Study proves smoking pot causes "coughing and wheezing"!!!

onelongsong

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Oh yes...it's definitely up there. Resins abound. I don't understand people who mix in tobacco, especially if they don't smoke cigs....good way to get addicted to smoking if you ask me.

If it was legalized, they could develop killer potent strains so all you would need is one or two inhales....good for hours.

This pre-historic weed has the potential to put many big pharmaceuticals out of a lot of business. I think the government figured that out pretty quick with their G13 marijuana grow project.

That's the reality of it in my opinion.

government pot is the highest quality. i got to try G-25 and it beats the best hydro. i hear they have new; more potent strains now. what few people realize is that different strains produce different reactions. for example; hawiian sativa will keep you wide awake and wanting to work. hawiian indica will put you down for hours. cross breeding the two cancells out the effects.
when the world became smaller through frequent air travel; strains got cross bred and some lost potentcy. mexican weed is almost worthless.
here's a website for those interested in different strains and the effects they produce.
http://billstclair.com/emeryseeds.html

Drowned Out

surferdude wrote:

Gee, so the anti-drug people have just adopted the same type of scientific analysis as the IPCC and global warming group.

There's so much bullshit out there that at this point I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do. When I see the type analysis being presented I know applying just a little common sense to my decisions will make for better analysis and decisions than just about anything being offered up by the scientfic community.

The thing is: you're smarter than the average bear. Most people read this drivel and take it as fact.
I agree with you about the way information is presented…this is the case with pretty much any special interest group….or person, really.
But comparitively, I think if the green folks are lying or manipulating….it's not as big a deal as the lies over prohibition. Prohibition is hurting the world on so many levels…the green movement, while having potentially negative financial/economic implications, is making the world a better place…. even if you believe that their approach is similar, the end result is much different.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

surferdude wrote:

Gee, so the anti-drug people have just adopted the same type of scientific analysis as the IPCC and global warming group.

There's so much bullshit out there that at this point I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do. When I see the type analysis being presented I know applying just a little common sense to my decisions will make for better analysis and decisions than just about anything being offered up by the scientfic community.

Depends what comes across to you as common sense I suppose. I posses it in healthy quantities, and am told that frequently. I think nymytree's post above pretty much sums up the environmental impacts on food that are obvious.

onelongsong

Drowned Out wrote:

The thing is: you're smarter than the average bear. Most people read this drivel and take it as fact.
I agree with you about the way information is presented…this is the case with pretty much any special interest group….or person, really.
But comparitively, I think if the green folks are lying or manipulating….it's not as big a deal as the lies over prohibition. Prohibition is hurting the world on so many levels…the green movement, while having potentially negative financial/economic implications, is making the world a better place…. even if you believe that their approach is similar, the end result is much different.

the green movement started in the 60's and has proven that man can live with nature and keep the balance. the others have proven that man cannot. people are more worried about second hand smoke than all the sulfur dioxide they breathe in. the same people refuse to take responsability for what they have done to the planet.
i don't think it's so much HOW information is presented; but how people interpret it. people see only what they want to see.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I see a huge waste of money on a mild euphoric, safer than alcohol, natural plant that was here millions of years before man.

Who has the right to say what it is, and what is done with it? Nobody owns it, nobody owns me. If I hurt no one (including myself) what exactly is the issue?

That's what I see.

onelongsong

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I see a huge waste of money on a mild euphoric, safer than alcohol, natural plant that was here millions of years before man.

Who has the right to say what it is, and what is done with it? Nobody owns it, nobody owns me. If I hurt no one (including myself) what exactly is the issue?

