|
|
|
|
|
| can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 8/23/2009 9:49:10 PM |
The real question is how many of you burnouts checked the "yes" box on the drug use question on here? If pot was so great, whats the big deal, AMIRITE??
... *crickets*.....
That's what I thought.
The box in the profile says drugs, not pot. Drugs covers a huge variety of things. There's a ton of prescription drugs that are a million times worse, and far more dangerous and addictive.
It also depends on where you live. In some places it's not a big deal, while in other places it can get you prison time. So there's that perspective too.
Let's just say that I'd much rather date a pot smoker than a drinker or cigarette smoker. It's the least harmful of the three, in my opinion.
And no, I don't smoke, I'd take a drug test any day. I'm just liberal and don't fall for government propaganda, I use my brain to think for myself. | |
|
| can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 8/24/2009 11:31:42 AM | Let's just say that I'd much rather date a pot smoker than a drinker or cigarette smoker. It's the least harmful of the three, in my opinion.
It's not just your opinion, there is literally mountains of evidence to support that claim.
Smoking damages the lungs ~ that includes weed.
Not true. Please provide a source. Cigarettes damage the lungs because they add toxins and nicotine constricts your airways. Pot smoke is actually a bronchial dilator and has been shown to be BENEFICIAL to your lungs.
tbuddha: Your statement makes no sense. You think people should understand why drugs are so great but don't see the down side to drugs and see the lives that it's ruined. You must be in denial. Legal or not ALL drugs are bad for the body. I totally get the whole point about medication. The evil and corruption that turns a blind eye to the horrible deaths of men, women and children is maddening and despicable. More people are killed by taking the proper dosages of medications every year than die from cancer and heart desease combined. Not to mention some of the permanent side effects they lie about. This doesn't make any other substances less damaging. I agree that it's ridiculous that pot is illegal when alcohol and a lot of prescription medications aren't but it can be damaging as well.
I never said I think people should think drugs are great, there are all types of drugs and most them (the legal ones) are very harmful. I don't consider marijuana a drug anymore than any other plant. Are tulips a drug? By literal definition, food is a drug because it alters your body's chemistry. By your definition, drugs are anything you can take that is illegal. By my definition, drugs are something that you take that is MAN MADE. So pot to me is not a drug.
Furthermore, the government has spent BILLIONS trying to prove harmful side effects of pot and come up with NOTHING. Can you cite ONE study conducted by an MD that supports your claim of marijuana being damaging? There aren't any. All the negatives come from Big Pharma funded studies by government propaganda agencies.
Folks, you need to realize the government doesn't exist to help you, but to oppress you. Whenever the government is banning something, it's generally for some reason of their own. In the case of pot, the Partnership for a Drug Free America is primarily funded by Big Pharma and Anheiser Busch. You can check it on their website. What does that tell you?
| |
|
| can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 8/24/2009 11:45:25 AM | I question your assertion that there are no harmful effects from smoking pot. I guess you'll believe what you want to believe - maybe it's already damaged your brain!
The latest: Regular marijuana usage robs men of sexual highs
Stoners may be trading sexual highs for the chemical kind. Males who smoke marijuana daily are four times more likely to have trouble reaching orgasm than men who don't inhale, finds a new study of 8,656 Aussies.
Other smokers had the opposite problem, experiencing premature ejaculation at nearly three times the rate of non-smokers, find a team led by Marian Pitts at La Trobe University in Melbourne
It's not conclusive, but along with evidence that pot causes cancer just like smoking cigarettes, I'll avoid it since I don't really have any need to smoke it. | |
|
| can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 8/24/2009 12:01:39 PM | "Let's just say that I'd much rather date a pot smoker than a drinker or cigarette smoker. It's the least harmful of the three, in my opinion."
It's not just your opinion, it's fact of course you'll never hear the media or governments tell you this because they rather have you live in fear...there's no other reasonable explanation!People accept alcohol so that they can have an excuse for their actions in the morning!! Opinions is all the nay sayers will give you for pot use! This article is over 3 years old...how many have heard of thes findings?
