The Cannabis Conspiracy

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

It should be noted that hemp is a strain of cannabis, not the gender of the plant.

I understand that. I was saying that because it is a unique trait that fit in with what the poster I replied to was saying.

I was wrong anyway.. apparently you can tell the gender of some flowers by eyesight alone.

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
The history behind this specific prohibition has many documentaries.

I was amazed how people just believed what they were told back then. Is it any wonder we don't believe them now?

Many people STILL believe what the government tells them.

At least back then, people had more reason to trust the government. That was a time before politicians were widely known to be liars, crooks, and puppets controlled by the highest bidder.

a reply to: knightsofcydonia

That's a study from 2007. Here is one from 2012 from Science Daily as well.
Marijuana smoke not as damaging to lungs as cigarette smoke, study suggests

Summary:

Using marijuana carries legal risks, but the consequences of occasionally lighting up do not include long-term loss of lung function, according to a new study. In the study in which participants had repeated measurements of lung function over 20 years, occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function.

A bit of the text from the study:

"At levels of marijuana exposure commonly seen in Americans, occasional marijuana use was associated with increases in lung air flow rates and increases in lung capacity," Kertesz says. "Those increases were not large, but they were statistically significant. And the data showed that even up to moderately high-use levels -- one joint a day for seven years -- there is no evidence of decreased air-flow rates or lung volumes."

Kertesz cautions that smoking marijuana is not an avenue to better lung health.

"It's not enough of an increase that would make you feel better," he says "Healthy adults can blow out 3 to 4 liters of air in one second. The amount of gain, on average, from marijuana is small, 50 ccs or roughly a fifth of a can of coke. So it's not something that would be noticeable."

Also, Kertesz says, the increase does not hold steadfast over time.

"The relationship changes for people who get to high levels of lifetime exposure," he says. "At that point, the data suggests there is a decline in lung air-flow rate. There also may be other damaging effects that don't manifest until extremely high levels of exposure; we did not have enough very heavy marijuana smokers in this study to determine this."

Comparing the two studies is moot. The date of publishing does not disqualify the evidence I presented which is the fact that marijuana smoke contains higher levels of certain toxicants than tobacco.

The misleading article you presented simply says that small increases in lung capacity are seen by an average of 50cc's over a long period of time of chronic smoking (several years)
If your goal is to increase your lung capacity, I can assure you there are much more suitable avenues than inhaling smoke.

Although the potential benefits of cannabis cultivation are countless, I am simply WARNING you to not fall victim to your own confirmation bias.

Smoking marijuana is highly addictive and a very dangerous drug for most. Once again, the more the "potheads" defend this, the more addicted they are. This is fact.

Notice how your rebuttals to my irrefutable evidence receive more stars?? This just further proves my point that users are unwilling to be open to accepting evidence that it’s not ALL good.


I am a proponent of legalization but people should tread with caution. a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: Answer

Today its most definitely denial.

a reply to: knightsofcydonia

My article wasn't misleading. It was showing that marijuana smoke doesn't destroy your lungs, but can even improve the functionality of your lungs. This is to contrast your study that says that the carcinogens in the marijuana smoke are more numerous than the ones in nicotine smoke. Also another note, I never suggested that one should smoke marijuana to improve their lung functionality, I was just pointing out that this is a good thing.

Though I'd also have to say that we all know that any type of smoke inhalation is bad for you. It's a good thing that we have edibles as well. You don't HAVE to smoke marijuana, you can very well eat it. Which removes ALL the effects of smoke inhalation.

Your addiction statistics are misleading. Here is a CLEARLY anti-marijuana government article on drug abuse (so I'd argue that these stats are inflated and probably lower than this) in reality. DrugFacts: Marijuana

Contrary to common belief, marijuana is addictive. Estimates from research suggest that about 9 percent of users become addicted to marijuana; this number increases among those who start young (to about 17 percent, or 1 in 6) and among people who use marijuana daily (to 25-50 percent).

