Page 2 of 5 [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

14 Sep 2011, 3:26 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
What about the dangerous side effects associated with many pharmacuticals?

Did you actually read what I put. I said as long as the delivery system is not through hammering your lungs then I am open to tests. Is that going to be okay? Furthermore did I say anything about any existing pharmaceutical drugsor how good they are? No. So please don't presume I think all pharmaceutical drugs are better without any evidence of that belief.

But pharmacuticals that damage your liver and other vital organs are fine? the issue is yes smoking cannabis can contribute to respitory problems, taking some meds can cause liver problems...people should certainly be aware of the risks and benifits of any drug they are going to take to relieve symptoms and make an educated decision. I don't think the risk of respitory damage always outweights the benifits of smoking cannabis.....smoking is the quickest way to injest it which is why it is many peoples preferred method.....they do have vaporizors though which are a bit safer then smoking out of a pipe.


Sweetleaf wrote:
No one is forcing anyone to 'smoke' cannabis, and there is a thc pill but it is not nearly as effective as actual cannabis...because THC is only one active chemical in cannabis there are quite a few others and how they interact and such is important and apparently real THC works better than synthetic THC.

Then extract all the active ingredients and use trials to find out which is best? Also there's no difference between a synthetic chemical and a 'real' or 'natural' chemical. They still have the same molecular structure. Just because a plant made it doesn't mean it is any less synthesized.

It's not that simple.....besides why are you so opposed to edibles? you don't smoke those you eat them...that does not damage lungs or respitory systems. So why should people not be able to choose which method they would like? See people are far too dependent on what someone else says they should do. Basically a pill made of chemicals found in marijuana is not as effective as natural cannabis. Pharmacutical companies just don't want people to start using marijuana because they will lose money. That is what it comes down to. Besides what is more expensive extracting ingredients from marijuana to try and make it into a pill? or growing high quality strains of a plant that helps people and giving them access to it.


Sweetleaf wrote:
I would not mind if there was cannabis that could be injected...don't know if that is possible though. But there are edibles, tinctures and vaporizors. And you do realise smoking cannabis and smoking ciggerettes are quite different right? hell they cannot even relate any cases of lung cancer to smoking cannabis and one study even indicated someone who smokes ciggerettes and cannabis is less likely to get cancer than someone who just smokes ciggerettes.
First, can I see studies about this before I agree with you? And second I doubt that burning plant material and inhaling the resulting smoke is going to reduce the chances of lung or whatever cancer you are thinking of, never mind not do anything.

If I can see the studies that show marijuana causes lung cancer...well no I'll just tell you go to the library, check out a book called The Pot Book it is a book on the recent knowledge about cannabis and it goes in depth.....also at the end of the book is the references of where they got that information so you can also check the original source if you want. That is just where I found it.

And inhaling smoke does not reduce the chance, the cannabanoids in the smoke reduce the chance..the way those react with the carcinogens are what it is attributed to. So though marijuana can contribute to some respitory problems it will not cause lung cancer.

Sweetleaf wrote:
And since when does cannabis blacken teeth? I just don't see where you are getting your information.
An old person I know who smoke cannabis. Quite a few people actually in the real world smoke cannabis despite my own reservations. Greyish or blackish gums and sometimes black teeth.
Do they only smoke cannabis? and how often do they smoke everything that they smoke? Many people in my family smoke and none of them have black teeth or grey gums.

Just because I don't agree with smoking it doesn't mean I am intolerant or am not in close contact with people who disagree with my point of view. Being of a kind of people who tend not to have many friends being intolerant of the minor things in life seems quite counter-intuitive, not that I need a reason not to be a bigoted jackass.


Well I did not suggest I think you are intolarant, but there is a lot of inaccurate information out there.

Aye, there is I understand. In any case I am not a person saying marijuana causes unending suffering and instant death, but I am putting the buoys around the bay of reason and I think I can say that some form of system apart from smoking would be preferable, any system. Cannabrownies? That would be a good idea. Jamaican cannabis ginger cake.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

14 Sep 2011, 3:29 pm

Zeraeph wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

There is no adequete controlled method of delivery for medicinal marijuana......the amount that works varies between strains, the individual person and if its an indica or stativa strain, what quality it is ect. This is a natural plant we are dealing with so it varies more than a pharmacutical pill. Now they could have someone who uses medicinal marijuana check up with the doctor about their dosage but in the end they kind of have to do some figuring out of what amount and type works best for them.

