• CD Moderators: someguyontheinternet
  • Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

Myths About Pot

tylerwashere said:
no matter how much clinical research suggests you will never find a marijuana user robbing someone for weed money, or spending their food money on a dime bag of herb. Even people who abuse marijuana, smoke a quarter ounce a day even, will not be in the bathroom throwing up or begging their friends for money when their funds run out and they cannot buy any weed for a day or two. The two dont even belong is the same category, and those who say they do have not seen both drugs from a real life perspective.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
tylerwashere said:
and whats the line between using marijuana responsively and abuse by the way?
Click to expand...
All depends on the person IMO.
 
I love you guys automatically jump from "its not as bad" to "its not bad at all". Denialism, pure and simple.

Marijuana is addictive.
MWS is well documented.

I have been an opiate addict for 3 years myself, I know what opiate withdrawal feels like. The difference, I have seen hundred and hundreds of patients who have also withdrawn from opiates, marijuana, benzos, etc. My clinical experience is you "real life" experience multiplied by the number of patients I have seen. Also, because you are an opiate addict, your opinion of what is considered "hard" is different. For example, if I get shot, and then get a finger taken off, the experience of the former will cause me to think the latter is less painful than the former. To someone who is not an opiate addict, the withdrawal will seem more severe.

Precisely because you have done both, you are not able to empathize with your average marijuana addict.

The line, by the way, is when it becomes a problem and you refuse to stop (or at least that is where I prefer to draw the line). Example, you get a notice that you will be drug tested a couple months in advance, and instead of abstaining you take the test knowing you will fail and get fired. That would be considered a problem.
 
^
Most of my friends are daily pot smokers (but have never used any hard drugs) and have had to stop after long-term use due to various reasons. And guess what they all said? "Eh, I feel kinda off, I'm bored all the time, and I have some trouble sleeping".

Just being an opiate addict doesn't make me incapable of understanding what marijuana w/d is (I'm just a realist). Also, I'm not sure if you were referring to someone else, but I never said "its not bad at all". However the fact is, for most, its pretty damn minor and not a big deal at all.

And thats what sets marijuana apart from other drugs, pretending they are the same is just ignorant.
 
Last edited:
The withdrawals for thc are less severe than for any other narcotic and thats a fact.
 
All I want to say is, Virtuoso, where have you seen everyone say that pot is not harmful at all? None of us are trying to say that marijuana is completely safe, its a myth as you said in your first post. But, we are trying to say that it is much safer than other drugs like opiates, with a much lower addiction potential. We aren't jumping from 'it's not as bad' to 'it's not bad at all' in anyway from what I can tell. We are consistantly staying at 'it's not as bad.' Something that you don't seem to want to accept. Yes marijuana causes some withdrawl symptoms with heavy longterm use, but it is in no way shape or form anywhere near as addicting as something like heroin, other opiates, cigarettes, alcohol, or cocaine.

Marijuana is harmful. But not as much as most of the other recreational drugs out there today.

Also you wanted numbers on the clinic admissions, http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/393/mjtreatment.shtml , only 16.8% of marijuana admissions were done willingly by the patient themselves. I know I was forced to go through "treatment for marijuana addiction," and I know what a bunch of bullshit, and a waste of money, it is. I dunno what kind of clinic you work at, but your numbers don't sound reasonable to me.

"These numbers essentially reaffirm what we've been saying for years -- that the purported increase in marijuana treatment admissions is not due to any increased potency or even people checking themselves in voluntarily, but almost exclusively to the increase in the number of people arrested, who are then given the choice of treatment or serving time in jail," said Paul Armentano, senior policy analyst for the National Association for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "Naturally, they take treatment."
Click to expand...
 
Virtuoso said:
3. Its safer than smoking cigarettes.

Actually, it has almost the exact same carcinogen profile as cigarettes. If you smoke as much weed as an average cigarette smoker, you have an equal likelihood of developing cancer (about 20% ).
Click to expand...

"carcinogen profile" doesn't necessarily mean "cancer risk"

and i followed your link, where even NIDA admits:

"Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer; however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers. Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time."

here's the study they were referring to.

i wouldn't repost, except you reposted the same misinformation.

obviously the shit's not harmless. social anxiety, exacerbation of pre-existing mental illness, turning lazy jackasses into even lazier jackasses, etc. but this claim that marijuana smoke and cigarette smoke are somehow comparable has been chumped by science pretty soundly.
 
