|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
im_on_a_boat
Stranger

Registered: 04/06/06
Posts: 3,950
|
Re: Habitual Marijuana Use [Re: g00ru]
#7876197 - 01/13/08 10:23 PM (16 years, 19 days ago) |
|
|
can be attributed to the user's interaction with the weed.
that's what my entire posting was about.
it's not the drug's fault of course. the drug has nothing to do with it. it is inanimate. all it does is cause a chemical response in your brain (among other physical effects). you are the one who receives its input and interprets it.
that's like blaming software for your computer crashing when it works on other computers. sometimes the software isn't designed for your computer. not the software's fault.. or your computer's fault.. it's the interaction between the software and the computer.
|
EternalCowabunga
Being of Great Significance



Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 7,152
Loc: Time and Space
|
|
fair enough, but what I am saying is that it takes two to tango. If you can accept that it is an interaction, you should be able to accept that weed has a negative interaction with certain individuals, meaning that it is partly to blame for that negativity, because it is an interaction.
I don't buy your "it is inanimate" argument. An interaction is a process, an animated one. We don't know what we bring to the table for weed, but we know what effects weed has on us.
I'm just talking out of my ass now, I'm fucking tired. I don't even think we are in disagreement. Weed is not inherently bad, of course not - NOTHING IS. I don't think anyone would say otherwise. I do think it probably damages your lungs in the long term. I don't see how any smoke containing chemicals could not.
Now I'm done editing the shit out of this post.
--------------------
|
g00ru
lit pants tit licker



Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
EternalCowabunga said: There is no object without a subject... it makes no sense to say that weed is 100% positive when not taking human participation in it into account. Basically you are saying that the user is a bad person that couldn't handle the 100% positive effects of weed. That is a cop out.
Well, within reason obviously.
I'm saying that as a drug weed is so mild and not bad for you (relatively) that any serious problems it causes are probably more a reflection of the user's qualities than weed's qualities. That's not to say that weed doesn't sometimes lend itself to causing problems (lack of motivation, social awkwardness, etc.) Just saying that compared to every other drug, even alcohol, weed is...well...awesome.
-------------------- check out my music! drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss
|
trscstghst
stranger



Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 786
Loc: here
|
Re: Habitual Marijuana Use [Re: g00ru]
#7876544 - 01/14/08 12:09 AM (16 years, 19 days ago) |
|
|
threads like this make wish the og was still around. so we could just refer each other to other threads to make our arguments for us.
-------------------- Why use up the forests which were centuries in the making and the mines which required ages to lay down, if we can get the equivalent of forest and mineral products in the annual growth of the hemp fields? o Henry Ford
|
Helpme1
freak



Registered: 07/06/06
Posts: 1,424
Loc: shlums-of-meltbanana
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Habitual Marijuana Use [Re: Caribou_Lou]
#7876658 - 01/14/08 12:31 AM (16 years, 19 days ago) |
|
|
caribou_lou has made me realize how close-minded smoking pot can make you become. It is almost this paridoxical feeling of being open-minded, yet arrogantly only choosing to look at one viewpoint.
--------------------
      "woah, that cat was really buggin out man, you should have put on some grateful dead so he could relax and enjoi his trip" -random shroomerite
|
Acaterpillar
A little mad...