So basically it isn't really that bad for once in a while smokers and it all comes back to the use in moderation thing. Though, marijuana addiction isn't nearly as bad or as damaging as alcohol addiction or heroin addiction.

Since we are throwing dates of studies out the window, here is a study from 1997 and revised in 2003 where doctors ranked six different recreational drugs on their addictive properties.
I. Addictiveness of Marijuana vs. Five
Commonly Used Drugs

Your logic:


"Marijuana smoke doesn't destroy your lungs, but can even improve the functionality of your lungs.I was just pointing out that this is a good thing"
+
"Though I'd also have to say that we all know that any type of smoke inhalation is bad for you"



= Contradicting your own logic.





Just giving stoners another ridiculous reason to justify their addiction..I can hear it already "Oh, man but didnt you know it tooootallly increases your lung capacity... so I can like.. breathe more.man its soo good for you, you should try it..oh and I voted for Obama.."

I can can agree that orally active intake is a great alternative as well as moderation, though.





.a reply to: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: knightsofcydonia
Your logic:


"Marijuana smoke doesn't destroy your lungs, but can even improve the functionality of your lungs.I was just pointing out that this is a good thing"
+
"Though I'd also have to say that we all know that any type of smoke inhalation is bad for you"

= Contradicting your own logic.

Actually if you read the paragraph I posted from that link (you didn't even have to read the whole page) you'd have seen that data suggests that increased usage may be bad for you, but they didn't have enough participants in the study to verify this. So it it good for you in small doses (kind of like that glass of wine a day thing), but in larger doses it may be bad for you. Again, we all know that smoke inhalation is bad, but marijuana clearly appears to be not as bad as nicotine despite the carcinogens.

Just giving stoners another ridiculous reason to justify their addiction..I can hear it already "Oh, man but didnt you know it tooootallly increases your lung capacity... so I can like.. breathe more.man its soo good for you, you should try it..oh and I voted for Obama.."

Wow thanks for the stereotype... Nothing like propagating the Reefer Madness burnout loser image of stoners despite the COUNTLESS amounts of evidence that shows that that stereotype isn't true. By the way, I am a Libertarian. I didn't and would never have voted for Obama. For someone who was trying to take the argumentative high ground over me by accusing me of rationalizing away evidence, your stooping to baseless pandering and sensationalism isn't helping your position.

I can can agree that orally active intake is a great alternative as well as moderation, though.

At least we can agree on something.

I did not intend to personally target you in particular. My frustrations are directed more at the far left liberals who have been rendered useless through chronic use of these psychedellic plants and their beneficial properties.

I think it's a drug that requires a tremendous level of respect, like any other natural hallucenogen.

Terrence Mckenna has a plethora a books pointing out the contribution of natural psychedllics and how they have indirectly contributed to our biological evolution as well as our consciousness.

We should remain open to new evidence though, even if it may be contrary to what we WANT to believe.
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Has anyone of you watched the documentary "The Union - Business behind getting high"? I think it is on of the best documentaries out there regarding this topic.

I think pot should be legalized. We should at least try that avenue.

Having said that though, I hate being around potheads and stoners. They are stupid, forget everything, can't focus on you when you're talking to them, change subjects randomly in the middle of conversations, zone out, looking at stupid stuff like leaves, all the time. I can only imagine how miserable everyday life would be for the rest of us. Unbearable.

