Options

420, Politics and Idiots

1235»

Posts

  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    As far as I've ever read, marijuana's primary medical use is just as an analgesic. Its other benefits seem to be the periphery of its psychoactive abilities. Cannabinoid drugs may have cancer and Alzheimer's applications, but pot isn't the answer to those, rather just synthesizing the affecting compounds.

    So what I'm saying is that the idea of medical marijuana seems like a stupid one to me.
    A criminal attorney who was one of my professors told me that when his wife got cancer, the oncologist couldn't find anything to help her appetite, so they tried Marinol, which is the synthetic version of marijuana. That just made her sick to her stomach, which is pretty much all it ever does (according to the oncologist), so the doctor took him aside, and said "you're a lawyer; you must know where you can get some pot..."

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    DjeetDjeet Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    marijuana is also a very effective anti-emetic and can assist in keeping/gaining weight, these are often the reasons it is prescribed to some cancer patients undergoing chemo

    edit: beated

    Djeet on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    As far as I've ever read, marijuana's primary medical use is just as an analgesic. Its other benefits seem to be the periphery of its psychoactive abilities. Cannabinoid drugs may have cancer and Alzheimer's applications, but pot isn't the answer to those, rather just synthesizing the affecting compounds.

    So what I'm saying is that the idea of medical marijuana seems like a stupid one to me.

    Well, an effective analgesic you can grow in a window box wouldn't be pretty rad.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    As far as I've ever read, marijuana's primary medical use is just as an analgesic. Its other benefits seem to be the periphery of its psychoactive abilities. Cannabinoid drugs may have cancer and Alzheimer's applications, but pot isn't the answer to those, rather just synthesizing the affecting compounds.

    So what I'm saying is that the idea of medical marijuana seems like a stupid one to me.
    A criminal attorney who was one of my professors told me that when his wife got cancer, the oncologist couldn't find anything to help her appetite, so they tried Marinol, which is the synthetic version of marijuana. That just made her sick to her stomach, which is pretty much all it ever does (according to the oncologist), so the doctor took him aside, and said "you're a lawyer; you must know where you can get some pot..."

    The more you know, I guess.

    But still, it's got limited applications and carries the risk of toxicity if you want to sustain effective doses for many of the problems it can treat, so I don't think it's a very compelling argument for the most part. Its primary use is still absolutely going to be recreation, and there's nothing wrong with that in the end, but it seems like reaching for straws when somebody brings up the medical argument. The argument for legalization has merits seperate from that.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    DjeetDjeet Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    its legal status provides an obstacle to investigating its medical value

    as an intoxicant, the experiment to find a lethal (or toxic) dose would be interesting. whereas finding the lethal dose of alcohol just takes patience.

    and as something to habitually smoke, its risk is likely much less than tobacco given that habitual users of cannabis smoke considerably less "stuff" than habitual smokers of tobacco. but again there's no public funding for studies so who knows?

    Djeet on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Djeet wrote: »
    its legal status provides an obstacle to investigating its medical value

    as an intoxicant, the experiment to find a lethal (or toxic) dose would be interesting. whereas finding the lethal dose of alcohol just takes patience.

    and as something to habitually smoke, its risk is likely much less than tobacco given that habitual users of cannabis smoke considerably less "stuff" than habitual smokers of tobacco. but again there's no public funding for studies so who knows?
    Actually, marijuana is believed to have some anti-cancer qualities, based on studies that show that habitual marijuana users have only a slightly higher chance of getting cancer than non-smokers, and that habitual users of marijuana who also smoke cigarettes have a lower chance of getting cancer than people who just smoke cigarettes.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    Satan.Satan. __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    Djeet wrote: »
    its legal status provides an obstacle to investigating its medical value

    as an intoxicant, the experiment to find a lethal (or toxic) dose would be interesting. whereas finding the lethal dose of alcohol just takes patience.

    and as something to habitually smoke, its risk is likely much less than tobacco given that habitual users of cannabis smoke considerably less "stuff" than habitual smokers of tobacco. but again there's no public funding for studies so who knows?

    What are you stuck in, 1950? Marijuana is well-studied. Just because it's an illegal drug doesn't mean that you can't study the damn thing. The lethal dose of THC is also known:
    At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around
    1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce
    death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as
    much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette
    . NIDA-supplied
    marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would
    theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within
    about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response
    .

