CAR SURVEY! Get to know us and our cars.
#51
04-02-2007, 05:58 AM
RE: CAR SURVEY! Get to know us and our cars.
another one for you
The most obvious confounding factor in cannabis research is the prevalent usage of other recreational drugs, including alcohol and tobacco.[52] Such complications demonstrate the need for studies on cannabis that have stronger controls, and investigations into the symptoms of cannabis use that may also be caused by tobacco. Most cannabis research within the USA is funded by government agencies who in turn publish position papers citing research studies that spotlight the negative consequences of cannabis use.[53][54] In light of this, some people question whether these agencies make an honest effort to present an accurate, unbiased summary of the evidence, or whether they "cherry-pick" their data, and others caution that the raw data, and not the final hypothesis, is what should be examined.[55]
Unlike tobacco, cannabis has not been shown to cause emphysema, lung cancer, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.[56][57][58] Other studies have suggested that cannabis use by expectant mothers does not appear to cause birth defects or developmental delays in their newborn children.[59][60] According to a United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is less dangerous than both tobacco and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction.[61]
[ul][*]^ Zhang, Z.-F., Morgenstern, H., Spitz, M. R., Tashkin, D. P., Yu, G.-P., Marshall, J. R., Hsu, T. C., and Schantz, S. P. 1999. Marijuana use and increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 8(12):1071-1078. Retrieved 4 Mar 2007
^ National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2005. Marijuana Abuse. Research Report, Series 3. NIH Pub. No. 05-3859. Retrieved on 5 Mar 2007
^ National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2005. Marijuana Abuse. Research Report, Series 3. References. pp. 1-6. Retrieved on 5 Mar 2007
^ Public opinion on drugs and drug policy. Transform Drug Policy Foundation: Fact Research Guide. "Data is notoriously easy to cherry pick or spin to support a particular agenda or position. Often the raw data will conceal all sorts of interesting facts that the headlines have missed." Transform Drug Policy Foundation, Easton Business Centre, Felix Rd., Bristol, UK. Retrieved on 24 March 2007.
^ Fred Gardner. "Marijuana Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer", 2006-07-06.
^ Tashkin, D. P., Simmons, M. S., Sherrill, D. L., and Coulson, A. H. 1997. Heavy habitual marijuana smoking does not cause an accelerated decline in FEV1 with age. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 155(1): 141-148. Retrieved on 5 Mar 2007
^ "Study finds no marijuana-lung cancer link", Washington Post, 2006-05-26. Retrieved on 2006-07-13.
^ J.S. Hayes, R. Lampart, M.C. Dreher, L. Morgan (1991). "Five-year follow-up of rural Jamaican children whose mothers used marijuana during pregnancy". West Indian Medical Journal 40 (3): 120-3.
^ Dreher, M. C., Nugent, K., Hudgins, R. 1994. Prenatal marijuana exposure and neonatal outcomes in Jamaica: an ethnographic study. Pediatrics 93(2): 254-260. Retrieved on 5 Mar 2007
^ "UK government report", House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2006-07-18. Retrieved on 2006-08-29.][/ul]
Unlike tobacco, cannabis has not been shown to cause emphysema, lung cancer, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.[56][57][58] Other studies have suggested that cannabis use by expectant mothers does not appear to cause birth defects or developmental delays in their newborn children.[59][60] According to a United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is less dangerous than both tobacco and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction.[61]
[ul][*]^ Zhang, Z.-F., Morgenstern, H., Spitz, M. R., Tashkin, D. P., Yu, G.-P., Marshall, J. R., Hsu, T. C., and Schantz, S. P. 1999. Marijuana use and increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 8(12):1071-1078. Retrieved 4 Mar 2007
^ National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2005. Marijuana Abuse. Research Report, Series 3. NIH Pub. No. 05-3859. Retrieved on 5 Mar 2007
^ National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2005. Marijuana Abuse. Research Report, Series 3. References. pp. 1-6. Retrieved on 5 Mar 2007
^ Public opinion on drugs and drug policy. Transform Drug Policy Foundation: Fact Research Guide. "Data is notoriously easy to cherry pick or spin to support a particular agenda or position. Often the raw data will conceal all sorts of interesting facts that the headlines have missed." Transform Drug Policy Foundation, Easton Business Centre, Felix Rd., Bristol, UK. Retrieved on 24 March 2007.
^ Fred Gardner. "Marijuana Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer", 2006-07-06.
^ Tashkin, D. P., Simmons, M. S., Sherrill, D. L., and Coulson, A. H. 1997. Heavy habitual marijuana smoking does not cause an accelerated decline in FEV1 with age. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 155(1): 141-148. Retrieved on 5 Mar 2007
^ "Study finds no marijuana-lung cancer link", Washington Post, 2006-05-26. Retrieved on 2006-07-13.