Registered: 06/09/07
Posts: 18,693
Loc: Down the rabbit hole
Last seen: 3 months, 26 days
|
Re: Habitual Marijuana Use [Re: porcupine]
#7876698 - 01/14/08 12:40 AM (16 years, 19 days ago) |
|
|
You guys I've already explained why marijuana doesn't harm the bronchial system, and used a source for the information.
Quote:
porcupine said:
Quote:
Rabidbaboon said: Dr. Tashkin's is one of the most recent, it IS the largest, and many say is the most reliable source of valid information. you may have read Dr. Tashkin's previous study, which the government used as it's source to justify saying that marijuana causes cancer, and brain damage.
no, i never said that marijuana caused cancer.
inhaling cannabis smoke still causes pathological changes to respiratory system.
you people are confusing cancer with damage. you can damage your body in all sorts of ways without necessarily causing cancer.
you're using a study which shows no relationship between marijuana and lung cancer to say that it doesn't damage the lungs at all and that is not only ridiculous but a logical fallacy.
it would be like if i created a study of people who hit themselves in the head with a hammer every day, found that they didn't get cancer and then concluded that hitting yourself with a hammer was not harmful.
it's very sad to see people so deeply in denial that they cannot admit inhaling large amounts of smoke is harmful to the respiratory system.
here is a study even more recent than the taskin study which indicates that, guess what? habitually smoking marijuana is bad for your lungs. who ever would have guessed?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17666437?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Dr. Tashkin's study was much larger than the one you posted, and seen as more acceptable since Dr. Tashkin has led many of the study's on marijuana (for 30 years), and has tons of experience with such work. I explained to you that I was not simply talking about cancer, I explained that marijuana does not impair/harm/inhibit the bronchial system. since it seems you forgot already here you go:
Quote:
Rabidbaboon said: Also since Marijuana dilates the bronchial vessels you can actually breathe better after recently smoking, and then the bronchials will return to normal size and you can breathe normal again. but with Tobacco the bronchial's will stay constricted for long periods of time depending on how much you smoke, making it always slightly harder to breathe. so basically I'm saying, marijuana doesn't make it harder to run or be athletic. That's all in your head.]
If you don't believe me then go here: http://content.herbalgram.org/wholefoodsmarket/herbalgram/articleview.asp?a=3064 Most of the article talks about cancer, but to see the part about marijuana dilating bronchials, and flushing out tar from the lungs, then read the bottom.
-------------------- Aaa...E I O Uuu...A E I O Uuu..A E I O uh Uuu.. *Cough* *Cough* Ooo...U E I O Aaa...U E I Aaa..A E I O Uuuuu... At first sight, The Perfection of Wisdom is bewildering, full of paradox and apparent irrationality.
|
Caribou_Lou
Stranger


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 2,510
Loc: Never Land
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Habitual Marijuana Use [Re: Helpme1]
#7877257 - 01/14/08 07:29 AM (16 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Helpme1 said: caribou_lou has made me realize how close-minded smoking pot can make you become. It is almost this paridoxical feeling of being open-minded, yet arrogantly only choosing to look at one viewpoint.
Or maybe I really know what i'm talking about, you fucking fool. Go read a marijuana forum where people know what they're talking about.
^^ at least someone in this thread doesn't have down syndrome
|
THEBats
FuturePsychopharmacologist


