Marajuana is bad for youuuuu

OK so me and my friends have recently been discussing the legalization issue of marajuana. personally i dont think the actual cannabis harms your brain at all nor does it have any long term effects.My friends however say that there is evidence that states that marajuana is harmful/ So i asked my friends to give me articles that prove me wrong. I was wondering if you guys had any special articles/sources that prove the safety or benefits of marajuana so i can properly make my case since im not really an expert :p

Tell your friend to watch "The Union"

There is no evidence that states it is harmful, only evidence that states it isn't.

As above, watch The Union

download 'The Emperor Wears No Clothes'.you should get all the facts and exposed lie's you'll ever need in there. :-D

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against weed smokers and I will get around to watching the Union but do some people really believe there are absolutely no harmfull effects from weed? I'm pretty sure constant use has an effect on your lungs in the form of respiratory irritants and gaseous toxins. Basically as I understand it anything that isn't Oxygen is not good for your lungs. Smoking in any form whether weed or cigarettes facilitates the deposition of carcinogens in your airways. Also I've not seen any studies on this but I'm sure I remember being taught that raising the temperature of the lungs in the form of inhaled smoke weakens the cilia. However this would likely depend on how frequently you smoke.

Now let me state I'm not against legalisatin of weed. I mean if Alcohol and Cigarettes are legal then so should Weed. However lets be cautious against claims that it isn't harmfull in any way because for your lungs it definetly can be over time.

Just wrote a ten page paper on the benefits of medicinal marijuana. I did probably 100 hours worth of research between sceintific documentaries and books written by doctors etc. There is no scientific proof of the claims that have been made over the years. Check out topdocumentaryfilms.com or hit up the library system there are hundred of books written by credible sources and thousands of acedemic articles as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James III

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against weed smokers and I will get around to watching the Union but do some people really believe there are absolutely no harmfull effects from weed? I'm pretty sure constant use has an effect on your lungs in the form of respiratory irritants and gaseous toxins. Basically as I understand it anything that isn't Oxygen is not good for your lungs. Smoking in any form whether weed or cigarettes facilitates the deposition of carcinogens in your airways. Also I've not seen any studies on this but I'm sure I remember being taught that raising the temperature of the lungs in the form of inhaled smoke weakens the cilia. However this would likely depend on how frequently you smoke.

Now let me state I'm not against legalisatin of weed. I mean if Alcohol and Cigarettes are legal then so should Weed. However lets be cautious against claims that it isn't harmfull in any way because for your lungs it definetly can be over time.

---

that is very true, but you don't have to smoke weed to take it either. you could always eat it, if prepared properly, and i may be wrong but I didn't think vaporizers had any smoke in them and they are room temp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James III

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against weed smokers and I will get around to watching the Union but do some people really believe there are absolutely no harmfull effects from weed? I'm pretty sure constant use has an effect on your lungs in the form of respiratory irritants and gaseous toxins. Basically as I understand it anything that isn't Oxygen is not good for your lungs. Smoking in any form whether weed or cigarettes facilitates the deposition of carcinogens in your airways. Also I've not seen any studies on this but I'm sure I remember being taught that raising the temperature of the lungs in the form of inhaled smoke weakens the cilia. However this would likely depend on how frequently you smoke.

Now let me state I'm not against legalisatin of weed. I mean if Alcohol and Cigarettes are legal then so should Weed. However lets be cautious against claims that it isn't harmfull in any way because for your lungs it definetly can be over time.

---

Check out alternative forms of consumption that do not require burning organic plant material which could over time lead to such ailments. Vaporisers, edibles, teas, renderings in milk based solutions. The union is good but also check out Cannabis: the Evil Weed? put out by the BBC and was very informative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James III

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against weed smokers and I will get around to watching the Union but do some people really believe there are absolutely no harmfull effects from weed? I'm pretty sure constant use has an effect on your lungs in the form of respiratory irritants and gaseous toxins. Basically as I understand it anything that isn't Oxygen is not good for your lungs. Smoking in any form whether weed or cigarettes facilitates the deposition of carcinogens in your airways. Also I've not seen any studies on this but I'm sure I remember being taught that raising the temperature of the lungs in the form of inhaled smoke weakens the cilia. However this would likely depend on how frequently you smoke.

