Jump to content

Weed Thread


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, KUGRDON said:

So my posting someone else's study, makes it my study. Ah, science.

Did you think I was under the impression that you work with the Georgia State University Pubic Health Department?  Jesus fuck.

You posted the study.  Your study.  This is "my" post.

Here's "my" study about the danger of marijuana, conducted by something other than a low-rent southern university in a red state:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, KUGRDON said:


Precisely accurate, because prohibition has made it extraordinarily difficult to research marijuana's effects on the scale of other pharmaceuticals with subjects, double-blind experiments, etc.

You think this is news?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orange said:

If you think I'm going to read 75 pages of a 30-year-old study to search for whatever point it is you think you're making, you're nuts.

Seriously, what's the point of this Don, other than your admitted trolling?

You're obviously spending a respectable amount of time digging up all these links and articles asserting the deleterious effects of marijuana, but to what end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2017 at 1:31 PM, Orange said:

Yeah, it's definitely not for everybody.  Have you ever tried vaping?  Some vape pens release a little less, so you can take the edge off without losing your mind.

Also, Charlotte's Web CBD oils are great for relaxation, and they have virtually no THC, so you might get some hemp/MJ benefit without the existential dread.

I only see myself doing CBD too at this point because when I went to the ER or was prescribed strong pain medicine, I was easily under the influence of that pain medicine.

I'm not going to smoke either so I'm looking at edibles and oil.  What would be a good place to start?


On 8/9/2017 at 4:11 AM, KUGRDON said:


potheads more likely to die from hypertension and risk increases with every year of use.

Wish it was more specific as the amount of THC in the blood stream or any thing that comes from weed.  Guess I'll have to Google for answers to that question unless Org provides some links.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always helpful to read the study itself or to read an article describing the study that is not written by a pothead advocate (https://davidheitz.com/). In that vein:

"Data Synthesis:

From 27 chronic pain trials, there is low-strength evidence that cannabis alleviates neuropathic pain but insufficient evidence in other pain populations. According to 11 systematic reviews and 32 primary studies, harms in general population studies include increased risk for motor vehicle accidents, psychotic symptoms, and short-term cognitive impairment. Although adverse pulmonary effects were not seen in younger populations, evidence on most other long-term physical harms, in heavy or long-term cannabis users, or in older populations is insufficient.


Few methodologically rigorous trials; the cannabis formulations studied may not reflect commercially available products; and limited applicability to older, chronically ill populations and patients who use cannabis heavily.


Limited evidence suggests that cannabis may alleviate neuropathic pain in some patients, but insufficient evidence exists for other types of chronic pain. Among general populations, limited evidence suggests that cannabis is associated with an increased risk for adverse mental health effects."


Thus, it appears this study did no independent primary research and was rather an analytical synthesis of various research projects pointing out the paucity of evidence in such studies.

"The systematic reviews highlight an alarming lack of high-quality data from which to draw firm conclusions about the efficacy of cannabis for these conditions, for which cannabis is both sanctioned and commonly used."


In less technical jargon, the laudatory ejaculations of potheads about the efficacy of marijuana in dealing with pain are, not surprisingly, premature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2017 at 4:14 PM, Quack 12 said:

Whereas the critical defecations of anti-marijuana moralists are at very least equally unreliable. 

Precisely.  For some bizarre reason, the anti-pot religious zealots are hanging very desperately to any last remaining thread to justify the most pointless drug-prohibition effort in human history.

Hell, the DEA still schedules Hemp and CBD oils as schedule 1 narcotics.  That's right, the shit derived from a hippie's sweater is deemed more dangerous than meth by the federal government, theoretically justification for 10-20 years in federal prison, not to mention billions in outlays for law enforcement costs, prison costs, post-prison supervision costs, and unfathomable human costs in lost productivity, freedom, etc.  

It's a civil rights travesty.  But the prohibitionists have used prohibition to limit data, so they can say "see?  You can't prove it makes AIDS patients feel better ALL THE TIME."  

I find the pot prohibitionists to be, by far, the dumbest people in any debate, ever....with the possible exception of the people arguing against evolution.

I used to think the advocates of prohibition had the burden of proof.  Apparently they don't.  They can  ban something for political expediency, and force others to prove why they're wrong.  



Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...