Also, cannabis does not have to be smoked, that is why dispensaries have edibles, tinctures ect. so that gets rid of the risk of respitory damage though technically it is safer to smoke cannabis than it is to smoke ciggerettes.


Totally...but, unfortunately, even if you smoke it alone, one form of smoking easily leads to another, particularly in someone who has quit already...and smoking anything will exacerbate any lung condition.

Lots of natural plants are rendered as pharmecutical pills and controlled doseages, senna, cascara, St Johns' Wort...


What is wrong with a natural plant...not being turned into a pharmacutical pill, maybe most cannabis users medicinal users and recreational users don't want to turn medicinal marijuana over to the corrupt pharmacutical companies. What so they can but a brand name on it and lobby the government to make penalties for recreational cannabis use even harsher? and charge ridiculous prices for this pill? And as I have mentioned time and time again in this thread there are edibles, tinctures and other ways to ingest cannabis other than smoking it that do not require processing it into a pill. I smoke ciggerettes and cannabis....what is that going to lead to? I don't plan on smoking anything else.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

14 Sep 2011, 3:32 pm

Gedrene wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
What about the dangerous side effects associated with many pharmacuticals?

Did you actually read what I put. I said as long as the delivery system is not through hammering your lungs then I am open to tests. Is that going to be okay? Furthermore did I say anything about any existing pharmaceutical drugsor how good they are? No. So please don't presume I think all pharmaceutical drugs are better without any evidence of that belief.

But pharmacuticals that damage your liver and other vital organs are fine? the issue is yes smoking cannabis can contribute to respitory problems, taking some meds can cause liver problems...people should certainly be aware of the risks and benifits of any drug they are going to take to relieve symptoms and make an educated decision. I don't think the risk of respitory damage always outweights the benifits of smoking cannabis.....smoking is the quickest way to injest it which is why it is many peoples preferred method.....they do have vaporizors though which are a bit safer then smoking out of a pipe.


Sweetleaf wrote:
No one is forcing anyone to 'smoke' cannabis, and there is a thc pill but it is not nearly as effective as actual cannabis...because THC is only one active chemical in cannabis there are quite a few others and how they interact and such is important and apparently real THC works better than synthetic THC.

Then extract all the active ingredients and use trials to find out which is best? Also there's no difference between a synthetic chemical and a 'real' or 'natural' chemical. They still have the same molecular structure. Just because a plant made it doesn't mean it is any less synthesized.

It's not that simple.....besides why are you so opposed to edibles? you don't smoke those you eat them...that does not damage lungs or respitory systems. So why should people not be able to choose which method they would like? See people are far too dependent on what someone else says they should do. Basically a pill made of chemicals found in marijuana is not as effective as natural cannabis. Pharmacutical companies just don't want people to start using marijuana because they will lose money. That is what it comes down to. Besides what is more expensive extracting ingredients from marijuana to try and make it into a pill? or growing high quality strains of a plant that helps people and giving them access to it.


Sweetleaf wrote:
I would not mind if there was cannabis that could be injected...don't know if that is possible though. But there are edibles, tinctures and vaporizors. And you do realise smoking cannabis and smoking ciggerettes are quite different right? hell they cannot even relate any cases of lung cancer to smoking cannabis and one study even indicated someone who smokes ciggerettes and cannabis is less likely to get cancer than someone who just smokes ciggerettes.
First, can I see studies about this before I agree with you? And second I doubt that burning plant material and inhaling the resulting smoke is going to reduce the chances of lung or whatever cancer you are thinking of, never mind not do anything.

If I can see the studies that show marijuana causes lung cancer...well no I'll just tell you go to the library, check out a book called The Pot Book it is a book on the recent knowledge about cannabis and it goes in depth.....also at the end of the book is the references of where they got that information so you can also check the original source if you want. That is just where I found it.