Now let me state I'm not against legalisatin of weed. I mean if Alcohol and Cigarettes are legal then so should Weed. However lets be cautious against claims that it isn't harmfull in any way because for your lungs it definetly can be over time.

---

Actually it's a lung cleanser, thc has anti-tumor properties :)

anxiety reactions to marijuana are quite common. sometimes, this can lead to depersonalization and derealization. these two symptoms of panic disorder can last months at a time. as well, it can lead to issues of anxiety disorder during withdrawals. marijuana is not all fun.

yes, i am a professional board certified therapist (masters level). i have seen this in my office as recent as last week. it is not all that common, but it still occurs. please dont act like putting a chemical into your brain will have zero effects. our brain is a consistency slightly harder than jello. it is extremely sensitive, even to marijuana.

btw, documentaries are not quality information, no matter how much you want them to be. they are not peer reviewed and they are made to entertain.

as much as you wish you could get a college level education from discovery channel, you cant

Hi sorry everyone I should have said my comment referred only to smoking weed in relation to it's effects on the lungs. Yes in other forms it would be less harmfull. However smoking it is obviously the most popular way for many. I will definetly watch 'The Union' and 'Cannbis the evil weed'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay JC Chow

Actually it's a lung cleanser, thc has anti-tumor properties :)

---

Yes Weed contains the chemical T.H.C which has been shown to be effective for a variety of ailments including cancer tumours. However sorry to point out it does not clense the lungs from the harmfull of actualy smoking weed. THC does not stop the spread of of respiritory irritants and gaseous toxins in the lungs. It also does not stop the deposition of carcinogins in your airways. Also it does not stop the Cilia from increasing in temperature from the smoke.

Zoraiz... I'm no expert, but I'm thinkin combusted butane from a bic lighter could be worse for your lungs than the Marijuana itself. That may be your friends ONLY point... Evenso the best way around that is to VAPE!!! To be objective I have attached a link that discusses the facts of inhaled butane... From what I'm reading the butane is not even all that harmful?!?!

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...8120127AAwOgXC

Looks like your friends don't have a leg to stand on cause I know the WEED is not bad 4 ya!

Peace!

I just did a presentation in my Mens Health class about cancer and i brought up the topic of marijuana use. The class was extremely interested as you could imagine in a college course lol. But i gathered up a bunch of peer-reviewed research about it and I was shocked to find that THC inhibits cancer cell growth rate by approximately 60% and it also prevents cancer cell metastasis meaning it greatly slows its spreading. It does this by binding to epithelial growth factor receptor sites on the cell. Its pretty interesting shit if you ask me. There are tons of instances in which it is beneficial. But i do agree with Brent in that it could affect the mind in other ways such as the anxiety stuff....but i think that really just depends on the person. It's certainly not for everyone. I dated a girl who has smoked everyday since she was 15 and she's smart as hell and a fully functioning adult. On the other side, i know a guy who has let it consume him and he's an idiot about it all. It really depends on the person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James III

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against weed smokers and I will get around to watching the Union but do some people really believe there are absolutely no harmfull effects from weed? I'm pretty sure constant use has an effect on your lungs in the form of respiratory irritants and gaseous toxins. Basically as I understand it anything that isn't Oxygen is not good for your lungs. Smoking in any form whether weed or cigarettes facilitates the deposition of carcinogens in your airways.

---

Thats funny cause the air we breathe isnt even 25% oxygen, so that means around 80% of our air is harmful to us? Not so true man. Also, THC (the chemical that gets you high) has been proven to be anti-carcinogenic. Smoking weed is definatly healthier than smoking cigarettes. Healthier for body and mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James III

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against weed smokers and I will get around to watching the Union but do some people really believe there are absolutely no harmfull effects from weed? I'm pretty sure constant use has an effect on your lungs in the form of respiratory irritants and gaseous toxins. Basically as I understand it anything that isn't Oxygen is not good for your lungs. Smoking in any form whether weed or cigarettes facilitates the deposition of carcinogens in your airways. Also I've not seen any studies on this but I'm sure I remember being taught that raising the temperature of the lungs in the form of inhaled smoke weakens the cilia. However this would likely depend on how frequently you smoke.

