• 💊 OTHER DRUGS 💊 Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Notable Threads 1 Notable Threads 2
    Dangerous Combos Addiction Support
    Emergency Services Benzo Guide v.1
    Addiction Stories Scary Case Studies
    Biology, Pharmacology & Drugs 101
  • Select Your Topic Then Scroll Down
    Alcohol Bupe Benzos
    Cocaine Heroin Opioids
    RCs Stimulants Misc
    Harm Reduction All Topics Gabapentinoids
    Tired of your habit? Struggling to cope?
    Want to regain control or get sober?
    Visit our Recovery Support Forums

Can you believe this shit?!

At every methadone clinic in Ontario,Canada your aloud to piss dirty for Marijuana(unless you have a court order to not smoke marijauan). Im not shur about pain clinics though. I do know a lot of people who do go to pain clinics and get prescribed oxycontin and dilaudid and they do get screened(drug test). They never had any problem with proving positive for THC/marijuana.
 
djsim said:
And what is opium? That's a plant. I hate this arguement with a passion; it must be good for you because it's a plant. Styrchnine is natural too, so is morphine. Hell, so is cocaine. And methamphetamne has been found as an alkaloid in a texas tree species. Are they good for you?
The only reason people think plants are better for you is because they have been brainwashed by marketting. Natural stuff is no different than synthetic drugs; there is no "life force" to differentiate natural products from synthetic ones.
Click to expand...

No, but there is far less processing which ultimately produces a safer substance.
 
^ ?? lol

yeh its an annoying argument for suuuuure
"synthetics are bad. that's why i ingest 1000s of them in my food, in my drinks. i'm a shaman."
 
Thats the problem with drugs and drug users.

Were quicker to jump on and prosecute eachother than sober minded authority figures are sometimes. Everyone thinks there drug use is somehow holier than thou's, but only under there certain circumstances, because you know they have a good reason.

Shame on you bluelight. Shame.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the replies guys, I can't believe this post got this amount of attention. BUt i appreciate it.
 
JahRed24x said:
Thanks for all the replies guys, I can't believe this post got this amount of attention. BUt i appreciate it.
Click to expand...

Your doc must be a moron. Anyone who is on oxycodone will test positive for oxymorphone because oxymorphone is a metabolite of oxycodone. In other words, when oxycodone goes into your liver, some of it is converted to oxymorphone. That shows in a piss test. Is this doctor seriously inexperienced or something, or is he just trying to find an excuse to kick you off? Here...present this to that moron:

http://www.jenniferschneider.com/articles/Conv_of_Oxycodone_7_20_7.html
 
COMET420 said:
That is a shame. For all you haters

My heart goes out to you JahRed24x. You should not be punished one bit for having marijuana in your system if you are being prescribed opiates and benzos.
Click to expand...


OK Ill Bite too.. Rep'in all those haters out there...

I will agree that marijuana aside from the toxic effects of smoking anything, and aside from the toxic effect of THC a freereadical in your body and aside from the fact that THC punches a hole in the blood brain barrier which is like the screen door on you brain. Besides these and about 156 other reason pot is relatively safe.

However, The problem with potheads is they never stop at just the pot. just like the opiate user looks to bezos and amphetamines. The concurrent use of marijuana with any substance make for a good potentiating which by definition makes it alot more dangerous. Mixing pot with alcohol can be tragic, just like mixing it with opiates can be as well.

Mixing it with opiates and benzos is a RX for Death. If I could make a recommendation #1 pick a drug and just do that, or only use the meds prescribed to you by the doctor. #2 kiss your doc because he is way cooler than 99% of any other doctor in that situation you are very lucky. Good luck I hope it works out for you.
 
You don't need to take drug tests to get opiates and benzos...

Why would you consent to such a thing in the first place?

Also, THC has been proven to cure terminal cancer in rats. If you think there's something wrong with smoking pot, you're just as big of a hypocrite as the rest of America is. You can

http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v01/n572/a11.html

US: Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew In '74
by Raymond Cushing, (29 Mar 2001)

San Antonio Current United States
( Wednesday, March 28, The United States Supreme Court rules on whether marijuana use for medicinal purposes can be a valid defense on charges of marijuana possession. The following article was listed as one of the top 25 censored stories of the year 2000. We reprint it here and pose the question, why would the government want to keep us from knowing this? )

The term medical marijuana took on dramatic new meaning in February 2000, when researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis.