Just as I don't let Drunks in my store or house or anywhere around me, I have zero tolerance for potheads and the same applies.

a reply to: TechUnique
Here's the thing though, I'm in full support of cannabis decriminalization, but not the legalization. A few other things, cannabis is not less harmful than tobacco, however it is less harmful than cigarettes. As we all know, cigarettes are FAR more dangerous than just regular tobacco.There is plenty of info to back this up. Smoking anything is bad for you, there is other means of using cannabis which are better for our health than burning and inhaling. I am all for people using the medicine they really need to help their diseases and to make them feel better. However, there is a bit of a problem, despite the benefits of the medicine, all of the people abusing it, like other medications, make it the problem. There is plenty of risks from using cannabis. It can trigger psychotic episodes, and bring up underlying mental disorders. Despite everything, this plant has ruined A LOT of peoples lives throughout history. I understand that it is fully up to the subjectivity of individuals but still there is objective evidence to support there is still a presence of negative outcomes regarding the use of the drug.

If it helps you, great! If it doesn't awesome! But, do NOT go around shoving it in peoples faces as a cure all. That right there is a HUGE problem. The fact there seems to be this shift in mentality of "oh, you have a headache? Smoke a joint!" or "you have an ache in your back? Smoke a joint!" "had a bad day? Smoke a joint!" This plant is not a fail safe method of improving life, for people like me and a LOT of other people it affects them negatively and has no good and then a lot of the time when the pushers try their push on us, and we say no, that we don't like it, we become some sort of alien, like we're not right in the head for not smoking weed. It's ridiculous.

a reply to: knightsofcydonia

It's clear you have never used cannabis. Cannabis isn't a dangerous drug even if it was addicting (which it isn't) it isn't dangerous. I've quit using it multiple times with no side effects. (aside from Mario Party not being as fun) It isn't hard to quit at all. Even after staying high every waking hour for months on end.

While it does contain some toxins when smoked, it has yet to be linked to lung cancer. There was even a study that showed that those who smoke cannabis and tobacco are less likely to get cancer than those who smoke tobacco alone.

I've been around cannabis users for over a decade, most of them you wouldn't even know smoked unless you saw them do it.

If you want to see something that is dangerous, you should see what happened to my liver after my alcoholic years.

You know nothing of my personal habits and your arrogance hath shone through.. a reply to: kotu44

originally posted by: knightsofcydonia

Just giving stoners another ridiculous reason to justify their addiction..I can hear it already "Oh, man but didnt you know it tooootallly increases your lung capacity... so I can like.. breathe more.man its soo good for you, you should try it..oh and I voted for Obama.."


.a reply to: Krazysh0t

Now who's the one showing bias? You impression of those who use marijuana as collective "stoners" or "potheads" who speak in a way only seen in stupid TV is very telling.

Yeah, the pseudo science and hysteria over cannabis would be funny if it hadn't ruined and/or ended so many lives over the hundred years of illegality.

The manufacturing and fuel potential for this plant are still amazing... despite most folks thinking these properties are exaggerated due to "pot heads" wanting their recreational drug made legal... they are not exaggerated... though most users (or even dabblers and many non users) do, indeed, want it made legal.

All the arguments against this plant being made legal are ignorant and fallacious at best... evil at worst.

I am glad that in this single case of cannabis, anyway, some rationality is finally surfacing in the U.S.

And not ALL proponents are users, btw... most proponents are simply informed... ETA as can be seen in the negative responses in this thread that employ stereotypes, generalizations and all the debate tools of people who are biased with no factual basis for it.

a reply to: Erich94

If people avoid you because you don't smoke weed, you have some terrible friends. Yes not everyone has a good reaction to weed, and not everyone has a good reaction peanut butter. Doesn't mean we should keep it in the black market. By having it legal and out in the open, it reduces crime and makes it much safer.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

That was not really directed at you. Someone posted that hemp is just a male marijuana plant, which is not correct.

With this plant being so imbedded in pop culture, there are many enthusiasts who go around making false claims about the plant. This gives those still fighting to extend Pothibition some validation.

Regardless, it will be legal in most if not all the US States in less than a decade. That is my prediction.

a reply to: jrod

Thanks for pointing that out, drives me insane when people call hemp the male cannabis plant. It is misinformation that has been going around for many years. Hemp includes both male and female plants, only difference now days is potency.