Turns out pot isn't good for you...

What...ganja or cigarettes? I've been guilty of the first offense many times.

 

Smoking 3 good sized joints a day by yourself is a ****load of weed, you'd bascially be stoned off your ass the entire day.

 

I hope they didn't pay too much for that study. Even a moron can figure out that smoking pot is not good for your lungs. Ever hear a pot-smoker cough?

Is smoking pot more or less harmful than smoking cigarettes? Hard to say, not much good information is out there. How can you perform a useful scientific study when everybody is using different kinds of pot and different consumption methods? How can you perform a useful scientific study without assuming more reasonable consumption habits?

If you want to compare pot and cigarettes, however, we know they are both bad for your lungs. Which is worse for your lungs is hard to say based on current information. We know that cigarettes are incredibly addictive, while mar1juana is not (habit-forming, perhaps). We know that mar1juana has beneficial effects, while I am not aware that tobaccco has any benefits (other than a good Cuban, accompanied by a single malt Irish whiskey, does good for the soul on an occasional basis ).

If you are not in favor of the legalization of mar1juana, I don't follow the comparison arguments. If you are against the legalization of mar1juana (either based on harm to society or harm to the individual), IMO you must logically also be in favor of prohibition, and we all know how that turned out last time. How do those of you who are against the legalization of mar1juana, justify the legal consumption of alcohol?

I have a "close friend" that smokes pot for medical reasons. Not a wink - wink, nudge - nudge situation, but the real deal. And if any of you know someone that smokes pot for medical reasons, chances are that person is not in a very good place health wise.

While we waste our time and money with studies like the one mentioned, the medical user is left out in the cold. The medical user's doctor can't provide any good advice. The medical user has no good information on the best way to consume pot to minimize the harmful effects mentioned in the study (as Hayes Street mentioned, cooking with it is expensive). And that person, who is an otherwise law-abiding member of the community, must commit a crime for health's sake. Must risk arrest, possible imprisonment, loss of job, and more. Must pay out the nose for something that should be extremely inexpensive. Must buy pot that may be adulterated.

And all for what? Because our forebearers preferred whiskey to pot.

If you can't tell, these kinds of studies piss me off. It didn't provide any usual information to anyone. Just more finger wagging by the "just say no" crowd.

 

FYI, chemo patients have to smoke it, since they are throwing up anything they eat. THC is a wonder drug for them.

IMHO, it is totally obsene that MJ is illegal and that medical users are breaking the law, in the face of medicinal benefits of MJ.

 

We just passed a city ballot initiative that mandates the city will grow it ( , yes the city) for medicinal purposes. I have no idea how this works. Even though I voted for it, it flies in the face of federal law. Typical left coast wackiness -- gotta love it.

 

The British Lung Foundation may not be part of the "just say no" crowd, but they are tools of them just the same. If the British Lung Foundation were really interested in providing a useful study, why did they use such an obscene amount of pot? What would be more useful, a study showing the harmful effects of three joints a day, or one joint a day? For that matter, why do (to my knowledge) ALL of the studies on the harmful effects of mar1juana base their analyses on abnormally high consumption levels (I could provide numerous links, but I just got high and am too lazy )? Do you think that (gasp) there may be some kind of bias going into these studies, MadMax?

I use the "just say no" crowd as a pejorative because they consistently distort the facts and paint things black and white that are really shades of gray. And when our children find out that the "just say no" crowd has been lying to them (or call it exaggerating, if you prefer), as they inevitably will, they don't know where to get reliable information about the risks of drug use. Too often, they turn to their peers, and we all know how accurate that information is. I, for one, would prefer my children to have reliable and accurate information, and not Madison Avenue propoganda, when facing such important choices.

Believe me, I don't think there is anything wrong with just saying no, as long as it is an informed decision. I wouldn't recommend pot smoking to anyone, let alone a child. But just saying no is very different that making it illegal.

MadMax, I'm curious. Are you in favor of just saying no to my single malt Irish whiskey, or prohibition ?

 

Max, of course there's not a problem with saying no (or abstaining). The problem is with believing that "just say no" is an effective campaign against illegal drug use, because it just isn't. "Just say no" has never worked as an argument against anything in the history of the world. But generally speaking, while more dangerous drugs are legal (and even used by a great lot of the 'just say no' crowd -- I sat next to Bill Bennett in a hotel bar during the 92 Repub convention. He was smoking a cigar and drinking scotch.), it's the only argument they've got. Smoking pot's bad for your lungs??? Naw... Pull me up a chair... I'd never have guessed it... The anti-drug lobby is grasping at straws. The trend is against them and until they come up with a single, sincere argument against weed (or at least get sincere with another surely doomed attempt at alcohol prohibition), they are liars and cynics. And eventually they will lose.

 

This is no states rights issue. This is a human rights issue. A God-given rights issue. A state or government has no right to make it illegal to plant a seed created by God. Neither do they have the right to make it illegal for you to pick flowers.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying no. There are many mind-altering substances that are legal. Many of them synthetic drugs, lab drugs, legalized speed, mood pills, anti-depressants, Ritalin, Prozac, coffee, alcohol, sugar, appetite-control drugs, etc., etc. You can bet your ass I'll advise my family to avoid all of these. We do our best with sugar .

Any herb, plant, flower, cinnamon-stick or tree bark, root, leaf, branch, twig or seed will affect the body and the mind. Many are used for medicine, nutrition, incense, oils, salves, flavorings, decoration and tools. When you see a tree please use it as you see fit. Just respect the tree and give thanks to the creator.

 

Right on, right1.

As Bill Hicks said, "Making pot illegal is like saying God ****ed up."

"On the seventh day God looked around at his creation and said 'Look at the world I've created, beautiful and perfect in every way. Now I can rest.... Oh, my me... I left ****ing pot everywhere... If I leave pot everywhere, people will think they're supposed to smoke it. ****. Now I gotta create Republicans."

 

Bill Hicks, one funny mofo, RIP.

 

Genesis 1:11...then God said, let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind whose seed is in itself upon the earth: and it was so.

54% of cancer physicians responding to a survey thought smokable cannabis should be available by perscription; 44% ALREADY recommend ILLEGAL cannabis to their patients!

 

So are you saying smoking pot is bad for you?

 

I think what he's saying is smoking pot is bad for you.

 

No, im saying i find it comical someone would defend pot with that sort of elaboration. Very funny stuff.

 

The 11th commandment and God said thou shall get high.

 

my uncle ...