And inhaling smoke does not reduce the chance, the cannabanoids in the smoke reduce the chance..the way those react with the carcinogens are what it is attributed to. So though marijuana can contribute to some respitory problems it will not cause lung cancer.

Sweetleaf wrote:
And since when does cannabis blacken teeth? I just don't see where you are getting your information.
An old person I know who smoke cannabis. Quite a few people actually in the real world smoke cannabis despite my own reservations. Greyish or blackish gums and sometimes black teeth.
Do they only smoke cannabis? and how often do they smoke everything that they smoke? Many people in my family smoke and none of them have black teeth or grey gums.

Just because I don't agree with smoking it doesn't mean I am intolerant or am not in close contact with people who disagree with my point of view. Being of a kind of people who tend not to have many friends being intolerant of the minor things in life seems quite counter-intuitive, not that I need a reason not to be a bigoted jackass.


Well I did not suggest I think you are intolarant, but there is a lot of inaccurate information out there.

Aye, there is I understand. In any case I am not a person saying marijuana causes unending suffering and instant death, but I am putting the buoys around the bay of reason and I think I can say that some form of system apart from smoking would be preferable, any system. Cannabrownies? That would be a good idea. Jamaican cannabis ginger cake.


Well yes, but there are people who prefer smoking......which I don't really see a major issue with, if in their case the benifits outweigh the dangers of smoking it.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

14 Sep 2011, 3:45 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
What about the dangerous side effects associated with many pharmacuticals?

Did you actually read what I put. I said as long as the delivery system is not through hammering your lungs then I am open to tests. Is that going to be okay? Furthermore did I say anything about any existing pharmaceutical drugsor how good they are? No. So please don't presume I think all pharmaceutical drugs are better without any evidence of that belief.

But pharmacuticals that damage your liver and other vital organs are fine? the issue is yes smoking cannabis can contribute to respitory problems, taking some meds can cause liver problems...people should certainly be aware of the risks and benifits of any drug they are going to take to relieve symptoms and make an educated decision. I don't think the risk of respitory damage always outweights the benifits of smoking cannabis.....smoking is the quickest way to injest it which is why it is many peoples preferred method.....they do have vaporizors though which are a bit safer then smoking out of a pipe.


Sweetleaf wrote:
No one is forcing anyone to 'smoke' cannabis, and there is a thc pill but it is not nearly as effective as actual cannabis...because THC is only one active chemical in cannabis there are quite a few others and how they interact and such is important and apparently real THC works better than synthetic THC.

Then extract all the active ingredients and use trials to find out which is best? Also there's no difference between a synthetic chemical and a 'real' or 'natural' chemical. They still have the same molecular structure. Just because a plant made it doesn't mean it is any less synthesized.

It's not that simple.....besides why are you so opposed to edibles? you don't smoke those you eat them...that does not damage lungs or respitory systems. So why should people not be able to choose which method they would like? See people are far too dependent on what someone else says they should do. Basically a pill made of chemicals found in marijuana is not as effective as natural cannabis. Pharmacutical companies just don't want people to start using marijuana because they will lose money. That is what it comes down to. Besides what is more expensive extracting ingredients from marijuana to try and make it into a pill? or growing high quality strains of a plant that helps people and giving them access to it.


Sweetleaf wrote:
I would not mind if there was cannabis that could be injected...don't know if that is possible though. But there are edibles, tinctures and vaporizors. And you do realise smoking cannabis and smoking ciggerettes are quite different right? hell they cannot even relate any cases of lung cancer to smoking cannabis and one study even indicated someone who smokes ciggerettes and cannabis is less likely to get cancer than someone who just smokes ciggerettes.
First, can I see studies about this before I agree with you? And second I doubt that burning plant material and inhaling the resulting smoke is going to reduce the chances of lung or whatever cancer you are thinking of, never mind not do anything.

If I can see the studies that show marijuana causes lung cancer...well no I'll just tell you go to the library, check out a book called The Pot Book it is a book on the recent knowledge about cannabis and it goes in depth.....also at the end of the book is the references of where they got that information so you can also check the original source if you want. That is just where I found it.

And inhaling smoke does not reduce the chance, the cannabanoids in the smoke reduce the chance..the way those react with the carcinogens are what it is attributed to. So though marijuana can contribute to some respitory problems it will not cause lung cancer.