^ J.S. Hayes, R. Lampart, M.C. Dreher, L. Morgan (1991). "Five-year follow-up of rural Jamaican children whose mothers used marijuana during pregnancy". West Indian Medical Journal 40 (3): 120-3.
^ Dreher, M. C., Nugent, K., Hudgins, R. 1994. Prenatal marijuana exposure and neonatal outcomes in Jamaica: an ethnographic study. Pediatrics 93(2): 254-260. Retrieved on 5 Mar 2007
^ "UK government report", House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2006-07-18. Retrieved on 2006-08-29.][/ul]
#52
04-02-2007, 05:59 AM
RE: CAR SURVEY! Get to know us and our cars.
feel free to click on any of those links for an indepth explanation of why your wrong
#53
04-02-2007, 06:14 AM
RE: CAR SURVEY! Get to know us and our cars.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi...is_info3.shtml
heres a link for exactly what carcinogens are inside of a 1 gram joint and 1 cigarette. they are virtually the same. so when you consider how many cigarettes have to be smoked to cause negative side-effects the amount of weed you would have to smoke for it to be dangerous is a SH!TLOAD. lets consider that on average smokers go through a pack a day (which is quite modest) then you would have to smoke an OUNCE of weed EVERYDAY for it to be as harmful. (street value of an ounce of crip right now is around $300-500 and regs is around $60-200) you would go broke WAY before you got sick.
and that is just if you smoke joints. one form of smoking weed is through vaporizers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer if you use a vaporizer there is NO TOXINS whatsoever. want proof? im sure you do, so here you go
^ Gieringer, Dale H.; Joseph St. Laurent, Scott Goodrich (2004). "Cannabis Vaporizer Combines Efficient Delivery of THC with Effective Suppression of Pyrolytic Compounds" (pdf). Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 4 (1): 7-27. DOI:10.1300/J175v04n01_02. Retrieved on 2006-04-21.
^ Gieringer, Dale. Marijuana Water Pipe and Vaporizer Study. Retrieved on 2006-04-21.
shall i continue?
heres a link for exactly what carcinogens are inside of a 1 gram joint and 1 cigarette. they are virtually the same. so when you consider how many cigarettes have to be smoked to cause negative side-effects the amount of weed you would have to smoke for it to be dangerous is a SH!TLOAD. lets consider that on average smokers go through a pack a day (which is quite modest) then you would have to smoke an OUNCE of weed EVERYDAY for it to be as harmful. (street value of an ounce of crip right now is around $300-500 and regs is around $60-200) you would go broke WAY before you got sick.
and that is just if you smoke joints. one form of smoking weed is through vaporizers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer if you use a vaporizer there is NO TOXINS whatsoever. want proof? im sure you do, so here you go
^ Gieringer, Dale H.; Joseph St. Laurent, Scott Goodrich (2004). "Cannabis Vaporizer Combines Efficient Delivery of THC with Effective Suppression of Pyrolytic Compounds" (pdf). Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 4 (1): 7-27. DOI:10.1300/J175v04n01_02. Retrieved on 2006-04-21.
^ Gieringer, Dale. Marijuana Water Pipe and Vaporizer Study. Retrieved on 2006-04-21.
shall i continue?
#54
04-02-2007, 06:36 AM
RE: CAR SURVEY! Get to know us and our cars.
one last tidbit for you to look over. this one proves that weed is not as harmful as cigarettes http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi..._health2.shtml
#55
04-02-2007, 07:49 AM
RE: CAR SURVEY! Get to know us and our cars.
can someone say [sm=owned.gif]
and seriously, if someone has a problem with me, then why do they make a FAKE user name, just to talk ****?
and i mean SERIOUSLY? grow up
and seriously, if someone has a problem with me, then why do they make a FAKE user name, just to talk ****?
and i mean SERIOUSLY? grow up
#56
04-02-2007, 12:17 PM
RE: CAR SURVEY! Get to know us and our cars.
ORIGINAL: chaos92287
one last tidbit for you to look over. this one proves that weed is not as harmful as cigarettes http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi..._health2.shtml
one last tidbit for you to look over. this one proves that weed is not as harmful as cigarettes http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi..._health2.shtml
however, none of those sources you provided are peer reviewed. what I mean by that is they aren't articles or papers that have been written by someone who is an expert in the field, and then reviewed by other experts in the field and found to be true, ie: generally acceptable to be true or accurate.
I'll retract my statement about one joint being more harmful than a pack of smokes, but I stand by the rest of my argument.
#57
04-02-2007, 01:43 PM
RE: CAR SURVEY! Get to know us and our cars.
ORIGINAL: Belligerence™
... none of those sources you provided are peer reviewed. what I mean by that is they aren't articles or papers that have been written by someone who is an expert in the field, and then reviewed by other experts in the field and found to be true, ie: generally acceptable to be true or accurate.
