Drugs

happening fish · Post by **happening fish** » 4/9/2006, 4:40 pm

Drugs made me get lost while trying to pick Jess up from the bus station :lol:

Olp_waited · Post 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

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 4/10/2006, 8:57 am

Go Down Fighting wrote:See......I am for the legalization of marijuana. Dispite all the mumbo-jumbo about the effects weed has on a person. I don't buy it. Weed is a natural drug......I do not see it as a big deal. I know lots of people that smoke the stuff, in fact.....a couple of adults that have smoked it almost their entire lives since they were like 15, and now in their mid 40's. I do not see where weed affected them in a bad way at all.

Personally, I feel that if weed is gonna be illegal, why is alcohol legal? More deaths occur EACH AND EVERY YEAR due to alcohol.

However, I feel that all other drugs should remain illegal. I do believe that other drugs do have strong and distinct consequences behind them.

I love alcohol.....but I can see where the weed smokers feel that they're getting the shaft. It's true.

peyote is a natural drug also, so should it be legal? as are mushrooms. alcohol kills so many people because it is in fact legal. when pot gets legalized, (and it will in my lifetime, i can see that) the number of deaths associated with weed will skyrocket to alcohol's figures as well.

happening fish · Post 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.

Bandalero · Post 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?

starvingeyes · Post 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.

Post 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...

starvingeyes · Post 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.

Post by **saman** » 4/10/2006, 4:14 pm

starvingeyes wrote: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.

really? the canadian lung association says the opposite thing if you have COPD. link me please?

and, uhh, the fact that you're saying that second-hand smoke diseases are a myth kinda makes it so that you are debating smoke being bad for your lungs.

Lando · Post by **Lando** » 4/10/2006, 4:33 pm

Saman is studying this kind of stuff in university. She's a GENIUS! :mrgreen:

Post by **saman** » 4/10/2006, 4:38 pm

i wouldn't say "genius". very smart, maybe...

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

what is "COPD"? and believe me i wish i could link you. all i can find so far is the stuff that's written on the back of my nicoderm box and i don't think that you'll buy a study coming from a stop smoking aid company.

although i should point out that it's only fair if i'm to buy your studies which are i'm sure, funded either by the man or the anit-tobacco lobby, neither of which are impartial.

Kathy · Post by **Kathy** » 4/10/2006, 5:15 pm

starvingeyes wrote: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.

We researched this heavily a few years ago. One cannot make such a general statement that 15 years smoke-free brings you back to the cancer risk of a normal person. There are lots of other factors to consider like one's age and other general health. The older you are when you quit, the worse chance you have of having your lungs heal significantly.

Post by **saman** » 4/10/2006, 5:24 pm

COPD is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, caused in this case by smoking.

also, the studies are peer-reviewed journal articles, like i said earlier. they're evaluated by a board responsible for publishing articles in these journals, which means that they are only published if they're sound, valid studies, regardless of where they get their funding. if the results are fudged in any way, or if it's a biased, unprofessional study, then it wouldn't be published in the first place.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » 4/12/2006, 8:16 am

Bandalero wrote:. when pot gets legalized, (and it will in my lifetime, i can see that) the number of deaths associated with weed will skyrocket to alcohol's figures as well.

Reno, I hope you do not firmly believe this statement. Legal or illegal.....there are hundreds of thousands of regular (two or three times per day) users in the United States.

You want to know how many deaths have occured since 1988? "Supposedly" two. Two! (Who knows if its true, I just recall reading that when I did a research paper about drugs)

Two people are dying as I type this message from alcohol. It's pathetic that our governing bodies function in such a manner.

Marijuana is safer to smoke than tobacco. Sooooo......yeah, that makes sense. Keep something that kills over 300,000 Americans per year, legal. Then keep weed (that literally kills nobody) illegal.

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

my point is that like statistics, the studies that spawn them can be manipulated to provide the result desired.

and i don't have COPD. so my lungs should be pink as a puppies nose by 2021. or at least that's what the dude in the lab coat on the DVD that came with my nicotine patches said. and believe me he LOOKS OFFICIAL.

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

Go Down Fighting wrote:
Bandalero wrote:. when pot gets legalized, (and it will in my lifetime, i can see that) the number of deaths associated with weed will skyrocket to alcohol's figures as well.

Reno, I hope you do not firmly believe this statement. Legal or illegal.....there are hundreds of thousands of regular (two or three times per day) users in the United States.

You want to know how many deaths have occured since 1988? "Supposedly" two. Two! (Who knows if its true, I just recall reading that when I did a research paper about drugs)

Two people are dying as I type this message from alcohol. It's pathetic that our governing bodies function in such a manner.

Marijuana is safer to smoke than tobacco. Sooooo......yeah, that makes sense. Keep something that kills over 300,000 Americans per year, legal. Then keep weed (that literally kills nobody) illegal.

well wait a minute, most if not all drunken driving accidents are associated with alcohol statistics. so why in the event that pot becomes legal wouldn't drugged driving be associated with drug related deaths?

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

There isn't actually a study that has proven marijuana impairs your driving abilities. It affects you in a wholly different way than alcohol does.

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

marijuana actually does NOT impair your road safety. only your REACTION TIME, not your REFLEXES are impaired while on weed. what's more, stoned people unlike drunk people are ACUTELY AWARE of their state (we call it "getting paranoid") and as a result are largely SAFER behind the wheel when high, because they are taking extra steps to avoid being caught.

personally speaking, i speed with abandon, run red lights and stop signs, don't signal lane changes and generally drive with NO REGARD whatsoever for the law. this is when i'm SOBER.

when high, i don't go a KM over the limit.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » 4/12/2006, 1:05 pm

Bandalero wrote:well wait a minute, most if not all drunken driving accidents are associated with alcohol statistics. so why in the event that pot becomes legal wouldn't drugged driving be associated with drug related deaths?

Sorry if i'm sounding bitter now......but how can you honestly (honestly) make that connection between the two, Reno? Why does it have to matter if it is illegal, or legal, to determine how many people DIE?

How many people have currently died due to driving on the influence of marijuana??? Just because it was made legal doesnt' mean the legal system is all of the sudden going to just say "for the heck of it" that somebody in a driving accident died due to marijuana because they had a dime-sack under the front seat.

The government along with practically everybody KNOWS that marijuana use is less serious than alcohol. Nobody with a stronger voice is willing to step up because marijuana has always been illegal.

If marijuana deaths REALLY did occur, it would be disclosed. Otherwise, its like saying that people that died from tobacco use MIGHT have died from smoking tobacco. But......we're all unsure.

:lol:

C'mon now....