Now let me state I'm not against legalisatin of weed. I mean if Alcohol and Cigarettes are legal then so should Weed. However lets be cautious against claims that it isn't harmfull in any way because for your lungs it definetly can be over time.

---

There are NO negative effects to your lungs if you use a vaporizer. Its used for asthma patients as a bronchialator to cleanse the lungs and assist with clean breathing. The main issue with inhalation is the carcinogens, change the delivery system and you remove carcinogens. The propaganda most people have heard for years is bullshit and is not based on fact or research.

I used to work in a top cannabis club in Northern CA, and have researched the debate for years. The problem is perfectly described in your wording. You ask for a way to "prove the safety" of marijuana, but that is not really doable. There is no test for harmlessness, and that has never been the standard for a legal drug. You can show that it is physically impossible to OD: if you ate (and could somehow digest) pure thc, your stomach would explode before you absorbed enough to OD, and if you injected it into your bloodstream, you would die from blood dilution before you OD'ed. But federal-level research in not allowed due to its ridiculous scheduling, so proof is hard, even in the form of animal testing. The issue should be looked at backwards. Ask your friend for proof that it does any type of harm. When he says it's bad for your lungs, explain vaporizers and volcanoes. Then see what else he has got. After that, if you need to counter his arguments, PM me. There's all types of evidence, like a UCLA study a few years back that showed strong direct ties to cannabis slowing down the rate of growth of many forms of cancer. The fact is, most arguments against THC are stigma and taboo. The same people who claim it is harmful are the ones who have made it illegal for them to prove themselves correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandon Jeffries

Thats funny cause the air we breathe isnt even 25% oxygen, so that means around 80% of our air is harmful to us? Not so true man.

---

I think this is just a question of semantics here. I never said the lungs can only take in pure 100% Oxygen otherwise it gets damaged. Of course the air we inhale is a mixture of gases including nitrogen, oxygen, water, argon, carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Basically I should of said anything which isn't the natural AIR we normally breathe can be seen as a gaseous Toxin by the lungs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandon Jeffries

. Also, THC (the chemical that gets you high) has been proven to be anti-carcinogenic.

---

I was under the impression that any burnt substance when inhaled like Tabacco, Weed or even just plain paper leaves carcinogens in your airways. How can THC eliminate that 100%? Is there a particular study you can show me as I would interested to read that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Herzog

There are NO negative effects to your lungs if you use a vaporizer.

---

As I explained earlier I was referring to it just being smoked the traditional way as that is the most common way people do weed,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Herzog

The main issue with inhalation is the carcinogens, change the delivery system and you remove carcinogens.

---

Yes it is the carcinogens which are definetly the problem when just inhaled without a vaporizer. I have not seen enough research to comment on vaporizers though. I will definetly find time soon to watch those two documentarys mentioned. Like I said I don't have a problem with Weed smokers or it being legalised. I just think it's important to clarify the effects on the lungs when some people say Weed is 100% safe and does absolutely no harm whatsoever. I mean even if you just think logically if someone smokes weed (without a vapourizer) everyday for 30 years and you compare their lungs to someone the same age who never smoked then there is of course going to be a difference. Now it just recognising that there is an effect on the lungs that I'm concerned with. I have no problem with people smoking, getting drunk or getting high. If cigarettes and alcohol are legal then so should Weed. I just think people shouldn't delude themselves it has zero negative effects when smoked without a vapourizer.

Okay obviously it's going to have some effect on your brain, but when there's research that shows that it doesn't kill brain cells but makes brain cells grow, that surely is a positive effect, no? I agree that in some people there is anxiety problems but as Dustin says, that highly depends on the person.

If it hasn't got any negative effects on your lungs when done with a vaporizer then I don't see where the problem is, except in the way its taken in? So it's not the Marijuana thats the problem but the "tool" used for it. The problem for me is that the vaporizer costs £400 here, for a decent one anyway. Im pretty sure that puts off a lot of people.