... none of those sources you provided are peer reviewed. what I mean by that is they aren't articles or papers that have been written by someone who is an expert in the field, and then reviewed by other experts in the field and found to be true, ie: generally acceptable to be true or accurate.
If the article appears in an issue of JAMA, I'll take it as fact. But for now, as Belligerence put it, these are just articles, not facts.
BTW, this discussion belongs in a thead of its own. Can we get back to the topic at hand? Car survey? Anybody?
#58
04-02-2007, 02:32 PM
RE: CAR SURVEY! Get to know us and our cars.
wut are you kidding me? so your saying the lancet isn't something you can trust? a lot of the other links were from the National Institute on Drug Abuse(o ya there not reliable, right?). if you look on the UK report the study was done by Parliament and most the sources were from doctors. i even presented you with the chemical composition of both marijuana and a cigarette. you can't just make that **** up. and it was done by the Institute of Medicine. and on top of that i showed you another source (again with reliable sources) where the US Surgeon General stated that it was lead 210 and polonium 210 that caused cancer, not tar. marijuana doesn't contain either of these because it is not fertilized by the same toxic chemicals as tobacco. but lets just say for a moment that it was the tar that caused cancer. smokers usually smoke around a pack a day (usually more) so you would have to smoke 23 one gram joints in a day for it to be equivalent. now i had friends who smoke really heavily but NONE of them smoke that much.
so your telling me you won't believe any info unless its been scrutinized by a bunch of experts? damn you must not trust 90% of the info you come across. i've presented you with enough info, and plenty of RELIABLE sources, done in medical labs and government facilities that prove me to be right. you just dont want to admit your wrong. why don't you try and prove your point. where's this expert peer-reviewed info that says marijuana is as harmful as cigarettes?
so your telling me you won't believe any info unless its been scrutinized by a bunch of experts? damn you must not trust 90% of the info you come across. i've presented you with enough info, and plenty of RELIABLE sources, done in medical labs and government facilities that prove me to be right. you just dont want to admit your wrong. why don't you try and prove your point. where's this expert peer-reviewed info that says marijuana is as harmful as cigarettes?
#59
04-02-2007, 03:55 PM
RE: CAR SURVEY! Get to know us and our cars.
OK... so I admit that I was wrong about some of your sources. I didn't know about The Lancet. I looked over their site, and it looks similar to what JAMA is doing. But the Lancet is not subject to peer review, whereas JAMA is, which makes JAMA articles more credible than Lancet articles. It looks like The Lancet has lots of good info on their site though. As far as the legality of marijuana, I think it's more a taxation issue. I'm sure the U.S. government knows about the pros/cons of marijuana, they just haven't figured out how to tax the stuff. IMO, when the government figures out how to tax the stuff properly and fairly, I think it's only a matter of time before marijuana gets legalized. Getting back to articles, I'd be more inclined to trust a JAMA article than I would a Lancet article.
BTW, shouldn't this discussion belong in its own thread?
Chaos, I applaud you for spending all this time providing us with articles relating to marijuana.
PS... I just did a search on JAMA relating to marijuana, and the articles I found on JAMA seem to contradict articles found on The Lancet. Who's right? Lancet? JAMA? I dunno. I think people believe what they want to believe. I'm sure there's valid arguments both for & against the stuff. I would agree with Belligerence on this issue though.
BTW, shouldn't this discussion belong in its own thread?
Chaos, I applaud you for spending all this time providing us with articles relating to marijuana.
PS... I just did a search on JAMA relating to marijuana, and the articles I found on JAMA seem to contradict articles found on The Lancet. Who's right? Lancet? JAMA? I dunno. I think people believe what they want to believe. I'm sure there's valid arguments both for & against the stuff. I would agree with Belligerence on this issue though.
#60
04-02-2007, 04:28 PM
RE: CAR SURVEY! Get to know us and our cars.
ORIGINAL: zrwhat
okay mom, did you want to talk to me about this?
because its legal here.
do you drink, alcohol, EVER?
just wondering, because thats worse then smoking anyday.
do i smoke around my kid, hell no
if you have a problem with that, take it up with alaska court, because they legalized it, thank you.
okay mom, did you want to talk to me about this?
because its legal here.
do you drink, alcohol, EVER?
just wondering, because thats worse then smoking anyday.
do i smoke around my kid, hell no
if you have a problem with that, take it up with alaska court, because they legalized it, thank you.
I do drink alcohol. Quite a bit, actually.
I'm not here to debate whether it's better for you than marijuana or not. I don't know. Neither do you.
Putting your child aside, do you ever think about the damage that you could do to your husband if you're caught?
What is he? Army?
That's a BCD for him if you're caught. Do you realize this?
I'm not here to argue about it, it just bothers me. I have no problem with marijuana. I'm not a user, but I have no issue with those who do. What DOES bother me is when people such as yourself do it with total disregard for those around you.