Last edited:
Dr.DOB said:
The withdrawals for thc are less severe than for any other narcotic and thats a fact.
Click to expand...

THC isn't a narcotic. The term narcotic (used correctly) refers to opiates. The word narcotic comes from the Greek word "narkos" meaning "sleep"

Weed is defiantly addictive. I know people who can't go six hours without THC.
 
HAHAHHAHA i would go to treatment for beating off too much before going for smoking too much jazz plants

gtfo virtuoso
 
Virtuoso said:
I believe that because its true. Dude, I work with addicts almost every day. I actually have the clinical expertise to discuss this.

Alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, benzodiazepines, opiates

They all change the functioning of the dopaminergic pathways, they all can create negative behavior, they all can make people unhappy, and they all can have deleterious effects on an individual's health. The disease of addiction is almost identical between individuals (causes, methods of successful treatment, etc) even if the DOC isn't.
Click to expand...

If you truly work in a clinic of some sort, then the people you deal with are either people who can't use drugs responsibly, or who are being made to go by a parent or court.

Overall I don't even see the purpose of what you're trying to accomplish with this thread. If you think people here are going to read your lies and just stop smoking put, you should go blow your hot air up someone elses ass.
 
In fact, marijuana addiction is the number two most common addiction after alcohol in the clinic I work at.
Click to expand...
alcohol is among the only drugs with "death" as a common side effect of physical withdrawal and remains legal since upper(&middle) class white male middle aged politicians drink & profit from it.

"Marijuana" (formerly Cannabis Sativa L.) is curing cancer. This treatment is being suppressed since big pharma cant patent/make money from a plant.

Running from the cure
please watch that video before commenting farther on a subject you know little to or nothing about.
4. It has no physical withdrawal.
Click to expand...

Back up there buddo, do you even know what "physical withdrawal" is?

Cocaine will produce very unpleasant side effects similar to what you've described when abruptly ceasing after heavy use. Going without this drug WILL MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE; However, this does not imply a substance has "physical withdrawal".

Its insulting to us addicts for you to insinuate cannabis has a physical withdrawal.

Heroin has physical withdrawal but it will take 6+months of constant use to produce.. Most heroin users have not done this and claim to have experienced physical withdrawal. I've no doubt they've experienced uncomfortable mental withdrawals but comparing the two is apples to oranges. You'll see first hand what i mean if/when you get there.

6. Its safer than other drugs because its "natural".

This is the stupidest argument of the bunch. Everything is made out of chemicals, from cocaine, to condoms. Whether it is grown in nature or in a lab is completely inconsequential.
Click to expand...
This statement shows your ignorance. I will have to agree with one part of this statment though..
This is the stupidest argument of the bunch.

Compare JWH-018 and thc or Synthetic delta9tetrahydrocannabiol(Dronabinol) to the real deal. Then you will see just have vastly different synthetics produced in a lab are compared the nature's medicine.

It sounds like you've no substance abuse experience what so ever. Is it because you work in a detox/rehab you assume you know what those experiences are like?
 
double ewe said:
"carcinogen profile" doesn't necessarily mean "cancer risk"

and i followed your link, where even NIDA admits:

"Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer; however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers. Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time."

here's the study they were referring to.

i wouldn't repost, except you reposted the same misinformation.

obviously the shit's not harmless. social anxiety, exacerbation of pre-existing mental illness, turning lazy jackasses into even lazier jackasses, etc. but this claim that marijuana smoke and cigarette smoke are somehow comparable has been chumped by science pretty soundly.
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070731085550.htm

and then they have this which goes against ^ this
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051019003339.htm
 
Last edited:
double ewe said:
but this claim that marijuana smoke and cigarette smoke are somehow comparable has been chumped by science pretty soundly.
Click to expand...

They are still pretty much the same.