I agree with brent now matter what you put in your body will have an effect. Shitty food, drugs, whatever. The chemicals effect every person in simililar but different ways. For some people they will become anxious for other it will relieve anxiety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay JC Chow

The problem for me is that the vaporizer costs £400 here, for a decent one anyway. Im pretty sure that puts off a lot of people.

---

True true... One thing you guys can check into (And perhaps it should be a new thread) are the LOWER cost ceramic/flame vapes. I personally have never used one but I've always been curious. If you dont know what I'm talking about they look like a torpedo or basic one-hitter and cost around $70USD. A flame is utilized (VS hot air) but the marijuana is never ignited, its protected by a ceramic disk that is heated and vaps the THC wth zero flame contact...

Coments? Experience?

As a respiratory therapist, I only have a few comments [start snickering now...]:

1) Absolutely. Burning ANYTHING and inhaling the smoke does harm to the lungs. To my knowledge, there have been no studies comparing the use of a vaporizer to other methods of inhalation or ingestion (but I'm a little skittish about using the very powerful search tools at the hospital. I'd rather not have to explain in somebody's office why I was looking up papers on marijuana on work time.). That said, the use of a vaporizer seems to be at least theoretically MUCH better. Burning something not only vaporizes some of the the THC but creates an aerosol of smoke particles. A vaporizer (at least a good one) should only produce molecular gas. The particles are the problems, not the THC.

2) There have been some well-performed studies that do seem to show a negative effect on cognition and short-term memory for long-term, chronic users. The big problem with every study I've ever read is that -- because of the federal scheduling of marijuana -- it is very difficult to get ANY study approved. It's very hard to show a treatment effect or composite effects when your sample size is severely limited. At best, you can show individual effects. Just look at the studies required to get a drug past the FDA to market. It takes years of rigorous work with enormous sample sizes to demonstrate safety and efficacy and we STILL find drugs after-the-fact that shouldn't have gone to market. Compare that to a study of marijuana with 30 people in it and you can see why it's so hard to get anywhere with the research at the professional level.

3) Agreed that documentaries -- while useful -- are not peer-reviewed research. I think what they do provide is a different perspective from which to begin a search for more information.

My biggest complaint with people citing studies (not just on marijuana but even just at my normal job) is often they cannot tell you anything about the actual research -- what was the authors' hypothesis? What methods were used? Do the methods described actually test the hypothesis? What were the conclusions the authors drew and do the methods and results actually support that conclusion or are the authors taking some license? What were the stated and/or implied limitations of the study? Do the mathematics test what the authors state? What other statistical test could be used to check the results? Not many people have the academic wherewithal to critique original research. People who can't tell you difference between an hypothesis and a theory or what a chi-square test means and tests feel fully qualified to judge the merits of a professionally peer-reviewed journal article. At best, they read the authors' conclusion (or worse, what someone else wrote about the study in some news article) and take what like and ignore what they either don't like or don't understand. Outside of work I have met damn few people who can really read and critique a scientific paper.

Marijuana is far safer than alcohol or tobacco and any argument that applies to keeping marijuana illegal also applies to either or both of those. As was pointed out, it is impossible to ingest enough THC to overdose -- you can kill yourself the first time you drink. Any marijuana smoker who smoked the equivalent of a pack-a-day of cigarrettes would be baked out of their mind 24/7 and likely be non-functional for the vast majority of their day. It's pretty hard to maintain the kind of smoking habit in marijuana that leads to smoking-related illness from tobacco (typically, we start really expecting to see smoking-related illness at about 20 pack-years. Pack-years are the number of packs-per-day times the number of years smoked; pack a day for 20 years, half a pack for 40 years, etc... 20 pack-years of marijuana is a shit-ton of weed.).

If alcohol is legal; if tobacco is legal; if vicodin is legal; if prozac is legal; if valium is legal then there is no reasonable argument for keeping marijuana illegal.

