The U.S. Government’s Department of Health Finally Admits That Marijuana Kills Cancer

No evidence that justifies your direct implications, m'am. Please stop running away from your own posts.

You're really not very good at this.

 

The fact you think so tells me I'm doing my job!

 

they can separate the THC from it, so the oil can be used medicinally without the pleasure.

right now it is being consumed unsafely because the smoke of it is dangerous to the lungs, and the high of it can lead to psychiatric disorders.

though the health risks are the same with cigarettes and alcohol, so until those are illegal due to safety concerns, it doesn't make sense to ban this.

 

You're job is to look foolish and run from your own posts?

Oh. OK.

 

It doesn't? Because I hit myself in the head with a hammer twice a day doesn't mean it's wise to up that to three times daily.

 

They all also used guns. Should we calculate that as well? I mean, if you're realistically trying to do a case study, then you would need a bigger group of individuals to pull from. Five individuals doesn't give you a good sampling.

If cannabis smoking is so bad and causes folks do to this, how come Michael Phelps is still allowed to swim? How come the Diaz brothers are still allowed to fight in the UFC? The fact is so many folks, in so many walks of life, have used this plant. Blame these individuals for doing these heinous crimes, not the medium.

To give a broader run down of some other folks who've used it, check out this Forbes article: http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/04/michael-phelps-marijuana-opinions-contributors_0204_dana_larsen.html

 

You are correct they can do this. However, in order to take in the full benefit of the cannabis plant, it's best to utilize the whole plant, in it's purest form. This is called the 'Entourage Effect'. So while these extracts are great for children and those who don't want to get that high feeling, the fact remains that the biggest benefit from this plant comes when it's taken it's truest form.

How is it being consumed unsafely? Taking edibles removes the risk of any damage to the lungs, even vaporizing it reduces that risk as well. Sure the high can lead to psychiatric disorders, but I think that is a chemical imbalance with the individual, in relation to the chemicals within the plant. This isn't a disorder across the board for all individuals, only some. Those individuals need to be watched and those individuals would probably even benefit from taking part of the plant versus all of it. However, until the cannabis plant is re-scheduled (Or not scheduled at all, in my opinion), hardly any research can be done on it.

Negative on the health risks equivalent to cigarettes and/or alcohol. Let me end that train of thought once and for all. Do you know how much cannabis one would need to ingest before you can actually kill yourself? While it's true, the total amount has never been quantified, but it's been estimated that an individual would need to ingest 1500lbs of cannabis in 15 minutes before they could truly overdose on it. http://www.hightimes.com/read/clinic-proof-its-almost-impossible-od-pot

So with that in mind, the health risks are no where near the same to that of cigarettes and alcohol. Try smoking 1500lbs of nicotine and/or drink 1500lbs of alcohol, I'd say within an hour, and tell me if the health risks are the same. They're not. To say otherwise is a blatant, flat out lie, one that I'm tired of hearing, quite frankly.

*EDIT* Seems like your sentence could've meant that the health risks are the same with cigarettes & alcohol, excluding cannabis from that equation. If that is the right way to take the statement, my apologies on the confusion. However, if you did mean to imply cannabis as the same as cigarettes & alcohol, my point remains. My point still remains if anyone does feel the health risks are the same, but if you meant the statement in a different fashion. Wanted to clear that out first.

 

The above says it all.

 

No it doesn't, as there is a Harvard study (http://www.leafscience.com/2013/12/08/marijuana-cause-schizophrenia-harvard-study-finds/), done two years after those two, that states the following:

Thus, as I said in many other posts, it's not the plant itself that is causing the psychosis, it's the chemical imbalances within the individual that are causing these symptoms to heighten. Cannabis isn't the issue, it's the individuals genetic makeup that is the reason behind this.

Please Professor, if you want to debate this topic with me, I highly recommend you coming at me with something better than that. Your move.

 

Personally I think there's an even stronger case to legalize LSD and psilocybin. These substances are the opposite of addictive, so that whole side of the prohibitionists argument is gone. I cannot see how someone would do LSD repeatedly each day without really having to force themselves.

Not only that, LSD is pretty much the gold standard for dose/overdose. It takes such an unimaginable amount of it to overdose, such that nobody but suppliers are likely to have that much in one place.

Finally, I think psychedelics have legitimate use for self-exploration. They aren't there to get a cheap high as you are with opiates and amphetamines.

 

So were 44% of their classmates, they and hundreds of millions of others have never done anything remotely like that, could it be that personal responsibility might play a part?