    The tobacco / marijuana having a negative effect on your health (lungs specifically) I have no idea about. I've never heard of a study proving or disproving this, so let's not get into assumptions.

    Satan. on
  • Options
    KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    But even then you can get high on weed without smoking it.

    Special brownies anyone?

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    As far as I've ever read, marijuana's primary medical use is just as an analgesic. Its other benefits seem to be the periphery of its psychoactive abilities. Cannabinoid drugs may have cancer and Alzheimer's applications, but pot isn't the answer to those, rather just synthesizing the affecting compounds.

    So what I'm saying is that the idea of medical marijuana seems like a stupid one to me.
    A criminal attorney who was one of my professors told me that when his wife got cancer, the oncologist couldn't find anything to help her appetite, so they tried Marinol, which is the synthetic version of marijuana. That just made her sick to her stomach, which is pretty much all it ever does (according to the oncologist), so the doctor took him aside, and said "you're a lawyer; you must know where you can get some pot..."

    The more you know, I guess.

    But still, it's got limited applications and carries the risk of toxicity if you want to sustain effective doses for many of the problems it can treat, so I don't think it's a very compelling argument for the most part. Its primary use is still absolutely going to be recreation, and there's nothing wrong with that in the end, but it seems like reaching for straws when somebody brings up the medical argument. The argument for legalization has merits seperate from that.

    Risk of toxicity? What do you mean by this? Marijuana is extremely non-toxic, it is virtually impossible to overdose on the stuff (there are no records of anybody doing so).

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    If you don't want people judging you based on how you look, why get piercings? Why get tattoos? Why dress differently?
    Because you want someone to prejudge in your favor rather than not in your favor. More of a , "Hey, dude, where'd you get that bad-ass tat!" rather than, "Skank, where'd you pick up that tramp-stamp?"
    So we should only ever judge people positively by what they are wearing? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
    I'm reasonably certain GungHo meant that to be taken ironically. :P

    .....Yeah well...Can't you see how I was being superironical, which is the most ironical thing of all?....no? Ok. But isn't that kind of ironic then?

    Neaden on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Risk of toxicity? What do you mean by this? Marijuana is extremely non-toxic, it is virtually impossible to overdose on the stuff (there are no records of anybody doing so).

    They'd have died from suffocation before they hit the lethal dose of THC. Which is basically the only way that you can die from smoking marijuana that doesn't involve driving a car &c.

    moniker on
  • Options
    DjeetDjeet Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Satan. wrote: »
    What are you stuck in, 1950? Marijuana is well-studied. Just because it's an illegal drug doesn't mean that you can't study the damn thing.

    Nope, just stuck in the states. My understanding was that the vast majority of the studies conducted on cannabis were conducted abroad, my mistake.

    edit: and when i say "studies" i mean where the researchers give you stuff to smoke, not investigative/survey analyses.

    Djeet on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Risk of toxicity? What do you mean by this? Marijuana is extremely non-toxic, it is virtually impossible to overdose on the stuff (there are no records of anybody doing so).

    They'd have died from suffocation before they hit the lethal dose of THC. Which is basically the only way that you can die from smoking marijuana that doesn't involve driving a car &c.

    I'm talking about prolonged, continued use of marijuana at the kind of levels that would be required to treat some of the things it can help with. Marijuana contains higher concentrations of things like ammonia than tobacco smoke, but people generally don't smoke as much so it doesn't actually create a difference. Because the beneficial agents aren't in high concentrations, the treatment of some disorders with marijuana requires more frequent smoking than the average pot head might smoke, and can reach toxic levels as a result.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Risk of toxicity? What do you mean by this? Marijuana is extremely non-toxic, it is virtually impossible to overdose on the stuff (there are no records of anybody doing so).

    They'd have died from suffocation before they hit the lethal dose of THC. Which is basically the only way that you can die from smoking marijuana that doesn't involve driving a car &c.

    I'm talking about prolonged, continued use of marijuana at the kind of levels that would be required to treat some of the things it can help with. Marijuana contains higher concentrations of things like ammonia than tobacco smoke, but people generally don't smoke as much so it doesn't actually create a difference. Because the beneficial agents aren't in high concentrations, the treatment of some disorders with marijuana requires more frequent smoking than the average pot head might smoke, and can reach toxic levels as a result.