The Madrid study marks only the second time that THC has been administered to tumor-bearing animals. In 1974, researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institutes of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.

The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the events in his book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes. In 1976, President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out -- unsuccessfully -- to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."

The Madrid researchers reported in the March issue of Nature Medicine that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells, producing tumors whose presence they confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2, a synthetic compound similar to THC. "All the rats left untreated uniformly died 12-18 days after glioma ( brain cancer ) cell inoculation ... Cannabinoid ( THC )-treated rats survived significantly longer than control rats. THC administration was ineffective in three rats, which died by days 16-18. Nine of the THC-treated rats surpassed the time of death of untreated rats, and survived up to 19-35 days. Moreover, the tumor was completely eradicated in three of the treated rats." The rats treated with Win-55,212-2 showed similar results.

The Spanish researchers, led by Dr. Manuel Guzman of Complutense University, also irrigated healthy rats' brains with large doses of THC for seven days, to test for harmful biochemical or neurological effects. They found none.

"Careful MRI analysis of all those tumor-free rats showed no sign of damage related to necrosis, edema, infection or trauma ... We also examined other potential side effects of cannabinoid administration. In both tumor-free and tumor-bearing rats, cannabinoid administration induced no substantial change in behavioral parameters such as motor coordination or physical activity. Food and water intake, as well as body weight gain, were unaffected during and after cannabinoid delivery. Likewise, the general hematological profiles of cannabinoid-treated rats were normal. Thus, neither biochemical parameters nor markers of tissue damage changed substantially during the seven-day delivery period or for at least two months after cannabinoid treatment ended."

Guzman's investigation is the only time since the 1974 Virginia study that THC has been administered to live, tumor-bearing animals. ( The Spanish researchers cite a 1998 study in which cannabinoids inhibited breast cancer cell proliferation, but that was a "petri dish" experiment that didn't involve live subjects. )

In an e-mail interview for this story, the Madrid researcher said he had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate literature on it. Hence, the Nature Medicine article characterizes the new study as the first on tumor-laden animals and doesn't cite the 1974 Virginia investigation.

"I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original investigation by these people, but it has proven impossible," Guzman said.

In 1983, the Reagan/Bush Administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966-76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer, who states, "We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared."

Guzman provided the title of the work -- "Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids," an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute -- and this writer obtained a copy at the University of California medical school library in Davis and faxed it to Madrid.

The summary of the Virginia study begins, "Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol ( THC ) and cannabinol ( CBN )" -- two types of cannabinoids, a family of active components in marijuana. "Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size."

The 1975 journal article doesn't mention breast cancer tumors, which are featured in the only newspaper story ever to appear about the 1974 study -- in the "Local" section of The Washington Post on Aug. 18, 1974. Under the headline, "Cancer Curb Is Studied," it read in part:

"The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered." The researchers "found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers, and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."

Guzman, writing from Madrid, was eloquent in his response after this writer faxed him the clipping from The Washington Post of a quarter century ago. In translation, he wrote:

"It is extremely interesting to me, the hope that the project seemed to awaken at that moment, and the sad evolution of events during the years following the discovery, until now we once again draw back the veil, over the anti-tumoral power of THC, 25 years later. Unfortunately, the world bumps along between such moments of hope and long periods of intellectual castration."

News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually nonexistent in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb. 29, 2000 with a story that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature Medicine article. This writer stumbled on it through a link that appeared briefly on the Drudge Report Web page. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times all ignored the story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors.
Click to expand...

DESPITE this, I will still have to say...

You DO NOT have to get drug tested to get prescription medications. I don't see why you consented, especially when you know that you smoked weed.
 
Having illegal drugs in your system sends up red flags that you're a drug abuser, whether you are or not. It's then up to the doctor whether they wanna risk a theoretical lawsuit by continuing to prescribe addictive meds or not. Some do, some don't. Imagine if you needed an organ transplant and couldn't get one because of your MEDICAL MARIJUANA USE. It happens.

