kangaroos are most abundant in nature, then they will be blessed with the knowledge of knowing every single thing about kangaroos. Sorry, knowledge isn't transmitted through diffusion or osmosis, that's not how it works. Living in an area where it's common doesn't mean you know any more or less than the average person who relies solely on stereotypes and propaganda. Give a better argument (and yes, I'm going out on a limb here calling that statement of yours an argument).

[tyler_52]

Just because you can't OD on it doesn't make it good. People can die while attempting stupid things while stoned, having any kind of smoke in your lungs is a bad thing, most of the time the dealer puts in a lot of extra stuff that is really bad for you, etc.

I live in basically the weed capital of Canada...I would know.

ya but doing stupid things isnt always from pot ... you do stupid things while drunk too but thats not illegal