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." 
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous. 
Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.
They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.
"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."
Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.
While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day. 
The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried. | |
|
| can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 8/24/2009 12:48:01 PM | Yeah, yeah, yeah. Some studies show no links (esp. older ones), others show some specific benefits, and others show cancer links. Simple reason implies that there are plenty of potential risks, and few potential benefits unless you have glaucoma or are undergoing chemo, for example.
Recent info on the link between pot and cancer:
Marijuana Smoke Linked to Cancer:
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20090623/marijuana-smoke-linked-to-cancer
Marijuana Linked to Aggressive Testicular Cancer:
http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docid=623888
Marijuana Damages DNA And May Cause Cancer, New Test Reveals
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615095940.htm
Ultimately, we should be able to choose our poisons, but let's do so with some real information. Alcohol is certainly problematical as well, but in moderation can be beneficial. Improper use of so-called "hard drugs" should probably remain illegal, IMO. | |
|
| can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 8/24/2009 1:35:16 PM | cw35 "You're obviously a user of a lot of drugs since you seem so angry and defensive about it."
So because I chosse to educate myself on a subject that makes me a user?
"Paragraphs upon paragraphs trying to rationalize why drugs are so great. Why? That's just sad."
Oh that's what I was doing, I thought I was debunking the myths people like you are spouting on here with out a shred of evidence. Things like your next comment. "Bottom line is no drugs legal or otherwise do anyone any good and only cause harm. That's just the facts. Who cares which ones are legal or what famous people used them?"
Who cares? How about the 600,000 Canadians and millions of Americans doing prison time for possessing pot.
"Even so, there's no way to prove these historic figures used anything unless you were there anyway. "Hey, Michael Vic is famous and he beats dogs. I think I'll go kill a dog now since popular people do it". What idiotic reasoning. "
You see Mr. cw35 only an idot and a LIAR like you would come to that conclusion from my post. Want proof? HERE from your own profile description.."I'm a good listener and value my partners opinions as well." You value no opinions but your own sir and further proof is in the testimonial posted on your profile. "We started out ummmm, errrr disagreeing almost totally but soon won each others respect." You're going to have to somehow replicate some brain cells and get educated on this subject before you'll gain my respect! | |
|
| can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 8/24/2009 4:43:04 PM | | plenty: You really need to step down from your soapbox and look at how angry and narrow minded you sound. Instead of clipping the parts of my statements that suit your little crusade of denial, you should read the other parts of my statements. If you weren't looking for a fight just for the sake of fighting you would have looked at all my posts on this subject and read that I understand the frustration of pot smokers, considering all the other legal drugs that are worse. I'm also not blind enough to see that drugs, additives, chemicals etc. are just bad for the body. YOU are the one irrationally turning a blind eye to the fact that drugs negatively impact the body and YOU are the one who only see's one side. You can choose to do drugs but if I don't, suddenly I'm called every name in the book. That's tolerance. Don't DARE preach about my intolerance when you're being the most intolerant, venomous a**hole in here. Don't quote people's profiles either. It shows a lack of class and it's childish besides. Just because I respect the opinions of my partner doesn't mean I'm going to rollover when a complete a**hole starts making dumb statements. You want your opinions understood, grow up and stop spewing your crap at everyone who disagrees with you. | |