Registered: 03/18/05
Posts: 1,268
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Rabidbaboon said: You guys I've already explained why marijuana doesn't harm the bronchial system, and used a source for the information.
Quote:
porcupine said:
Quote:
Rabidbaboon said: Dr. Tashkin's is one of the most recent, it IS the largest, and many say is the most reliable source of valid information. you may have read Dr. Tashkin's previous study, which the government used as it's source to justify saying that marijuana causes cancer, and brain damage.
no, i never said that marijuana caused cancer.
inhaling cannabis smoke still causes pathological changes to respiratory system.
you people are confusing cancer with damage. you can damage your body in all sorts of ways without necessarily causing cancer.
you're using a study which shows no relationship between marijuana and lung cancer to say that it doesn't damage the lungs at all and that is not only ridiculous but a logical fallacy.
it would be like if i created a study of people who hit themselves in the head with a hammer every day, found that they didn't get cancer and then concluded that hitting yourself with a hammer was not harmful.
it's very sad to see people so deeply in denial that they cannot admit inhaling large amounts of smoke is harmful to the respiratory system.
here is a study even more recent than the taskin study which indicates that, guess what? habitually smoking marijuana is bad for your lungs. who ever would have guessed?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17666437?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Dr. Tashkin's study was much larger than the one you posted, and seen as more acceptable since Dr. Tashkin has led many of the study's on marijuana (for 30 years), and has tons of experience with such work. I explained to you that I was not simply talking about cancer, I explained that marijuana does not impair/harm/inhibit the bronchial system. since it seems you forgot already here you go:
Quote:
Rabidbaboon said: Also since Marijuana dilates the bronchial vessels you can actually breathe better after recently smoking, and then the bronchials will return to normal size and you can breathe normal again. but with Tobacco the bronchial's will stay constricted for long periods of time depending on how much you smoke, making it always slightly harder to breathe. so basically I'm saying, marijuana doesn't make it harder to run or be athletic. That's all in your head.]
If you don't believe me then go here: http://content.herbalgram.org/wholefoodsmarket/herbalgram/articleview.asp?a=3064 Most of the article talks about cancer, but to see the part about marijuana dilating bronchials, and flushing out tar from the lungs, then read the bottom.
Though a large study it focus more on cancer rather than impeded lung function. Until I see a study focused directly on this I see us going no where in this argument.
"Marijuana smoke dilates small air passages in the lungs, rather than constricting them, as tobacco does. It eases asthma through its anti-spasmodic effect. "
This part is true and I agree however:
"Moreover, it is believed that marijuana smoke, by irritating the bronchioles and stimulating the �chronic� cough reflex characteristic of marijuana inhalation, reduces adhesion of tars and other smoke-borne particles to lung surfaces, whereas tobacco smoke numbs the bronchioles, allowing adhesion"
I'm sorry but that is just a leap there and not based in any yet available scientific data, which from what I can see is what both you and the other guy are arguing. I bet if such leaps and bounds were made in the opposite direction you would be making the same fuss I am making. Show me a study that says more than just "belief."
I really don't know why any positive data on pot is believed to be undeniable truth. Further we need more scientists doing repeat studies to compare results before we start to see a more definite picture.
Also we could do without the insults here. A healthy skepticism is far from down syndrome my friend.
Edited by THEBats (01/14/08 08:42 AM)
|
porcupine
Stranger