    And what would the long term health effects of this be? While no drug is perfectly harmless, marijuana is much better than most, certainly when compared with alcohol, tobacco or most prescription drugs. It doesn't cause cancer, and the other health risks all seem to come directly from smoking the stuff (which can of course be avoided by eating it or using a vaporizer).

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    DukiDuki Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    I'm pretty sure everything causes cancer.

    Duki on
  • Options
    DjeetDjeet Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    if it helps them to not waste away (cancer patients here, not weenies complaining of "headaches" or generalized anxiety so they can score a scrip for pot in certain states) perhaps they might risk a little ammonia inhalation vs. anemia and not being able to keep food down.

    edit: sorry, not pooh-poohing generalized anxiety disorder at all; the cancer thing is personal.

    Djeet on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    Duki wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure everything causes cancer.

    We're finding this isn't quite the case, but pretty close. Basically anything that causes damage to cells if exposed to them over and over for a long time can potentially eventually result in a cancerous mutation. But at the same time certain chemicals that can either be manufactured or found in things like seaweed and broccoli seem to send messages that target cells with super-high metabolic-rates and tell them to self-destruct. I haven't seen enough to prove it or anything but more research pertaining to it keeps popping up sporadically and I'm interested to see where it goes.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    MrMister wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    I wasn't aware that cheek piercings were an obvious sign of someone's background. It's probably because I don't buy the blurring of the line you are trying to produce between someone with black skin or an accent and a middle class kid who chooses to appear a certain way.

    The lines are blurry. What about the inner city kid who dresses like all his friends? Should we ignore him as well?

    Really, I'm curious to know what about not appearing in a suit, or having a piercing, or having dyed hair, is so offensive that it warrants dismissal from public discourse.

    See, now this is your fuckin' problem. You can't dissociate the person explaining reality to you from the person responsible for reality being that way.

    We've got all these nice folks trying to tell you that dressing in an unconventional manner or a manner not deemed respectable by society will result in you not being taken seriously.

    And then you're firing back by saying "how dare you! That's not fair!"

    but the thing is

    nobody here decided that society should be that way

    we're just bright enough to have observed that despite nobody in particular having a very good reason as to why

    society just IS that way.


    I imagine many of your arguments get dragged into this very same hole. You should take that little revelation we just shared here today and consider it in the future when you're starting to get all worked up over a disagreement. You could just be in the wrong, you know.

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pheezer wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    I wasn't aware that cheek piercings were an obvious sign of someone's background. It's probably because I don't buy the blurring of the line you are trying to produce between someone with black skin or an accent and a middle class kid who chooses to appear a certain way.

    The lines are blurry. What about the inner city kid who dresses like all his friends? Should we ignore him as well?

    Really, I'm curious to know what about not appearing in a suit, or having a piercing, or having dyed hair, is so offensive that it warrants dismissal from public discourse.

    See, now this is your fuckin' problem. You can't dissociate the person explaining reality to you from the person responsible for reality being that way.

    We've got all these nice folks trying to tell you that dressing in an unconventional manner or a manner not deemed respectable by society will result in you not being taken seriously.

    And then you're firing back by saying "how dare you! That's not fair!"

    but the thing is

    nobody here decided that society should be that way

    we're just bright enough to have observed that despite nobody in particular having a very good reason as to why

    society just IS that way.


    I imagine many of your arguments get dragged into this very same hole. You should take that little revelation we just shared here today and consider it in the future when you're starting to get all worked up over a disagreement. You could just be in the wrong, you know.

    Stereotyping and discrimination exists, and always has existed. I guess I shouldn't complain about those sort of things, since society just IS that way.

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Risk of toxicity? What do you mean by this? Marijuana is extremely non-toxic, it is virtually impossible to overdose on the stuff (there are no records of anybody doing so).

    They'd have died from suffocation before they hit the lethal dose of THC. Which is basically the only way that you can die from smoking marijuana that doesn't involve driving a car &c.

