ClumsyMonkey.net

Website · by **Olp_waited** » 4/9/2006, 5:29 pm

Me and three other friends got lost trying to get to a shinedown concert because we got off the exit that we were suppose to be on

by **Bandalero** » 4/10/2006, 8:57 am

by **happening fish** » 4/10/2006, 12:37 pm

Um, I sincerely doubt that. Evidence from places where it's already legal suggests nothing of the sort.

by **Bandalero** » 4/10/2006, 1:42 pm

so are you saying that accidents of people under the influence will not change when it's widely available as a public product?

by **starvingeyes** » 4/10/2006, 2:14 pm

reno most people who use marijuana do so in the privacy of their own homes etc. weed, unlike alcohol, is not a substance that is generally used socially. i mean come on man, it makes you paranoid. i HATE going out when i'm stoned and generally refuse to do so.

as such, despite the fact that your reaction time (not your reflexes, however) is impaired while you're high, the risk of accident on marijuana is not as high as alcohol.

besides, with alcohol you can OVERUSE it which can result in debilitating medical conditions. there are no such conditions assosciated with marijuana except for good old lung cancer, but if you smoke just weed that's not likely to be a problem for you.

this is because of course, your lung cells can regenerate and most independant science now suggest that unless you inhale a specific quantity of smoke, your lungs will be able to fully heal after 8 hours or some such shite. i'll try and find the study. this of course debunks the MYTH of secondhand smoke diseases as well but unfortunately, it has not for whatever reason been picked up by mainstream scientists yet. imagine that.

by **saman** » 4/10/2006, 3:01 pm

you're right. all cells in the body can regenerate from damage, including lung cells. however, it's a limited regenerative capacity. they can only heal up to a specific point of damage, and not a very high one at that. if a person only takes a whiff of second hand smoke, the minute amount of free radicals they inhale likely won't harm them, but if they're exposed to it for a substantial amount of time, it will be harmful to them.

so, the fact that lung cells can regenerate doesn't debunk the "myth" of second-hand smoke diseases, nor does it mean that smoking isn't a problem, because the regenerative capability of lungs is limited.

here's two peer-reviewed journal article i found about marijuana smoke and effects, 1 review and 1 study:
review - "Marijuana: Medical Implications": http://www.aafp.org/afp/991201ap/2583.html
abstract: Over 50 percent of people will use marijuana sometime in their life. While intoxication lasts two to three hours, the active ingredient in marijuana, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, can accumulate in fatty tissues, including the brain and testes. Adverse effects from marijuana use include decreased coordination, epithelial damage to the lungs, increased risk of infection, cardiovascular effects and cognitive deficits. Unexplained behavior changes, altered social relationships and poor performance at school or work can signify a drug problem.

study - "Oxidative Stress Produced by Marijuana Smoke": http://ajrcmb.atsjournals.org/cgi/conte ... /20/6/1286
bottom line of this study (because the abstract is too long): "We conclude that MJ smoke containing 9-THC is a potent source of cellular oxidative stress that could contribute significantly to cell injury and dysfunction in the lungs of smokers."

of course, these are only two studies, and ideally a good researcher would look at about 10 studies to make a definite conclusion, but i get the feeling that it wouldn't be too hard to find 10 studies about the adverse effects of marijuana use and smoke.

hmm, well, it's nice to know that all the research skills i've learned this year aren't going to waste...

by **starvingeyes** » 4/10/2006, 3:18 pm

uh, actually your lung cells can regenerate so fully that in fact even cigarette smokers have a hope of returning to a healthy state. for your average pack a day smoker, it will take 15 years from the end of your last cigarette for your cancer and other lung disease risk to be reduced to ~that of a normal person.

this information is widely available and as a smoker i can assure you that i have researched it. some of it even comes from the alberta government (AADAC etc.)

and nobody is debating that smoke is bad for your lungs, i'm just debating the notion that in the real world, pot-only smokers smoke enough pot for it to make a difference in their cancer risk.

by **saman** » 4/10/2006, 4:14 pm

by **Lando** » 4/10/2006, 4:33 pm

by **saman** » 4/10/2006, 4:38 pm

by **starvingeyes** » 4/10/2006, 5:14 pm

by **Kathy** » 4/10/2006, 5:15 pm

by **saman** » 4/10/2006, 5:24 pm

by **Neil** » 4/12/2006, 8:16 am

by **starvingeyes** » 4/12/2006, 11:47 am

by **Bandalero** » 4/12/2006, 11:56 am

by **closeyoureyes** » 4/12/2006, 12:11 pm

by **starvingeyes** » 4/12/2006, 1:04 pm

by **Neil** » 4/12/2006, 1:05 pm

ClumsyMonkey.net

Drugs

Who is online