Registered: 01/09/05
Posts: 1,289
Loc: MI
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
Rabidbaboon said: You guys I've already explained why marijuana doesn't harm the bronchial system, and used a source for the information.
Quote:
porcupine said:
Quote:
Rabidbaboon said: Dr. Tashkin's is one of the most recent, it IS the largest, and many say is the most reliable source of valid information. you may have read Dr. Tashkin's previous study, which the government used as it's source to justify saying that marijuana causes cancer, and brain damage.
no, i never said that marijuana caused cancer.
inhaling cannabis smoke still causes pathological changes to respiratory system.
you people are confusing cancer with damage. you can damage your body in all sorts of ways without necessarily causing cancer.
you're using a study which shows no relationship between marijuana and lung cancer to say that it doesn't damage the lungs at all and that is not only ridiculous but a logical fallacy.
it would be like if i created a study of people who hit themselves in the head with a hammer every day, found that they didn't get cancer and then concluded that hitting yourself with a hammer was not harmful.
it's very sad to see people so deeply in denial that they cannot admit inhaling large amounts of smoke is harmful to the respiratory system.
here is a study even more recent than the taskin study which indicates that, guess what? habitually smoking marijuana is bad for your lungs. who ever would have guessed?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17666437?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Dr. Tashkin's study was much larger than the one you posted, and seen as more acceptable since Dr. Tashkin has led many of the study's on marijuana (for 30 years), and has tons of experience with such work. I explained to you that I was not simply talking about cancer, I explained that marijuana does not impair/harm/inhibit the bronchial system. since it seems you forgot already here you go:
Quote:
Rabidbaboon said: Also since Marijuana dilates the bronchial vessels you can actually breathe better after recently smoking, and then the bronchials will return to normal size and you can breathe normal again. but with Tobacco the bronchial's will stay constricted for long periods of time depending on how much you smoke, making it always slightly harder to breathe. so basically I'm saying, marijuana doesn't make it harder to run or be athletic. That's all in your head.]
If you don't believe me then go here: http://content.herbalgram.org/wholefoodsmarket/herbalgram/articleview.asp?a=3064 Most of the article talks about cancer, but to see the part about marijuana dilating bronchials, and flushing out tar from the lungs, then read the bottom.
all the references that article uses are studies done on marijuana and lung cancer, not other measures of respiratory status. since we're not even discussing lung cancer, why are you only using studies that investigate lung cancer? seems you don't have much to go on. if it was true that habitually smoking marijuana did no damage to the lungs, then why don't you simply post a recent study ACTUALLY DONE ON THIS ISSUE which concluded this? especially considering there have been plenty of studies done on this? perhaps because they didn't find the results you were looking for?
second of all, no where in that article do they even state that smoking marijuana has absolutely no adverse affects on the respiratory system. they simply speculate that it might pose LESS of a risk than tobacco. not that it poses no risks.
so your own speculative souce, even IF true, doesn't directly support the notion that marijuana smoking causes no damage to the respiratory system. i think dr. taskin himself would strongly disagree with anyone who claimed this. in fact, here is a 2005 study where he states:
Habitual use of marijuana is also associated with abnormalities in the structure and function of alveolar macrophages, including impairment in microbial phagocytosis and killing that is associated with defective production of immunostimulatory cytokines and nitric oxide, thereby potentially predisposing to pulmonary infection.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16128224?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
and here is a 2007 systematic review of 34 studies on the respiratory affects of marijuana smoking which concludes that Long-term marijuana smoking is associated with increased respiratory symptoms suggestive of obstructive lung disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17296876?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
how can anyone with even a semi-rational mind claim that habitualy smoking marijuana causes no damage to the respiratory system? there is simply no scientific evidence to support this and an overwhelming amount of data suggesting the opposite.
although the individual studies vary in their findings, a common theme among all of them is that they all find some evidence of pathological changes in the lungs of heavy marijuana users (at least all of the ones which use multiple measures of respiratory status, a problem with some older studies is that the very accurate methods of assessing lung damage we have today, such as high resolution CT scans, were either unavalaible or too expensive to use). no study to date has ever concluded that long term heavy marijuana smoking did not damage the lungs in some fashion. so why would anyone believe this?
until you can show me a study, like the first one i posted, where they assess the respiratory status of long term heavy marijuana smokers using high resolution CT scans and find no evidence of damage, you have no argument.
|
porcupine
Stranger

Registered: 01/09/05
Posts: 1,289
Loc: MI
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
|
Re: Habitual Marijuana Use [Re: Caribou_Lou]
#7877932 - 01/14/08 11:49 AM (16 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Caribou_Lou said:
Quote:
Helpme1 said: caribou_lou has made me realize how close-minded smoking pot can make you become. It is almost this paridoxical feeling of being open-minded, yet arrogantly only choosing to look at one viewpoint.
Or maybe I really know what i'm talking about, you fucking fool. Go read a marijuana forum where people know what they're talking about.
^^ at least someone in this thread doesn't have down syndrome
if you know what you're talking about, then why don't you simply post your sources? would you believe me if i said "trust me, i know what i'm talking about" and called you a fool but i posted no sources? obviously not. so why do you expect us to believe you? you're not making any sense and you know it.
Edited by porcupine (01/14/08 11:52 AM)
|
Caribou_Lou
Stranger


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 2,510
Loc: Never Land
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Habitual Marijuana Use [Re: porcupine]
#7877954 - 01/14/08 11:54 AM (16 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Well I thought I said this, but I did all this research over the course of a few years and now I just know it. I'm not going to go search for sources mostly because most sources you find are bogus, and I'm not about to spend time to look for the good ones. But I can get one of my papers from school when if I remember the next time I have class. I don't expect anyone to believe me, I just hate to see people spread lies about something I am so passionate about. Especially when they think they are right, because they are clearly not.
You have no idea how many threads I have read EXACTLY like this one. Only on a marijuana forum, where people know a lot more about it than here.
|
EternalCowabunga
Being of Great Significance



Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 7,152
Loc: Time and Space
|
Re: Habitual Marijuana Use [Re: Caribou_Lou]
#7877999 - 01/14/08 12:06 PM (16 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
If you don't have sources, stop talking shit and being so full of yourself. You say you don't expect anyone to believe you yet you are completely hostile to opposing opinions.. that is silly, my friend.
Quote:
I just hate to see people spread lies about something I am so passionate about.
Then please, lead us towards the light of scientific study. I don't doubt that there are people on a marijuana forum who are well researched, but this really does nothing for your argument
Excuse me if I'm not going to accept what you say at face value considering you just said you are very passionate about weed so it's kind of hard to take what you say as non-biased.
--------------------
|
porcupine
Stranger

Registered: 01/09/05
Posts: 1,289
Loc: MI
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
|
Re: Habitual Marijuana Use [Re: Caribou_Lou]
#7878473 - 01/14/08 01:59 PM (16 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Caribou_Lou said: Well I thought I said this, but I did all this research over the course of a few years and now I just know it. I'm not going to go search for sources mostly because most sources you find are bogus, and I'm not about to spend time to look for the good ones. But I can get one of my papers from school when if I remember the next time I have class. I don't expect anyone to believe me, I just hate to see people spread lies about something I am so passionate about. Especially when they think they are right, because they are clearly not.
You have no idea how many threads I have read EXACTLY like this one. Only on a marijuana forum, where people know a lot more about it than here.
so before you "guaranteed" you knew more about marijuana than i do or anyone else trying to argue with you but you can't even recall a single good source from all the years of research you did? no offense but that is simply laughable.
furthermore, you still haven't addressed the first study i posted which was very recent and used high resolution CT scans to look at the lungs of marijuana smokers. you could at least start by explaining why they found pathologies in the lungs of marijuana only smokers as compared to controls, if marijuana doesn't cause any damage to the lungs. you said if i posted that information, you would explain why it was wrong and then you completely failed to deliver.
Edited by porcupine (01/14/08 02:00 PM)
|
Caribou_Lou
Stranger


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 2,510
Loc: Never Land
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Habitual Marijuana Use [Re: porcupine]
#7878527 - 01/14/08 02:11 PM (16 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Yeah like I'm going to remember specific studies and how to find them from a long time ago.. chill out I said I would post my sources when I get my paper at school. There's more to this than some inconclusive studies, there's so many studies that contradict each other out there.. I'm sure I could easily find one and post it.
|
manyc
♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫


Registered: 01/03/04
Posts: 571
Loc: Axis Mundi
|
Re: Habitual Marijuana Use [Re: Caribou_Lou]
#7878567 - 01/14/08 02:21 PM (16 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
god damn dude. these egos are out of control. some of you claim that weed has helped you see the light but um... it sounds like your just self-justifying your overconsumption of marijuana.
thats great for all of you that are in the best shape of your life whilst smoking weed.. but not everybody reacts to weed the same way. i mean seriously. there is no bottom line for marijuana users. every single one is different - a lot are lazy, but creative and intelligent, while others are active, but ignorant and belligerent.
that's just the way it goes man.
--------------------
Hemp could Save the World. "There is no flag that is large enough, to hide the shame of a man in cuffs." -Serj Tankian Know Thyself. "If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on." -Terence Mckenna
|
PsilocybinMind
Herb Nerd


Registered: 09/25/06
Posts: 664
|
Re: Habitual Marijuana Use [Re: Caribou_Lou]
#7878571 - 01/14/08 02:22 PM (16 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
"Yeah like I'm going to remember specific studies and how to find them from a long time ago.. chill out I said I would post my sources when I get my paper at school. There's more to this than some inconclusive studies, there's so many studies that contradict each other out there.. I'm sure I could easily find one and post it."
lol...
|
Caribou_Lou
Stranger