    I'm talking about prolonged, continued use of marijuana at the kind of levels that would be required to treat some of the things it can help with. Marijuana contains higher concentrations of things like ammonia than tobacco smoke, but people generally don't smoke as much so it doesn't actually create a difference. Because the beneficial agents aren't in high concentrations, the treatment of some disorders with marijuana requires more frequent smoking than the average pot head might smoke, and can reach toxic levels as a result.

    And what would the long term health effects of this be? While no drug is perfectly harmless, marijuana is much better than most, certainly when compared with alcohol, tobacco or most prescription drugs. It doesn't cause cancer, and the other health risks all seem to come directly from smoking the stuff (which can of course be avoided by eating it or using a vaporizer).

    The uhh... the kind of health effects that come from regular, repeated, frequent intake of things like ammonia and N2O?

    Listen, you can say that marijuana is better than most because it's very rarely used as frequently as tobacco, but to actually be used to treat some of the things it's supposed to treat, you would have to use it at about the same rate to have any benefit, but it has a much higher concentration of certain toxins.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    [Tycho?] wrote: »

    Stereotyping and discrimination exists, and always has existed. I guess I shouldn't complain about those sort of things, since society just IS that way.

    That is so very much not what I just said and you damn well know it. I'm not saying it's fair or good or that you should like it, I'm saying that it's how it is and that your tactics have to take it into consideration to have any hope of success.

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • Options
    PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Risk of toxicity? What do you mean by this? Marijuana is extremely non-toxic, it is virtually impossible to overdose on the stuff (there are no records of anybody doing so).

    They'd have died from suffocation before they hit the lethal dose of THC. Which is basically the only way that you can die from smoking marijuana that doesn't involve driving a car &c.

    I'm talking about prolonged, continued use of marijuana at the kind of levels that would be required to treat some of the things it can help with. Marijuana contains higher concentrations of things like ammonia than tobacco smoke, but people generally don't smoke as much so it doesn't actually create a difference. Because the beneficial agents aren't in high concentrations, the treatment of some disorders with marijuana requires more frequent smoking than the average pot head might smoke, and can reach toxic levels as a result.

    And what would the long term health effects of this be? While no drug is perfectly harmless, marijuana is much better than most, certainly when compared with alcohol, tobacco or most prescription drugs. It doesn't cause cancer, and the other health risks all seem to come directly from smoking the stuff (which can of course be avoided by eating it or using a vaporizer).

    The uhh... the kind of health effects that come from regular, repeated, frequent intake of things like ammonia and N2O?

    Listen, you can say that marijuana is better than most because it's very rarely used as frequently as tobacco, but to actually be used to treat some of the things it's supposed to treat, you would have to use it at about the same rate to have any benefit, but it has a much higher concentration of certain toxins.

    Unless you were to eat it. Or use a vaporizer.

    Reading++

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • Options
    Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Risk of toxicity? What do you mean by this? Marijuana is extremely non-toxic, it is virtually impossible to overdose on the stuff (there are no records of anybody doing so).

    They'd have died from suffocation before they hit the lethal dose of THC. Which is basically the only way that you can die from smoking marijuana that doesn't involve driving a car &c.

    I'm talking about prolonged, continued use of marijuana at the kind of levels that would be required to treat some of the things it can help with. Marijuana contains higher concentrations of things like ammonia than tobacco smoke, but people generally don't smoke as much so it doesn't actually create a difference. Because the beneficial agents aren't in high concentrations, the treatment of some disorders with marijuana requires more frequent smoking than the average pot head might smoke, and can reach toxic levels as a result.

    And what would the long term health effects of this be? While no drug is perfectly harmless, marijuana is much better than most, certainly when compared with alcohol, tobacco or most prescription drugs. It doesn't cause cancer, and the other health risks all seem to come directly from smoking the stuff (which can of course be avoided by eating it or using a vaporizer).

    The uhh... the kind of health effects that come from regular, repeated, frequent intake of things like ammonia and N2O?

    Listen, you can say that marijuana is better than most because it's very rarely used as frequently as tobacco, but to actually be used to treat some of the things it's supposed to treat, you would have to use it at about the same rate to have any benefit, but it has a much higher concentration of certain toxins.

    Eat it. The weed. Eat it.

    What toxicity is there now?

    Al_wat on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Risk of toxicity? What do you mean by this? Marijuana is extremely non-toxic, it is virtually impossible to overdose on the stuff (there are no records of anybody doing so).