Shit. I did it again. One of these days I'm gonna write a post that's less than a page...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brent_littell

anxiety reactions to marijuana are quite common. sometimes, this can lead to depersonalization and derealization. these two symptoms of panic disorder can last months at a time. as well, it can lead to issues of anxiety disorder during withdrawals. marijuana is not all fun.

yes, i am a professional board certified therapist (masters level). i have seen this in my office as recent as last week. it is not all that common, but it still occurs. please dont act like putting a chemical into your brain will have zero effects. our brain is a consistency slightly harder than jello. it is extremely sensitive, even to marijuana.

btw, documentaries are not quality information, no matter how much you want them to be. they are not peer reviewed and they are made to entertain.

as much as you wish you could get a college level education from discovery channel, you cant

---

Dude, I guess you're a brown belt and you must have graduated college or something, but why are you talking down to people (deny it all you want, but I think that's what you are doing)? Is that how you like to be treated? You know....peer reviewed scholarly journals print retractions and get things wrong like everything else. And it's also filled with boxed in thinking. Excuse me if I prefer to be entertained by the discovery channel or PBS, but college isn't teaching me anything about Tesla or anything interesting. It's all textbook bullshit! Boring!! Fucked up!! These subjects they're teaching are boundlessly interesting until they bind and limit it into this retarded focus that's supposed to somehow give me a decent paying job...maybe...if I'm lucky. One of these days I'm going to smash this machine with my suggestive skills and maybe then people will forget snobbery and dismissive behavior...or not. Whatever...maybe I'm being a little dismissive myself. I hate getting sucked in like this. So I'm going to stop now and respect your opinion. It is grounded in some logic after all. :D Have a nice day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Hyatt

As a respiratory therapist, I only have a few comments [start snickering now...]:

1) Absolutely. Burning ANYTHING and inhaling the smoke does harm to the lungs. To my knowledge, there have been no studies comparing the use of a vaporizer to other methods of inhalation or ingestion (but I'm a little skittish about using the very powerful search tools at the hospital. I'd rather not have to explain in somebody's office why I was looking up papers on marijuana on work time.). That said, the use of a vaporizer seems to be at least theoretically MUCH better. Burning something not only vaporizes some of the the THC but creates an aerosol of smoke particles. A vaporizer (at least a good one) should only produce molecular gas. The particles are the problems, not the THC.

2) There have been some well-performed studies that do seem to show a negative effect on cognition and short-term memory for long-term, chronic users. The big problem with every study I've ever read is that -- because of the federal scheduling of marijuana -- it is very difficult to get ANY study approved. It's very hard to show a treatment effect or composite effects when your sample size is severely limited. At best, you can show individual effects. Just look at the studies required to get a drug past the FDA to market. It takes years of rigorous work with enormous sample sizes to demonstrate safety and efficacy and we STILL find drugs after-the-fact that shouldn't have gone to market. Compare that to a study of marijuana with 30 people in it and you can see why it's so hard to get anywhere with the research at the professional level.

3) Agreed that documentaries -- while useful -- are not peer-reviewed research. I think what they do provide is a different perspective from which to begin a search for more information.

My biggest complaint with people citing studies (not just on marijuana but even just at my normal job) is often they cannot tell you anything about the actual research -- what was the authors' hypothesis? What methods were used? Do the methods described actually test the hypothesis? What were the conclusions the authors drew and do the methods and results actually support that conclusion or are the authors taking some license? What were the stated and/or implied limitations of the study? Do the mathematics test what the authors state? What other statistical test could be used to check the results? Not many people have the academic wherewithal to critique original research. People who can't tell you difference between an hypothesis and a theory or what a chi-square test means and tests feel fully qualified to judge the merits of a professionally peer-reviewed journal article. At best, they read the authors' conclusion (or worse, what someone else wrote about the study in some news article) and take what like and ignore what they either don't like or don't understand. Outside of work I have met damn few people who can really read and critique a scientific paper.

Marijuana is far safer than alcohol or tobacco and any argument that applies to keeping marijuana illegal also applies to either or both of those. As was pointed out, it is impossible to ingest enough THC to overdose -- you can kill yourself the first time you drink. Any marijuana smoker who smoked the equivalent of a pack-a-day of cigarrettes would be baked out of their mind 24/7 and likely be non-functional for the vast majority of their day. It's pretty hard to maintain the kind of smoking habit in marijuana that leads to smoking-related illness from tobacco (typically, we start really expecting to see smoking-related illness at about 20 pack-years. Pack-years are the number of packs-per-day times the number of years smoked; pack a day for 20 years, half a pack for 40 years, etc... 20 pack-years of marijuana is a shit-ton of weed.).

