Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Living eventually kills you. In the meantime I will continue to enjoy a glass or two of wine every night and, the occasional toke on a warm Spring day. Never wanted to live forever.
Living eventually kills you. In the meantime I will continue to enjoy a glass or two of wine every night and, the occasional toke on a warm Spring day. Never wanted to live forever.
Of course we all eventually die...I just love when posts appear like this.
My son in law picked up cigs at 10, stopped when first child was born in his 40's and along the way grew and smoked grass, he died of lung cancer at 55. It spread everywhere in his body. Never saw his first born graduate high school and now enter college. At 79, no way do I want to destroy my lungs.
I use some CBD ointment on my knee but it doesn't do much re: pain.
I do not believe WEbMD is completely reliable.
There are several articls out there on it.
All the smoke and mirrors and thread derailling doesn’t take away from the fact that it is pretty darn plain and simple, put something in your lungs other than O2 and gases, it could cause a problem.
Mayo Clinic vs. WebMD: Another Perspective | TIME.com
The New York Times Magazine on Sunday included a rather befuddling column by departing writer Virginia Heffernan. It recommended that people seeking medical information online block WebMD’s results from their searches, because “with the site’s (admitted) connections to pharmaceutical and other companies, WebMD has become permeated with pseudomedicine and subtle misinformation.”
If you don't believe that WebMD is completely reliable when it comes to marijuana, why did you use WebMD as a reference link when you were describing how bad marijuana is in this post from another thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atalanta
tofur, you seem to have a lot to learn.
THC and other compounds in marijuana can also affect the way your body works
No matter how it gets into your system, it affects almost every organ in your body, and your nervous system and immune system, too
moking pot can increase your heart rate by as much as two times for up to 3 hours. That’s why some people have a heart attack right after they use marijuana. It can increase bleeding, lower blood pressure, and affect your blood sugar, too.
We don’t yet know if marijuana is linked to higher odds of getting lung cancer. But the process does irritate your lungs -- which is why regular pot smokers are more likely to have an ongoing cough and to have lung-related health problems like chest colds and lung infections.
Other physical effects of marijuana include:
* Dizziness
* Shallow breathing
* Red eyes and dilated pupils
* Dry mouth
* Increased appetite
* Slowed reaction time (If you drive after using marijuana, your risk of being in a car accident more than doubles.)
* A distorted sense of time
* Random thinking
* Paranoia
* Anxiety
* Depression
* Short-term forgetfulness
isks of Marijuana Use
Though you may have heard otherwise, marijuana can be addictive: Nearly 10% of people who use it become dependent on it.
If you’re a long-time user, you can have physical withdrawal symptoms -- like cravings, irritability, sleeplessness, and less appetite -- when you stop.
Research shows a link between marijuana use and mental health problems like depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, short-term psychosis, and schizophrenia. While it’s not clear if marijuana causes these conditions, it can make them worse.
Your article is from 2005, which is 13 years old.
And done by a University in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
I trust an article form the American Lung Association from 2015.
Why? Not knocking the American Lung Association particularly ... um, but, if you're going to fear bias, why would you believe P.R. from an organization whose express purpose is to condemn anything that goes into lungs but O2 ... and whose financing relies heavily on establishment political positions ... and condemn research reporting from:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raddo
... A University in conservative Colorado Springs? [in a study made] “7 years before legalization?” Ridiculous.
You prefer the message that it's illegal to own a plant simply because of 1930s racism and corporate greed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atalanta
Paranoia much?
That can be another effect of smoking pot.
Heh ... “Paranoia” my tookus:
Quote:
The Racist Roots of Marijuana Prohibition
The war on marijuana was a product of American's growing prejudice towards the influx of Mexican immigrants after the Mexican Revolution.
by David McDonald
The history of marijuana (or cannabis/THC) stems back over 10,000 years and is widely recognized as one of the most useful plants on the planet. Yet it was made illegal in the United States in the early 20th century due to political and economic factors. ....
Smoking pot is a risk factor for lung cancer (adenocarcinoma especially). But so is smoking crack, meth and anything else. Other risk factors for LC besides smoking tobacco, marijuana and other stuff are fuel emissions, cosmetic loose powders (mineral makeup, lose setting powders etc.. they get in your lungs).
I searched, but all I could find were studies that say cannabis can be used not only to lessen the side effects of chemo, but also can be used to reduce cancer tumor size and in some cases eradicate it completely.
Here is one of many studies with the same conclusions:
Abrams DI: Integrating cannabis into clinical cancer care. Curr Oncol 23 (2): S8-S14, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
I do not believe WEbMD is completely reliable.
There are several articls out there on it.
All the smoke and mirrors and thread derailling doesn’t take away from the fact that it is pretty darn plain and simple, put something in your lungs other than O2 and gases, it could cause a problem.
Mayo Clinic vs. WebMD: Another Perspective | TIME.com
The New York Times Magazine on Sunday included a rather befuddling column by departing writer Virginia Heffernan. It recommended that people seeking medical information online block WebMD’s results from their searches, because “with the site’s (admitted) connections to pharmaceutical and other companies, WebMD has become permeated with pseudomedicine and subtle misinformation.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raddo
The number of documented cases (zero) out of millions of long-term users is smoke and mirrors? Wow.
Regardless, nice job of ignoring the other links.
You're hilarious when it comes to WebMD. You quote them as fact in your posts whenever their articles matches what you want, but call them unreliable otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
Why? Not knocking the American Lung Association particularly ... um, but, if you're going to fear bias, why would you believe P.R. from an organization whose express purpose is to condemn anything that goes into lungs but O2 ... and whose financing relies heavily on establishment political positions ... and condemn research reporting from:
Ridiculous is right ...
I said “completely reliable”
Get a grip on your drooling attacks.
I said “completely reliable”
Get a grip on your drooling attacks.
These are not attacks. Rather, they are just posts pointing out how you pick and choose your information based on the desired outcome rather than actual facts.
Your "not completely reliable" approach gives you license to do that, and you do it freely.
Regardless, nice job of ignoring the other links provided to you.
You are completely closed-minded when it comes to anything positive about the cannabis plant. I dare you to say something positive about it without throwing up.
I guess you also trust Big Pharma, the cause of the opiod crisis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atalanta
Your article is from 2005, which is 13 years old.
And done by a University in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
I trust an article form the American Lung Association from 2015.
Also, did you read the article link you posted?
Here is who funds the American Lung Association, besides the US Government:
"American Lung Association lists on their website several significant donors to their organization, some of which include pharmaceutical powerhouse companies, like Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis."
The article this is from also gives the reason these companies make large contributions to the Association and the American Lung Association message about smoking. The reason is that they make money off of smoking cessation drugs, including Chantix, which is linked to over 500 suicides.
Yeah, these are the guys to trust, not scientists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So I searched but no substantiation of your claim