    They'd have died from suffocation before they hit the lethal dose of THC. Which is basically the only way that you can die from smoking marijuana that doesn't involve driving a car &c.

    I'm talking about prolonged, continued use of marijuana at the kind of levels that would be required to treat some of the things it can help with. Marijuana contains higher concentrations of things like ammonia than tobacco smoke, but people generally don't smoke as much so it doesn't actually create a difference. Because the beneficial agents aren't in high concentrations, the treatment of some disorders with marijuana requires more frequent smoking than the average pot head might smoke, and can reach toxic levels as a result.

    And what would the long term health effects of this be? While no drug is perfectly harmless, marijuana is much better than most, certainly when compared with alcohol, tobacco or most prescription drugs. It doesn't cause cancer, and the other health risks all seem to come directly from smoking the stuff (which can of course be avoided by eating it or using a vaporizer).

    The uhh... the kind of health effects that come from regular, repeated, frequent intake of things like ammonia and N2O?

    Listen, you can say that marijuana is better than most because it's very rarely used as frequently as tobacco, but to actually be used to treat some of the things it's supposed to treat, you would have to use it at about the same rate to have any benefit, but it has a much higher concentration of certain toxins.

    Such as? Because as indicated, you have to smoke 20,000-40,000 joints in a short span of time (by that I mean something like a couple hours) to hit the LD-50.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    A few problems with eating it.

    1) How much would you have to actually consume to get the same dosages? If it already requires some immense amount more than a normal pot head is going to smoke, how much are you going to have to eat to get the same results? I honestly don't know, but you can take your snarky comments and shove them up your ass, you twats.

    2) It's quite possible and almost probable that some of the beneficial compounds are only created by a heat catalyst.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    Such as? Because as indicated, you have to smoke 20,000-40,000 joints in a short span of time (by that I mean something like a couple hours) to hit the LD-50.

    You have to smoke some unimaginable amount of tobacco to OD on it, but that doesn't prevent it from systematically poisoning you over long periods of time of sustained, repeated use. That's a requirement I've mentioned every single time, but you keep bringing up the short term OD scenario, which I'm not talking about at all.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    A few problems with eating it.

    1) How much would you have to actually consume to get the same dosages? If it already requires some immense amount more than a normal pot head is going to smoke, how much are you going to have to eat to get the same results? I honestly don't know, but you can take your snarky comments and shove them up your ass, you twats.

    2) It's quite possible and almost probable that some of the beneficial compounds are only created by a heat catalyst.

    This information is all readily available if you cared to look. 1) About the same but the effects are someone different likely due to the difference in where and how the cannabinoids enter the bloodstream, this is also why eating it works slower and lasts longer but may result in upset stomach 2) nope, heat is only used to separate the cannabinoids from the plant, and you're going to use heat to separate out the cannabinoids to make your cannibutter anyway, so that you don't have to eat little chopped up bits of leaves in your brownies (or cookies).

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    A few problems with eating it.

    1) How much would you have to actually consume to get the same dosages? If it already requires some immense amount more than a normal pot head is going to smoke, how much are you going to have to eat to get the same results? I honestly don't know, but you can take your snarky comments and shove them up your ass, you twats.

    2) It's quite possible and almost probable that some of the beneficial compounds are only created by a heat catalyst.

    Okay, awesome post.

    2) the drug gets heated up with the rest of the brownies while they're in your oven. So it gets plenty hot. But no, the THC exists without needing to be burned first.

    1) it takes a good volume of weed to make cookies or brownies, but as a result, a single brownie or cookie is often enough to elicit a very powerful high. You don't have any THC wasted by it being burned as you smoke it, and you've got a pretty high concentration of THC in each of those cookies. And the heat and moisture really drew it out of the plant content. So you actually take way less time to get high, and you can make one small batch in the morning and stay stoned for the entire day if you really want.

    Baking is pretty much the most efficient way to get high, it just takes larger upfront investment and is less feasible in the field than a pipe.

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    Such as? Because as indicated, you have to smoke 20,000-40,000 joints in a short span of time (by that I mean something like a couple hours) to hit the LD-50.