 

That posting is a joke right? What you posted was an article from a Pro Cannabis website of a study not available to the public unless one pays $31 to read it. So if you want to use that study as proof, please pay for it and make it available to the rest of us or you're just........blowing smoke.

http://www.schres-journal.com/article/S0920-9964(13)00610-5/abstract

 

if they ban cigarettes and alcohol, then they will have to ban fast foods for causing diabetes and obesity.

it can only go in one direction or the other with marijuana, and freedom is good.

 

No it isn't.

 

Tobacco and Alcohol are also psychoactive drugs.

Can your stereotypical religious canard. It's all bs and you know it.

Alcohol required a constitutional amendment to outlaw. Cannabis required only a rich news paper man and a DuPont to get rid of.

Big business interests again stomping out the small business potential, and the government acting in the interest of big business to deny, unconstitutionally, consumables and interstate commerce to the people.

 

Oh Professor, I love how you discredit something because you feel as though since it costs something, it automatically rejects the entire premise of the post. However, allow me to school the Professor on how to properly use the internet.

There is this website called http://scholar.google.com. The beautiful thing about this website is that you can search for various papers, such as the one that you don't want to pay $31 for, and you can find copies of it out on the internet. In fact, there are 17 references to this out there, and only the second one provides us with what you're looking for http://frihetspartiet.net/dokumenter/nihms655904.pdf

So I say again Professor, your move.

 

It all starts with one doobie. Then you'll end up dead in a ditch somewhere with a needle in your a@* and 69 tattooed on your forehead.

-Dad

 

You could be right, as I've never experienced either of those drugs. In my opinion, I'm all for legalization of all drugs, let it be up to the individual to determine what's best for them. If LSD or any other drug in the same realm can grant an individual the ability to feel whole, within their own skin, I say go for it. As long as they don't harm another individual, I don't see what the complaint is about.

If they do harm another individual, then there are laws built around protecting an individuals rights. As the saying goes, your rights end where my rights begin, simple as that.

 

To all those who think legalization will be great. It will inevitably lead to Big Tobacco taking over Big Pot. They have the money and the clout to do what Big Alcohol did.....corner the market. You can bet along with legalization "of use" growing your own will become VERY illegal. Having a still can land you in jail unless you meet all the regulations and have prior approval of paperwork to operate a distilled spirits plant.

You will pretty much have to buy Marijuana like you currently do with Cigarettes, from commercial growers. Of course like with tobacco, they will add fillers and chemicals so you'll need to smoke a whole lot just to get a good buzz going. Once Big Corporations and Big Government team up to get involved, you're not going to like the results. It happened already with Tobacco and Alcohol. The worst part is you'll never be able to go back again either. Big Pot (formerly tobacco companies) have the kind of money to pump into Congress to make sure you'll never go back. You'll see sin taxes on pot rise because the Government smells a new revenue stream and don't get caught with "non sanctioned" weed either, they'll put you in jail till you're ready for the grave. Then there's a thing called "property Forfeiture" which will work nicely when you owe huge fines and back taxes for growing your own that will surely be written in the national legalization law. Seriously, when was the last time you heard of alcohol or tobacco bootleggers? There's a reason for that.

 

30 different studies over 20 years compared to 1 study you posted. You've got 29 more to come up with.

BTW: There were several limitations to this study that should be mentioned. The most important is that our sample size for each sample is small.

I see why you didn't want to post the actual study.

 

Professor, come now, I clearly posted up the actual study, don't try to muddy the waters unnecessarily. It does neither of us any good.

However, I can continue to up the ante with as many studies as you want. In the end, it will still come down to the same thing, it boils down to the individuals makeup. Not everyone will have psychosis episodes from using cannabis. Certain individuals will have it show cased, but that's only because the underlying factors were already there.

That should wet your whistle a little bit more. Again, correlation doesn't equal causation. More studies need to be done but cannabis doesn't cause this, it just highlights it in the individual. However, one could even argue that maybe having this highlighted could help the individual get real helpful treatment for their underlying issues.

It's all in how you look at it.

 

it should be classified as a medicinal plant, and charities should be set up to give free plants away with instructions on how to upkeep it.

that could take away the profit incentive from both government and private businesses.

 

Let's stick to your original "proof" study for now.

Small sample size and relying on subjects "memory" for family history......Quite scientific don't ya think?

 

The U.S. Government’s Department of Health Finally Admits That Marijuana Kills Cancer

My Wife's brother-in-law (a life-long Colorado resident) had cancer.

He smoked pot all his life since he was a teenager.

He smoked pot throughout his cancer.

"They" said, "Use this cannabis extract. It doesn't get you high and it cures cancer."

My Wife's brother-in-law was buried three weeks ago.

 

It's not going to happen that way and you know it. The States that have legalized cite tax revenue stream as one of the reasons for doing it.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry about your brother in law.