|
| can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 8/24/2009 5:55:18 PM |
Marijuana Smoke Linked to Cancer:
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20090623/marijuana-smoke-linked-to-cancer
This is the same kind of watered down, inconclusive science that has been put forth in propaganda for years. Really? You're gonna reference a Big Pharma site? Let's look at this article. I added notes in parentheses and EMPHASIS is mine:
June 23, 2009 -- Smoking pot causes cell damage that COULD make a person more likely to develop cancer, researchers report. (Of course, with all their research, they still can't prove that it actually does, so they use hypotheticals)
Scientists (no MD mentioned) at the University of Leicester have discovered that marijuana (cannabis) smoke alters DNA, the genetic material located in cells of the human body. SOME forms of DNA damage can lead to cancer. (but not from pot)
Many studies have shown that TOBACCO smoke damages DNA in a way that boosts risk for lung and other cancers, but until now, it's been unclear whether cannabis smoke could do the same. Of particular concern is a cancer-causing chemical called acetaldehyde, which is found in both tobacco and marijuana smoke. Using new chemistry techniques, study researchers showed that the chemical, when present in marijuana smoke, caused DNA damage in a LABORATORY SETTING. (not in actual people, and we're very different from petri dishes, at least non brainwashed people are)
The discovery suggests that marijuana smoke MAY be as harmful, or perhaps even more toxic, than tobacco smoke (Since they threw in the disclaimer, why not go overboard with total BS?). In fact, study researchers (read gov hacks, not doctors) say that smoking three to four marijuana cigarettes a day causes as much airway damage as smoking 20 or more cigarettes a day. (they just can't cite any real studies)
"These results provide evidence for the DNA-damaging POTENTIAL of cannabis smoke," the researchers write, "IMPLYING that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes MAY be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development."
This is all big Pharma lies from a known Big Pharma website. The drugs they push on WebMD actually DO harm you, but they aren't doing studies on that. They didn't make ONE assertion in that whole article - it was "could" and "may" and "might" and "potential"...all stuff they can later say, "Well, we didn't say for sure."
The other articles were no different. If you're gonna do research on biological matters, read actual peer reviewed studies by actual doctors, not some corporate web site's BS propaganda piece. | |
|
| |
| can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 8/25/2009 9:33:26 AM | | You are an idiot, there is absolutely no proof anywhere that smoking pot is harmful to your health. The brain cell theory shows how uninformed you truly are! | |
|
| |
| can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 8/26/2009 9:40:36 PM | I've stood next to an ex-boyfriend while a doctor showed him his blackened lungs on an x-ray machine when I forced him to have a long term nagging cough checked out. He didn't smoke cigarettes ~ but LOTS of pot. The doctor said he needed to quit smoking (not realizing it wasn't cigarettes).
I look forward to your theory on how blackened lungs can be OK. Is a deep ongoing barking cough healthy? I'll take being called an idiot by you a compliment. | |
|
| can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 9/1/2009 5:18:28 PM | Any smoking is bad for you. The real question is "if pot were to become decriminalized would it be a deal breaker?"
Risk effects could be minimized by growing your own & using a vaporizer. Something needs to be done about the legal status of marijuana. We cant continue to lock folks up for years. | |
|
| |
| |
| can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 9/2/2009 1:30:42 PM | If they are a frequent user, I would say no. I have two experiences with this--one about 2 years ago, and the other about 12 years ago. In both cases, the guy seemed to need it and/or alcohol to unwind every evening. In the second case, he sometimes used it in the daytime too. He had it an odd work schedule and since his work involved driving I still can't get over the fact that he didn't have mandatory drug testing. His company has it now, I guess.