    You have to smoke some unimaginable amount of tobacco to OD on it, but that doesn't prevent it from systematically poisoning you over long periods of time of sustained, repeated use. That's a requirement I've mentioned every single time, but you keep bringing up the short term OD scenario, which I'm not talking about at all.

    Oh, that? Long term heavy use can thin blood-vessels. I thought you were talking about toxins, though. Since you kept saying "toxin" over and over.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    A few problems with eating it.

    1) How much would you have to actually consume to get the same dosages? If it already requires some immense amount more than a normal pot head is going to smoke, how much are you going to have to eat to get the same results? I honestly don't know, but you can take your snarky comments and shove them up your ass, you twats.

    2) It's quite possible and almost probable that some of the beneficial compounds are only created by a heat catalyst.
    Don't eat it then, use one of these
    volcano-vaporizer.jpg

    Azio on
  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    A few problems with eating it.

    1) How much would you have to actually consume to get the same dosages? If it already requires some immense amount more than a normal pot head is going to smoke, how much are you going to have to eat to get the same results? I honestly don't know, but you can take your snarky comments and shove them up your ass, you twats.

    2) It's quite possible and almost probable that some of the beneficial compounds are only created by a heat catalyst.

    1) I'm not sure why you think that to use medicinal marijuana you have to smoke stupendous amounts of it, but this is simply not true. It varies hugely depending on the person and the disease. If its use it to stimulate appetite, then someone can have some before they eat. If they need it to help them sleep, they smoke a joint before they go to bed. Some would smoke a lot, some would not. Just as regular users vary from huge quantities to tiny quantities.

    2) Almost probable? Really? What are you basing that on? Weed brownies are not popular because they render weed ineffective. Eating weed is a perfectly fine way to consume it, I've never heard anything that it is medicinally less useful when consumed in this way (THC certainly doesn't need to be activated by heat, and eating weed does get you intoxicated). Smoking has an advantage though in that the effects are immediate, and it allows the user to regulate their own dosage (puff until your food looks appetizing). Vaporizers solve all these problems.

    Such as? Because as indicated, you have to smoke 20,000-40,000 joints in a short span of time (by that I mean something like a couple hours) to hit the LD-50.

    You have to smoke some unimaginable amount of tobacco to OD on it, but that doesn't prevent it from systematically poisoning you over long periods of time of sustained, repeated use. That's a requirement I've mentioned every single time, but you keep bringing up the short term OD scenario, which I'm not talking about at all.

    You've mentioned that marijuana has higher concentrations of ammonia, but you haven't said anything else. What are the health risks of this? I haven't seen any studies showing toxic effects from smoking weed, even in very large quantities over a lifetime. People consume all manner of toxic chemicals all the time, but you have to show that there is actually a health risk from consuming the stuff before you can expect anyone to listen to you.

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    DjeetDjeet Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    what about a palliative care application? Morphine, a schedule 1 drug, is used in that application.

    Effective Dosage and the rate of absorption is the main reason to keep to smoking. Granny wants to eat dinner, not be stoned off her ass all day in case she ate too much.

    Djeet on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    I wish I could find these again, but before I tried pot, I did a bunch of reading about it. As a result, I got paranoid as all hell when I was high, but that's another story.

    A few of the reports specifically talked about certain marijuana treatments have too short of a duration to be reasonable, and that there were cases of systematic toxicity because of the frequency that was needed for effective treatment. I think it was talking about glaucoma and a few other disorders, but the conclusion was that, basically, the effective compounds could be synthesized and used more effectively than traditional uses.

    And just to clarify, I'm not against legalization, I just think that, while its got its applications, medicinal marijuana isn't exactly a strong argument in its favor.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    I wish I could find these again, but before I tried pot, I did a bunch of reading about it. As a result, I got paranoid as all hell when I was high, but that's another story.

    A few of the reports specifically talked about certain marijuana treatments have too short of a duration to be reasonable, and that there were cases of systematic toxicity because of the frequency that was needed for effective treatment. I think it was talking about glaucoma and a few other disorders, but the conclusion was that, basically, the effective compounds could be synthesized and used more effectively than traditional uses.

    And just to clarify, I'm not against legalization, I just think that, while its got its applications, medicinal marijuana isn't exactly a strong argument in its favor.