Marijuana and Tobacco Reference Cigarette Analysis of Mainstream Smoke


Strange Abbr: mcg: microgram C? : known Carcinogen (X means yes)
A.Cigarettes
Units Marijuana Tobacco
(85mm) (85mm)
Average Weight (mg) 1115 1110
Mositure ( % ) 10.3 11.1
Pressure Drop cm 14.7 7.2
Static Burning rate mg/s 0.88 0.80
Puff Number 10.7 11.1


B.Mainstream Smoke
I. Gas Phase Units Marijuana Tobacco
Carbon Monoxide % 3.99 4.58
mg 17.6 20.2
Carbon Dioxide % 8.27 9.38
mg 57.3 65.0
Ammonia mcg 228 199
HCN mcg 532 498
Cyanogen (CN)2 mcg 19 20
Isoprene mcg 83 310
Acetaldehyde mcg 1200 980
Acetone mcg 443 578
Acrolein mcg 92 85
Acetonitrilebenzene mcg 132 123
Benzene mcg 76 67
Toluene mcg 112 108
Vinyl chloride ng 5.4 12.4
Dimethylnitrosamine ng 75 84
Methylethylnitrosamine ng 27 30
pH, third puff 6.56 6.14
fifth puff 6.57 6.15
seventh puff 6.58 6.14
ninth puff 6.56 6.10
tenth puff 6.58 6.02


II. Particulate phase Units Marijuana Tobacco
Tl particulate - dry mg 22.7 39.0
Phenol mcg 76.8 138.5
o-Cresol mcg 17.9 24
m- and p-Cresol mcg 54.4 65
Dimethylphenol mcg 6.8 14.4
Catechol mcg 188 328
Cannbidiol mcg 190 0
D9 THC mcg 820 0
Cannabinol mcg 400 0
Nicotine mcg 0 2850
N-Nitrosonornicotine ng 0 390
Naphthalene mcg 3.0 1.2
1-Methylnaphthalene mcg 6.1 3.65
2-Methylnaphthalese mcg 3.6 1.4
 
Zzyzx said:
They are still pretty much the same.
Click to expand...

that's the exact same thing i already refuted. i'm referring to the actual effect on the lungs, not the chemical profile.

from arobskittle's links:

"although cannabis smoke and tobacco smoke are chemically very similar, evidence suggests that their effects are very different and that cannabis smoke is less carcinogenic than tobacco smoke."

"But emphysema, the progressive and crippling lung disease, was only seen in those who smoked tobacco, either alone or in combination."

and from the landmark study on lung caner rates among chronic marijuana users:

"The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer."

i'm not saying bong hits all day are good for your lungs. i'm saying that the chemical similarities between marijuana and tobacco are not grounds for the assumption that their effects are also similar.
 
Last edited:
i don't have the time to get the science right now, but here's my basic understanding:

THC encourages the death of damaged cells. the smoke DOES damage your lungs. however, the damaged cells are more likely to die and slough off, rather than mutate and become cancerous. you're still better off vaporizing, as it reduces your risk of things like bronchitis and COPD.

likewise nicotine, from what i understand, tends to preserve and mutate these damaged cells, making them more likely to multiply and become cancerous.

i'm not the stoner touting weed as a wonder-drug. until recently, when i came across the research, i was of the same mind-set -- it's still smoke, it's still gonna give you cancer. but these are robust studies by people who didn't expect (or likely desire) their results.
 
Burning plant material in your lungs IS NEVER good for you. Burning ANYTHING in your lungs is obviously not good for you.

The leading worldwide expert on lung health announced recently that marijuana does not cause lung cancer in his study on the effects of cannabis and the lungs. In fact, Donald P. Tashkin, M.D, Professor of Medicine, Medical Director of the Pulmonary Function Laboratory, Geffen School of Medicine, thinks it’s about time to legalize marijuana. Yep the guy the opposition has paid for the last 30 years to slag weed thinks marijuana should be legalized. Oh, by the way…he’s just as surprised by the results of the study, which finally demonstrates once and for all that there is no statistical link between pot and lung cancer, as you are.

“What we found instead was no association between cancer and smoking marijuana and even some suggestion of a protective effect, “ says Tashkin.
Click to expand...
link theres a video of the doctor talking on that page.



Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; A03


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.
Click to expand...
link


GAMEOVER to you "Marijuana causes lung cancer" kids! DONT BE AH FOOL; STAY IN SCHOOL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top