That's what I see.

and you haven't touched the medicinal uses. chemo is proven to harm the body. yet it is allowed as a treatment. pot not only stops the nausea but gives the patient an appitite. it also relieves pain.
so are we banning pot because it makes you cough? breathing city air makes me cough. maybe we should ban breathing altogether.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

onelongsong wrote:

government pot is the highest quality. i got to try G-25 and it beats the best hydro. i hear they have new; more potent strains now. what few people realize is that different strains produce different reactions. for example; hawiian sativa will keep you wide awake and wanting to work. hawiian indica will put you down for hours. cross breeding the two cancells out the effects.
when the world became smaller through frequent air travel; strains got cross bred and some lost potentcy. mexican weed is almost worthless.
here's a website for those interested in different strains and the effects they produce.
http://billstclair.com/emeryseeds.html

Yeah I tried a fair bit of the "supposed" G13. Rumor has it that the famous rasta guy Soma of Soma seeds in the Netherlands is a member of the church of the universe and he got some (a cutting from a plant that was snuck out of the gov't operation) and shared some of the seeds to a head shop local to me run by another reverend of the same "church". The place was actually called the G13 shop. This head shop was actually selling the stuff right out of the store on a medical license. They got busted just recently becasuse the whole place was essentially a grow op. Yeah really potent stuff.

True one hitter type stuff. Two puffs and you're good for about 3 hours.

Interesting plant indeed.

Drowned Out

onelongsong wrote:

i don't think it's so much HOW information is presented; but how people interpret it. people see only what they want to see.

I agree with this to an extent. I think the main problem is a lack of critical thinking, not necessarily seeing what you want to see. I'm sure many people read articles like the one above with complete indifference....and because they don't really care about the topic, they don't even think to examine what is being presented. they just read it, accept it and move on. I took an interest in marketing when I was in my early teens...I have always found it interesting to see the ways companies try to manipulate us into buying their product....I think that led to me reading between the lines in everything I see thru the media.

If we're talking environment and marijuana, we should point out what is probably an even bigger farce than the war on drugs, the continued interference with the hemp industry. If governments were serious about helping the environment , they'd be encouraging farmers to grow it instead of fighting it.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

onelongsong wrote:

and you haven't touched the medicinal uses. chemo is proven to harm the body. yet it is allowed as a treatment. pot not only stops the nausea but gives the patient an appitite. it also relieves pain.
so are we banning pot because it makes you cough? breathing city air makes me cough. maybe we should ban breathing altogether.

I totally agree. Diesel fumes make cough and feel sick.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I can buy this at pretty much any super market and it's quite tasty.
http://www.globalhempstore.com/hemp-food/natures-path-hemp-cereal.html

A really easy and tasty drinking beer available at all Canadian beer stores:
http://www.thebeerstore.ca/beers/branddetails.asp?id=7553

close...but no cigar

Drowned Out

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I can buy this at pretty much any super market and it's quite tasty.
http://www.globalhempstore.com/hemp-food/natures-path-hemp-cereal.html

A really easy and tasty drinking beer available at all Canadian beer stores:
http://www.thebeerstore.ca/beers/branddetails.asp?id=7553

close...but no cigar

ya, that barely scratches the surface...but hey, I like my cereal and beer, too! There are a lot of products on the market that use hemp (at least in Canada)...but we are nowhere near it's potential.

I actually know the guy that was given one of the first (the first?) permits to grow commercial hemp in Canada....he was mayor of Grand Forks BC at the time....and the hoops he went thru, the BS he dealt with was unreal....just to get one small-ish hemp co-op running. It's sad how it's the same old shit when it comes to hemp....people still don't get that it's not psychoactive...you still hear people raising concerns about people stealing plants n whatnot....grrrrr...perfect example: I just looked for a link to the HEMP co-op and the site was blocked by my company's network......

forbidden - reason: drugs/illegal drugs :mad:

...now I probably just set off some kind of flag in IT...fuck sakes.

soulsinging

in other news, BP has just gotten permission to dump mercury into one of our last large drinking water supplies for the next 5 years. im sure they don't have the money to clean it up or change it due to those record profits they posted last quarter...

norm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maia-szalavitz/reefer-inanity-never-tru_b_58353.html

Watching the media cover marijuana is fascinating, offering deep insight into conventional wisdom, bias and failure to properly place science in context. The coverage of a new study claiming that marijuana increases the risk of later psychotic illnesses like schizophrenia by 40% displays many of these flaws.

What are the key questions reporters writing about such a study needs to ask? First, can the research prove causality? Most of the reporting here, to its credit, establishes at some point that it cannot, though you have to read pretty far down in some of it to understand this.