    I've never read anything comparing the two that didn't explicitly identify Marinol as less effective than smoking pot. And I've read quite a bit about pot. Who ran your study, if you remember? Was there actually a study or just the assertion? Because I've seen a few things put out by the various anti-drug organizations that make a bunch of claims to this effect without providing any evidence.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    captmorgancaptmorgan Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    I wanted to apologize if my earlier comment about they way they dressed offended anyone.

    I was trying to get the point across that you need to dress to suit your environment and audience expectations.

    Government officials-slacks, collar shirt
    Gang members-you might not want to dress like a cop

    I work in a machine shop, a guy came in for job wearing a 3 piece suit. That was completely inappropriate for the environment. (dirty, oily, hot) And such he came across as clueless about whats expected from him. Which also makes us doubt any of his qualifications/experience he claims to have.

    On another note I`m confused about the backlash to judging someone based on how they present them self.

    When you ask someone why do they have their hair dyed, tattoos, piercing, or a certain style of cloths on, the response you get is "Its an expression of who I am on the inside"
    Then why the fuck can`t I judge you on that?

    captmorgan on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    I wish I could find these again, but before I tried pot, I did a bunch of reading about it. As a result, I got paranoid as all hell when I was high, but that's another story.

    A few of the reports specifically talked about certain marijuana treatments have too short of a duration to be reasonable, and that there were cases of systematic toxicity because of the frequency that was needed for effective treatment. I think it was talking about glaucoma and a few other disorders, but the conclusion was that, basically, the effective compounds could be synthesized and used more effectively than traditional uses.

    And just to clarify, I'm not against legalization, I just think that, while its got its applications, medicinal marijuana isn't exactly a strong argument in its favor.

    I've never read anything comparing the two that didn't explicitly identify Marinol as less effective than smoking pot. And I've read quite a bit about pot. Who ran your study, if you remember? Was there actually a study or just the assertion? Because I've seen a few things put out by the various anti-drug organizations that make a bunch of claims to this effect without providing any evidence.

    It was a study, one of about twenty I pulled off of my old school's online research library. I don't have access to a source like that right now since I graduated.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    Oh, well in THAT case...

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    I wish I could find these again, but before I tried pot, I did a bunch of reading about it. As a result, I got paranoid as all hell when I was high, but that's another story.

    A few of the reports specifically talked about certain marijuana treatments have too short of a duration to be reasonable, and that there were cases of systematic toxicity because of the frequency that was needed for effective treatment. I think it was talking about glaucoma and a few other disorders, but the conclusion was that, basically, the effective compounds could be synthesized and used more effectively than traditional uses.

    And just to clarify, I'm not against legalization, I just think that, while its got its applications, medicinal marijuana isn't exactly a strong argument in its favor.

    I've never read anything comparing the two that didn't explicitly identify Marinol as less effective than smoking pot. And I've read quite a bit about pot. Who ran your study, if you remember? Was there actually a study or just the assertion? Because I've seen a few things put out by the various anti-drug organizations that make a bunch of claims to this effect without providing any evidence.

    It was a study, one of about twenty I pulled off of my old school's online research library. I don't have access to a source like that right now since I graduated.

    *shrug* I'd have to read more about the details of the study and how it was run to take it over what I've already read. Bear in mind that pot is right up there with tobacco in terms of prevalence of creative-research. And for the purpose of this analogy I'm referring to the research bodies that for years failed to find a connection between tobacco smoke and cancer.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    Handsome CostanzaHandsome Costanza Ask me about 8bitdo RIP Iwata-sanRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    A few problems with eating it.

    1) How much would you have to actually consume to get the same dosages? If it already requires some immense amount more than a normal pot head is going to smoke, how much are you going to have to eat to get the same results? I honestly don't know, but you can take your snarky comments and shove them up your ass, you twats.

    2) It's quite possible and almost probable that some of the beneficial compounds are only created by a heat catalyst.
    Don't eat it then, use one of these
    volcano-vaporizer.jpg

    These are so amazing. Sadly they cost about 900 dollars here in most head shops.

    Handsome Costanza on
    Nintendo Switch friend code: 7305-5583-0420. Add me!
    Resident 8bitdo expert.
    Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2008
    They're not a difficult concept to replicate if you know how they work and know an electrical engineer who smokes a lot of weed.

    ViolentChemistry on
Sign In or Register to comment.