Marijuana poses more risks than many realize

[Tilla]

I know X wouldn't post articles like this.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...uana/10386699/

BTW, don`t shoot the messanger...

[Sir X]

You are being disingenious or ridiculous, I like the article,something I would post and have posted in the past with a more scientific background ,words like [U]unclear ,genetically susceptabile,some studies ,isnt totally clear [/U] Would be delved into closer or examined !

You think you could do that .Like this .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFg62XEQWM4

Yuh remember dis bredda.

Thanks.

[Tilla]

X, I posted it based on the title. If you didn'lt notice it, read again. I am saying you would not have posted it because for the most part it does not support your central thesis on the subject. Sure you can find a little part here or there you may like in the article. That said, this article is not your cup of tea and you would not have posted it.

Hey, I am not supporting or fighting against the stuff. Like alcohol and tobacco, I leave it to individuals to make their choice.

[Sir X]

I have posted all that and more like I said ridiculous and disingenuous, my post are more balanced.

[Rockman]

Is your professed objectivity obvious from the related articles you choose to post?

[Sir X]

I believe my objectivity is not biased, it does not excuse me from being an advocate for legalization. I have always said it has harmful side effects that need heavy regulation.

[Tilla]

Is your professed objectivity obvious from the related articles you choose to post?

I am not sure I understand your question. Articles I have posted are usually done to counter X's all out defense of the stuff. I just try to add another perspective, not necessarily supporting or putting argument against.

Sice X is pro ganga supporter, then mine may seem against if I try to put forward argument against his stance.

[Tilla]

I believe my objectivity is not biased, it does not excuse me from being an advocate for legalization. I have always said it has harmful side effects that need heavy regulation.

Funny X. I always thought there was no "x" in the word "objective"
From what I can remember, you are very defensive, even to the point of calling experts on the matter "idiots" when their opinions don't coincide with yours. I do not recall you acknowledging that it has harmful side effects and need to be heavily regulated. You may have just starting to come to that realization, but it certainly has not always been your position.

[Sir X]

I will put it bluntly,very very very disingenious,calling one an idiot doesnt mean objectivity doesnt exist, incidentally you seem to be the only one who share this view about me on the site.

I always took others position on my advocacy as defensive labeling them with colonial schizophrenia and yes idiots,when individuals say ganja has cancer properties and insinuate that it can cause cancer,when the science does not support it,I will label you as such,same with the addiction properties when criminalization is bargained with an option of drug rehab (false positive) worse yet addiction on par with caffiene in coffe, i will label as such,with the mental health affects/effects still inconclusive at best,whether it inhibits or exacerbates those predisposed or not,i will label again.Advocating for the status quo of criminalization when the detrimental effects are neglible comapred with the ramifications of criminalizatioin exacerbates our social/human rights problem ,I will label as such,if stating all of the above is defensive ,then you can label me as such as you noted I have labelled too....idiots.

Trying to paint me as a johhny come lately is nothing short of a comedy.I have stated my position as a clinician from day one,to say I would argue for legalization without heavy regulation is madness but alas you have to defend your accusation, sad for a man.

Legalise it and tax the hell out of it.

[Tilla]

Surprising you consider yourself a clinician, when you rubbish the opinions of others who do research and have identified more carcigenous substances in ganga smoke than found in cigarette smoke. That is the blatant lack of objectivity (read that as findings based on facts, not opinions).

Anyway X, let us rest this discussion. Because you overwhelm the forum with your pro-ganga stance that most people refuse to take you seriously. Hey, maybe you might even have submitted other articles which you supported the need for regulation etc, but since I do not read every post you make on the subject, then I could have missed it. I apologise sir!

[Sir X]

Not surprising ,you look at the studies ,how it was done the cause and affect,validity,they teach you that in nursing 407 (research) thats why I present Dr Thaskin a world renowned pulmonologist(Lung MD).He cannot find any cancer from his NIDA study (cohort) of ganja ,where cigarettes had a 800 to 2000% ratio of causing cancer.While ganja had a 1 % ratio of decresaing airways disease.He states conclusively,others with biased shabby questionable study use catch words like should,could likely and more research is needed.

Yes its best you rest it.

[Rockman]

Q. Does marijuana cause cancer? A. Although some studies have linked heavy marijuana smoking to lung cancer, the link isn't totally clear. But marijuana is associated with a variety of lung problems, including inflammation of the airways, symptoms of chronic bronchitis and an increased risk of pneumonia and respiratory infections, according to the New England Journal review.

Sounds like cigarette problem is it does not have the negating properties of weed which is why scientists can make the definite correlation between cigarette and cancer,making that correlation with weed seems more difficult.

12... and 17.. are rather low low percentages,rumour has it once you tried heroin you are addicted for life,besides the synthetic equivalent available in prescription medicine is equally addicted.I really wonder what is the addiction rate to pepsi and a big mac.

[Sir X]

I must add Dr Thaskin study was done to prove it caused cancer , and he was honest enough to declare it did not , he did say excessive use of ganja causes bronchitis that when subjects stopped use, the cillia would regenerate,basically recover.

Thats about it,he said no oral,face,head or lung cancer was found.

[Tilla]

I guess we can always cite people or institutions who have done the research and put forward their findings which will either support or not support one's position. For example, researchers at the University of Washington will tell you:

The association between smoking marijuana and lung cancer remains unclear. Marijuana smoke contains about 50% more benzopyrene and nearly 75% more benzanthracene, both known carcinogens, than a comparable quantity of unfiltered tobacco smoke (Tashkin, 2013). Moreover, the deeper inhalations and longer breath-holding of marijuana smokers result in greater exposure of the lung to the tar and carcinogens in the smoke. Lung biopsies from habitual marijuana-only users have revealed widespread alterations to the tissue, some of which are recognized as precursors to the subsequent development of cancer (Tashkin, 2013).

BTW, is that the same Dr Tashkin you cite?

See more at: http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factshe....ouIdlvoF.dpuf

Anyway, citing nursing 407 means a lot to me, as my mother was a nurse and so too are two of my sisters. I usually found that discussions usually ended up with them reminding you of their nursing backgrounds. That never really changed my position however, especially if I can find facts to counter.

[Tilla]

I guess we can always cite people or institutions who have done the research and put forward their findings which will either support or not support one's position. For example, researchers at the University of Washington will tell you:

The association between smoking marijuana and lung cancer remains unclear. Marijuana smoke contains about 50% more benzopyrene and nearly 75% more benzanthracene, both known carcinogens, than a comparable quantity of unfiltered tobacco smoke (Tashkin, 2013). Moreover, the deeper inhalations and longer breath-holding of marijuana smokers result in greater exposure of the lung to the tar and carcinogens in the smoke. Lung biopsies from habitual marijuana-only users have revealed widespread alterations to the tissue, some of which are recognized as precursors to the subsequent development of cancer (Tashkin, 2013).

BTW, is that the same Dr Tashkin you cite?

See more at: http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factshe....ouIdlvoF.dpuf

Anyway, citing nursing 407 means a lot to me, as my mother was a nurse and so too are two of my sisters. I usually found that discussions usually ended up with them reminding you of their nursing backgrounds. That never really changed my position however, especially if I can find facts to counter.