Tell the doctor the weed helps with your opiate-induced nausea if he asks. Say it potentiates the opiates so you don't have to take a higher dose, eases pain, and helps you sleep, all of which it's been scientifically proven to do. If he/she kicks you out, you need a more sensible, compassionate doctor anyway. Find someone else.
 
Nature never gives something, without taking something back.

I think both sides of the "dangerous or not" argument with pot have credibility to certain aspects.

Sure it might have potential to cure and treat diseases, including "boredom"... but the shit makes everyone I know (including myself) cough worse than smoking cigarettes do, with the added bronchial/chest irritation the day after smoking alot... meaning it probably isn't all that friendly with the respiratory system.

Brain damage is possible, if not that it's sure to at least throw your brain chemistry out of balance for a while.

People are so ignorant and/or just plain stupid sometimes. They often get blinded so much by their own desires and standpoints that they refuse to accept anything from the other side of the fence.

So let's face it, the potheads exaggerate their side of the story with a dream come true healthy " miracle drug", and the government exaggerates their side of the story with "THIS DRUG IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH". But what do these both sides have in common? They both follow their own beliefs. Make up your own mind people... and don't let other people make up your mind for you. Just because your best friends says it's good and healthy doesn't make it true, and the converse is true with the government. Now that that's said, I'm going to end this talking in circles I feel like I'm doing right now.
 
Well, see dude the way i see it, is Cannibis isent a drug. I say that because im a religous man, and there are many referances to things that i would say referance to weed.

But dude thats some shit.

At some of the schools here in indianapolis there testing athelets hair and blood stream.

I guess they can find out if youve smoke withing like the past 4-5 months by your hair.

And if our country is so "one nation under god" the DEA should stop PLAYING GOD and let narcotics run loose, because if someone wants to ruin there lives let them do it.

I dont like second hand smoke but i have to deal with it. So why can we put up with the naighboorhood crack head?

And plus poloticians are argueing against somthing they dont really know what its like.

There hypocrits.
Click to expand...

No...seriously? I'm new here and I like this forum because it gives me a chance to yell at people like yourself. First, learn to use proper English, even a good argument lacks credibility without it. Your arguments are miles away from good, however.

You say you are a "religious man". Ok. I assume what you are trying to say is the texts of whatever religion you subscribe to contain references to ganja. And this somehow makes canniboids not a drug? Do you even know what a drug is or what the excepted definition of the word is? I hate when people say that weed isn't a drug, coffee is a fucking drug.

You heard that some schools in your area are using hair tests? This is relevant how? Hair tests are nothing new and neither are razors.

What does second hand smoke have to do with crack? You have to tolerate second hand smoke so we can all tolerate crackheads in our neighborhoods, is that what you meant? Correct me if I'm wrong but I've never heard of anyone being hurt or killed as a result of Marlboro induced psychosis. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

And what exactly is a polotician? If you mean elected officials, as in politicians, then you are dead wrong. I'll agree many (most) are hypocrites, and that's because they "argue against" something even when most them do know what it's like. They know all too well what it's like (drugs I mean), and stand against their own vices to cover their own asses. Similar to a vehement homophobe who happens to be a closet case, another common trend among politicians.

For the record, I'm pro marijuana. I smoke nearly daily and have for years. I have no delusions that this a harmless habbit, nothing smoked can ever be harmless. Period. I just hate the fact that people like yourself give the rest of us a bad name. If you're going to fight the good fight, do so with intelligence and thought. Shooting your mouth off and spewing bullshit only helps the other side's position since your post could be cited as evidence that MJ does in fact cause serious brain damage.

Sorry if that was a bit off topic but after reading that I had to rant.
 
I could be wrong, but in that Madrid study I think they actually injected the tumors themselves with THC---they didn't simply get the mice high, so to speak.

A study released at nearly the same time, incidentally, showed marijuana use to significantly raise one's chances of developing one of the more aggressive forms of testicular cancer.

I love the "all natural" argument too.
 
^^ LOL yeah I was thinking the same thing.. mixing pot with opiates or any other drug, won't kill you faster.

I always said 'Weed is the plant from god, Opium Poppy is the plant from the devil.'

Weed's NEVER done me wrong, its the only mind altering substance that I have ever tried that has no bad side effects.

LEGALIZE~IT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top