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 2,510
Loc: Never Land
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Habitual Marijuana Use [Re: manyc]
#7878596 - 01/14/08 02:29 PM (16 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
manyc said: god damn dude. these egos are out of control. some of you claim that weed has helped you see the light but um... it sounds like your just self-justifying your overconsumption of marijuana.
thats great for all of you that are in the best shape of your life whilst smoking weed.. but not everybody reacts to weed the same way. i mean seriously. there is no bottom line for marijuana users. every single one is different - a lot are lazy, but creative and intelligent, while others are active, but ignorant and belligerent.
that's just the way it goes man.
Don't pretend like you know anybody that posts here, you guys are way too quick to make assumptions.
|
manyc
♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫


Registered: 01/03/04
Posts: 571
Loc: Axis Mundi
|
Re: Habitual Marijuana Use [Re: Caribou_Lou]
#7878621 - 01/14/08 02:40 PM (16 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Caribou_Lou said:
Quote:
manyc said: god damn dude. these egos are out of control. some of you claim that weed has helped you see the light but um... it sounds like your just self-justifying your overconsumption of marijuana.
thats great for all of you that are in the best shape of your life whilst smoking weed.. but not everybody reacts to weed the same way. i mean seriously. there is no bottom line for marijuana users. every single one is different - a lot are lazy, but creative and intelligent, while others are active, but ignorant and belligerent.
that's just the way it goes man.
Don't pretend like you know anybody that posts here, you guys are way too quick to make assumptions.
i didn't assume anything, and im not "pretending" to know anybody. i made an inference based on what i've read - you're revealing your aggressive nature to me through your aggressive responses.
all one has to do to see that egos are flaring here is read the posts. people are getting insulted and getting defensive as hell. it's your ego doing that - because your "knowledge" is being compromised.
weed aint supposed to do this. it's supposed to bring people together! stop arguing about whether weed's good for you or not, and just fuckin smoke a blunt and make your own decision.
--------------------
Hemp could Save the World. "There is no flag that is large enough, to hide the shame of a man in cuffs." -Serj Tankian Know Thyself. "If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on." -Terence Mckenna
Edited by manyc (01/14/08 02:43 PM)
|
porcupine
Stranger

Registered: 01/09/05
Posts: 1,289
Loc: MI
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
|
Re: Habitual Marijuana Use [Re: Caribou_Lou]
#7878649 - 01/14/08 02:49 PM (16 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Caribou_Lou said: Yeah like I'm going to remember specific studies and how to find them from a long time ago..
so why is it that i, with my such inferior knowledge of marijuana, have no problem remembering or finding specific studies on the subject? for any self proclaimed expert to not be able to remember a single study on the subject, is, as i said before, simply laughable. and furthermore, if your studies are "from a long time ago" then what makes them more valid than my very recently published studies? in other words, shouldn't you be familiar with both the old and the newer studies published on marijuana if you truly know so much more about it than i do?
Quote:
chill out I said I would post my sources when I get my paper at school. There's more to this than some inconclusive studies, there's so many studies that contradict each other out there.. I'm sure I could easily find one and post it.
the fact that there are studies which contradict eachother is why i posted a recent, systematic review of 34 publications, which surprise, surprise, concluded that habitually smoking marijuana did indeed damage the respiratory system.
you certainly have your work cut out for when it comes to proving otherwise. especially since, as i stated before, if your studies don't use modern methods of assessing respiratory function like HRCT scans, they won't hold any weight against the more recent studies. but if you know of a recent large scale study which uses HRCT scans and respiratory function tests to examine the lungs of long term, heavy marijuana smokers, and finds absolutely no adverse affects, then PLEASE enlighten us and post it.
|
im_on_a_boat
Stranger

Registered: 04/06/06
Posts: 3,950
|
Re: Habitual Marijuana Use [Re: manyc]
#7878651 - 01/14/08 02:50 PM (16 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
quit arguin about it damaging your lungs.
it cant be good for them, but that doesn't mean that marijuana is necessarily bad or AS bad as other things. or maybe it is good. i'm sure if there was a legitimate medicinal use to combat lung cancer there would be a huge campaign by the pro-legalization movement.
that's way off the point of the post.
dude wanted to know if anyone has quit and did it help them. i think i am the only one who actually responded on topic..
maybe we should just lock this since it's so far off topic.. the question has been answered..
|
|