Second -- and this is where virtually all of the coverage falls flat -- if marijuana produces what seems like such a large jump in risk for schizophrenia, have schizophrenia rates increased in line with marijuana use rates? A quick search of Medline shows that this is not the case -- in fact, as I noted here earlier, some experts think they may actually have fallen. Around the world, roughly 1% of the population has schizophrenia (and another 2% or so have other psychotic disorders), and this proportion doesn't seem to change much. It is not correlated with population use rates of marijuana.

Since marijuana use rates have skyrocketed since the 1940's and 50's, going from single digit percentages of the population trying it to a peak of some 60% of high school seniors trying it in 1979 (stabilizing thereafter at roughly 50% of each high school class), we would expect to see this trend have some visible effect on the prevalence of schizophrenia and other psychoses.

When cigarette smoking barreled through the population, lung cancer rose in parallel; when smoking rates fell, lung cancer rates fell. This is not the case with marijuana and psychotic disorders; if it were, we'd be seeing an epidemic of psychosis.

But readers of the AP, Bloomberg, The Washington Post, and Reuters were not presented with this information. While CBS/WebMD mentioned the absence of a surge in schizophrenia, it did so by quoting an advocate of marijuana policy reform, rather than citing a study or quoting a doctor. This slants the story by pitting an advocate with an agenda against a presumably neutral medical authority.

Furthermore, very little of the coverage put the risk in context. A 40% increase in risk sounds scary, and this was the risk linked to trying marijuana once, not to heavy use. To epidemiologists, however, a 40% increase is not especially noteworthy-- they usually don't find risk factors worth worrying about until the number hits at least 200% and some major journals won't publish studies unless the risk is 300 or even 400%. The marijuana paper did find that heavy use increased risk by 200-300%, but that's hardly as sexy as try marijuana once, increase your risk of schizophrenia by nearly half!

By contrast, one study found that alcohol has been found to increase the risk of psychosis by 800% for men and 300% for women. Although this study was not a meta-analysis (which looks at multiple studies, as the marijuana research did), it certainly is worth citing to help readers get a sense of the magnitude of the risk in comparison with other drugs linked to psychosis.

Of course, if journalists wanted to do that, they would also cite researchers who disagree with the notion that marijuana poses a large risk of inducing psychosis at all, such as Oxford's Leslie Iversen, author of one of the key texts on psychopharmacology, who told the Times of London that

"Despite a thorough review the authors admit that there is no conclusive evidence that cannabis use causes psychotic illness. Their prediction that 14 per cent of psychotic outcomes in young adults in the UK may be due to cannabis use is not supported by the fact that the incidence of schizophrenia has not shown any significant change in the past 30 years."

Such comments don't help the media stir up reefer madness, which they've been doing, quite successfully, for the last few decades. Perhaps covering the marijuana beat makes you crazy.

NMyTree

soulsinging wrote:

in other news, BP has just gotten permission to dump mercury into one of our last large drinking water supplies for the next 5 years. im sure they don't have the money to clean it up or change it due to those record profits they posted last quarter...

Oh fuck. Where'd hear about this?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Drowned Out wrote:

ya, that barely scratches the surface...but hey, I like my cereal and beer, too! There are a lot of products on the market that use hemp (at least in Canada)...but we are nowhere near it's potential.

I actually know the guy that was given one of the first (the first?) permits to grow commercial hemp in Canada....he was mayor of Grand Forks BC at the time....and the hoops he went thru, the BS he dealt with was unreal....just to get one small-ish hemp co-op running. It's sad how it's the same old shit when it comes to hemp....people still don't get that it's not psychoactive...you still hear people raising concerns about people stealing plants n whatnot....grrrrr...perfect example: I just looked for a link to the HEMP co-op and the site was blocked by my company's network......

forbidden - reason: drugs/illegal drugs :mad:

...now I probably just set off some kind of flag in IT...fuck sakes.

yeah, to get high from hemp you'd have to smoke a garbage bag's worth and you'd probably puke, shit yourself, or choke up a lung first. Probably get a better high off scraping the wheels of your lawnmower.