Anyway on our first date he smoked up and asked if it bothered me. I lied and said it didn't. My thinking was that everybody has some quirk or other and I' m not in a position to be picky. But he became so difficult to deal with. He would interrupt constantly when we talked, ask the same question 5 times because he either forgot the answer or wasn't listening and was just so rude. One afternoon I was waiting for him to visit and he called me on his cell from Rainier Valley, a neighborhood I knew he really had no reason to be in save one, and said, "
I'm waiting for this guy to show up. I wish he'd hurry up." It was like something out of a Lou Reed song. I knew what his business with this guy was. I sensed that he was really losing interest in me anyway and treating me like a booty call. Finally I said, "I shouldn't have to keep calling you to remind you I'm alive." He said, "Point taken." I said, "You don't take me out in public any more." He said, "Yes, and that's going to change." So we planned a trip to the Olympic Penninsula(his idea.) He said, "We'll definitely do this. Hold me to it." That was two years ago. Needless to say, we never took the trip. I'm planning to do it alone later this month, actually. I stopped calling him, decided to do The Rules, and let him call me. After 8 months he did, only because he wanted me to help find a home for kittens borne by a feral cat he feeds in his back yard but never gets his s**t together enough to get spayed because he either doesn't trust the veterinarians or thinks they cost too much. This year he called again when she had another litter. I could go on and on about the dithering , the indecision, the paranoia, the broken promises. (He used to do a lot of coke too, I guess, but claims he's clean of that now.) The first guy, P., was similar in a lot of ways, though he was younger--38. T., the second guy, was in his sixties! The point of this rambling story is don't plan a big future with a pothead, you will probably be hurt. And if you ask a substance abuser, even indirectly to choose between you and the substance, don't take it personally when they choose the substance. | |
|
| can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 9/2/2009 9:17:06 PM | I love the smell of pot...I rarely smoke (I can count on one hand the number of times I have) but I don't mind being around while other people are smoking...recreationally! I couldn't handle someone who had a daily habit, or bought pot before groceries, or had a special place to keep their bong to minimize the effort needed to get their next hit ready. If the most exciting part of your evening is the joint someone brought along, that's not for me either...slightly contradictory I know...but thats just me  | |
|
| can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 9/2/2009 10:36:46 PM | pot heads turn me on...
somehow im attracted to the rocker/guitarist/skater/pothead types of guys even tho im not a big smoker myself | |
|
| |
| can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 10/7/2009 9:41:23 PM | educate yourself folks,cannibis is actually linked brain cell recovery.and nerve regeneration.there are some of out there who are allergic to opiates and other heavy duty pain meds which cause more problems and more medications to counter the side affects of them.would you rather a junkie addicted to prescription drugs?and the world is looking for renewable energy ...how about sustainable energy,food clothing, plastics,and talking about plastics how about totally bio degradable plastic bags and container the litter the entire earth ,food building materials. hell there are companies making body panels for cars out of HEMP!it is the most healthy thing you can ingest in your body as far as i am concerned.hemp seed oil has the highest content of mono unsaturated fat of all food oils. and if ya didn't know mono unsaturated fat is way good for you. and will actually lower your cholesterol.wake up people it is a gift from god.are there any other plant that are distinctly male and female in seperate plants?look at what happened when alcohol was prohibited.we have more organized crime because of prohibition.the cal it a gate way drug...ya because i have to go to a drug dealer to get my pot! please stop putting people down for being true to themselves and not killing themselves with harsh drugs or prescription medications.sorry but that no life for me.there i said alot didn't i? lol | |
|
| |
| can non-pot smokers handle pot smokers?
Posted: 10/7/2009 10:59:39 PM | ohh i forgot lol.how about never ever having to cut down another tree ever!or how about never having to use foreign oil ever!did you also know that concrete made from hemp fiber is 10 times stronger that conventional concrete...and 5 times lighter.and i'm soo sorry if it sounds like i'm standing on a soap box lol.we need to start thinking for our selves not how the system of goverment and the chemical and pharmacutical companies would. have you believe that we cannot do anything for ourselves.did you know that the dutch word for cannabis is CANVAS lol so the sails for the ships our fore father came to this great land of ours was made from cannibis and the covered wagons that went west were covered in what? CANNIBIS lol. hell the united states government even made a movie in the 50's called "Hemp For Victory".and that's not bullshit.it was once your duty as an American land owner to grow hemp for the war effort.and weather you all know it or not your grand parents were smokin pot when alcohol was illeagal.damn i shoulda been a polotician lol.call me a pot smoker if you must lol,but i cocider myself as a drug free pot smoker. i love you all and i'm not being a jerk just trying to educate the ignorant. and if anyone takes that as an insult i feel sorry for you. | |
|
|
| Page 66 of 66
|
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 |
|
Home
login 