If alcohol is legal; if tobacco is legal; if vicodin is legal; if prozac is legal; if valium is legal then there is no reasonable argument for keeping marijuana illegal.

---

Got damn. Good Shit though

^ Tesla is the man! Talk about someone that was at least a century before his time!!! BTW THC shouldn't be classified as a chemical or a drug... It is produced by the human body, so it can be elevated or decreased, but not eliminated...

Problem Solved...
http://www.vapenow.com/VaporGenie-Po...FYnd4Aod2DNV0Q

I got mine and it works perfect. Vape for only 50 bucks!

1) Vapes don't create smoke, so the argument that inhaling any type of smoke is bad does not cover them. Smoke is created by the combustion (Burning) of carbon in plant material, which occurs at a much higher temperature than vapes. What happens is that the heat explodes the trichomes (essentially crystals full of THC) releasing them into the air in a vapor-like form.
2) Check out heat guns. The heating element is exactly the same as a volcano, and they stand up on end the same way generally. They are like $40-$75, unless you want a digital control system, which is about twice that. Then all you have to do is buy a volcano kit to put on top of it.

Fantastic post Jason, :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandon Jeffries

Problem Solved...
http://www.vapenow.com/VaporGenie-Po...FYnd4Aod2DNV0Q

I got mine and it works perfect. Vape for only 50 bucks!

---

Brandon, then my question is did you have to fuck around with flame distance, duration or intensity. They just seemed so inconsistent to me... Hold the flame longer/shorter??? Ugh! I also was afraid of half-ass buring off my THC and not getting full reps if ya know what I mean. Easy sailing? I trust your assesment...

Too much of anything is a bad thing....except bjj of course. Hell, take too many aspirins and I bet that will be your last damn aspirin. Moderation is key...but what can I say, I wake and bake at least every other day( give or take).

I think a lot of people take pot too seriously. And I also think people care wayyyy too much about it.
Yeah, I don't care if people smoke, it's no big deal. But for some people, smoking pot is ALL they do and ALL they talk about. It's ridiculous. I've smoked less than ten times, and I get nothing remarkable out of it. The way I see it it doesn't do me any good or bad. It's mostly a leisurely activity.

I know it pretty much has no harmful affects to you physically, but it can fuck shit up in mysterious ways. One of my best friends as you would say, used it as a gateway drug. After getting into pot, he thought ..hmm? what other things could I do that would get me high? Kid wound up in the hospital twice near death from pills and other things, I helped him get back on his feet after that. Tried getting him into MMA and Jiu Jitsu, but he just quit and went right back to everything including pills like adderall. The thing is, is that I don't consider him a friend anymore and I owe it all to his ex pot head/junkie ex girlfriend who got him into this shit.

Oh geez.. the only ones who want you to think cannabis is bad is the DEA and those who would lose substantial money if the plant was legalized. Organizations like petroleum, textiles (cloth, canvas, etc), tree farmers (for paper), big pharm, alcohol industry, etc.. THAT is the reason it's illegal and no other. The studies conducted to prove brain damage were all slewed (see the Union it explains the studies), also there has not been one incident of cancer attributed to cannabis smoke. The reason cigarettes are so toxic and deadly is because of the 7000 chemicals that are added to the raw tobacco, or used as fertilizer. Polonium 210 is part of the fertilizer used in tobacco and it's also the radioactive element that killed that russian spy a few years back. Comparing cigarettes to a joint is ridiculous.. they're not the same thing. If plant matter gave cancer all the forest fire fighters out there would have cancer.. anyway there are studies on youtube that show THC killing cancer cells.. there are many studies if you google that also show the good properties of the plant. Also, the US Govt owns a patent on cannabinoids used as pain killers..

Some people are just idiots.. has nothing to do with the cannabis... the fact that they're abusing other drugs proves that..