The gov't is run by a bunch of phobic, out of touch, dried up dinosaurs.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

cutback wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maia-szalavitz/reefer-inanity-never-tru_b_58353.html

Huffington post seems like one of the very few places you can essentially trust what you read.

nice find.

Staceb10

Anything you smoke for any extended period of time is going to affect your lungs. I guess they have nothing better to do a study on?

NMyTree

Staceb10 wrote:

Anything you smoke for any extended period of time is going to affect your lungs. I guess they have nothing better to do a study on?

Correct.

If you (or anyone ) were to barbacue every single meal, every day; the smoke from the BBQ would damage your lungs.

hippiemom

NMyTree wrote:

Oh fuck. Where'd hear about this?

8 towns stand up against BP plan
By Susan Kuczka | Tribune staff reporter
9:07 PM CDT, July 30, 2007

Mayors from eight North Shore communities joined U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) on Monday in announcing plans to fight the proposed discharge of significantly more ammonia and industrial waste into Lake Michigan by the massive BP oil refinery in Whiting, Ind., after years of effort to clean up the Great Lakes.

"Any time you start putting more pollution into the lake, it's a concern," said North Chicago Mayor Leon Rockingham, who joined officials from Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lake Bluff, Lake Forest, Waukegan and Wilmette in announcing formation of the Shoreline Mayors Task Force to address lake issues such as pollution.

BP recently won approval from Indiana regulators to exempt the company from state environmental laws as it prepares for a $3.8 billion expansion that will allow it to refine heavier Canadian crude oil. Under BP's new water permit, the company, which already is one of the largest polluters of the Great Lakes, can release 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more suspended solids, or tiny particles of pollutants that come from sludge.

Although the amounts are still below federal water-quality standards, BP's new permit represents the first time in years that a company has been allowed to increase the amount of pollution it dumps into the lake.

In addition, the new water permit gives the refinery until 2012 to meet stringent federal limits on mercury discharges even though the federal government had ordered states to severely limit mercury discharges into the Great Lakes more than a decade ago.

Ammonia promotes algae blooms that can kill fish, while suspended solids contain heavy metals such as lead and nickel. Mercury threatens the health of humans and fish.

Last week, Gov. Rod Blagojevich joined federal lawmakers in blasting BP on Capitol Hill, leading to overwhelming passage of a House resolution to condemn the plan.

In its defense, BP, the nation's fourth-largest refinery, said it was investing $150 million in upgrades to its current wastewater treatment plans while using the best available technology in the facility to protect the lake from dangerous pollutants.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials Peter Swenson and John Mooney also offered assurances at Monday's news conference that the pollution discharges at the plant would not jeopardize the safety of the lake for humans or fish.

The assurances, however, did not satisfy Kirk or the suburban mayors whose communities border the lakefront.

"This is mind-baffling," said Waukegan Mayor Richard Hyde, whose city is working on a $1.2 billion plan to improve its once industrial shoreline into a residential hub. "It all comes down to, the big guys are going to do what they want to do anyway."

The suburban mayors vowed to exert as much pressure as possible on environmental regulatory officials, Indiana officials and BP to scrap the plan.

"We all have to stick together," said Highwood Mayor Vincent Donofrio.

Kirk said he would propose legislation to remove federal tax benefits from BP or any company that seeks to increase harmful discharges into the lake. Such measures could make such plans too unprofitable to go forward, Kirk said.

But the 10th District lawmaker from Highland Park also questioned how the permits had been issued by EPA officials in the first place.

"If pollution is allowed to increase in the Great Lakes, there's something wrong with the system," Kirk said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070730pollutionjul30,1,5540831.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

soulsinging

hippiemom wrote:

8 towns stand up against BP plan
By Susan Kuczka | Tribune staff reporter
9:07 PM CDT, July 30, 2007

Mayors from eight North Shore communities joined U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) on Monday in announcing plans to fight the proposed discharge of significantly more ammonia and industrial waste into Lake Michigan by the massive BP oil refinery in Whiting, Ind., after years of effort to clean up the Great Lakes.

warms your heart and your third arm don't it?