Sweetleaf wrote:
And since when does cannabis blacken teeth? I just don't see where you are getting your information.
An old person I know who smoke cannabis. Quite a few people actually in the real world smoke cannabis despite my own reservations. Greyish or blackish gums and sometimes black teeth.
Do they only smoke cannabis? and how often do they smoke everything that they smoke? Many people in my family smoke and none of them have black teeth or grey gums.

Just because I don't agree with smoking it doesn't mean I am intolerant or am not in close contact with people who disagree with my point of view. Being of a kind of people who tend not to have many friends being intolerant of the minor things in life seems quite counter-intuitive, not that I need a reason not to be a bigoted jackass.


Well I did not suggest I think you are intolarant, but there is a lot of inaccurate information out there.

Aye, there is I understand. In any case I am not a person saying marijuana causes unending suffering and instant death, but I am putting the buoys around the bay of reason and I think I can say that some form of system apart from smoking would be preferable, any system. Cannabrownies? That would be a good idea. Jamaican cannabis ginger cake.


Well yes, but there are people who prefer smoking......which I don't really see a major issue with, if in their case the benifits outweigh the dangers of smoking it.

But the problem with that argument is that in any other delivery system the benefits outweigh the dangers even more... And I already said about why I don't like the idea of smoking above before now. I will accept any counters to these arguments if you can bring them up.



Zeraeph
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 592

14 Sep 2011, 3:46 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

What is wrong with a natural plant...not being turned into a pharmacutical pill, maybe most cannabis users medicinal users and recreational users don't want to turn medicinal marijuana over to the corrupt pharmacutical companies. What so they can but a brand name on it and lobby the government to make penalties for recreational cannabis use even harsher? and charge ridiculous prices for this pill? And as I have mentioned time and time again in this thread there are edibles, tinctures and other ways to ingest cannabis other than smoking it that do not require processing it into a pill. I smoke ciggerettes and cannabis....what is that going to lead to? I don't plan on smoking anything else.


I just do not think there is any realistic likelihood of legalization for medical purposes without a method of standardised controlled delivery...and honeslty, any drug grower dealer chosen st random is going to be just as corrupt as "big pharma" at best.

Smoking cigarettes is dangerous, in the long term, and in the short term to anyone with a pulmonary condition.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

14 Sep 2011, 4:02 pm

Zeraeph wrote:
Smoking cigarettes is dangerous, in the long term, and in the short term to anyone with a pulmonary condition.


There isn't any nicotine in marijuana. I can see why Sweetleaf automatically makes that statement sometimes because even long after she clarified that people make that mistake.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

14 Sep 2011, 4:07 pm

Zeraeph wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

What is wrong with a natural plant...not being turned into a pharmacutical pill, maybe most cannabis users medicinal users and recreational users don't want to turn medicinal marijuana over to the corrupt pharmacutical companies. What so they can but a brand name on it and lobby the government to make penalties for recreational cannabis use even harsher? and charge ridiculous prices for this pill? And as I have mentioned time and time again in this thread there are edibles, tinctures and other ways to ingest cannabis other than smoking it that do not require processing it into a pill. I smoke ciggerettes and cannabis....what is that going to lead to? I don't plan on smoking anything else.


I just do not think there is any realistic likelihood of legalization for medical purposes without a method of standardised controlled delivery...and honeslty, any drug grower dealer chosen st random is going to be just as corrupt as "big pharma" at best.

Smoking cigarettes is dangerous, in the long term, and in the short term to anyone with a pulmonary condition.


But in states where medicinal marijuana is legal that is how it is...so apparently it is realistic for legalization for medicinal purposes not to include a method of standardised controlled delievery. and even if what you say is true about the corruption, pharmacutical companies have more power and influence over the government which leaves room for more corruption.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

14 Sep 2011, 4:08 pm

Gedrene wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
What about the dangerous side effects associated with many pharmacuticals?

Did you actually read what I put. I said as long as the delivery system is not through hammering your lungs then I am open to tests. Is that going to be okay? Furthermore did I say anything about any existing pharmaceutical drugsor how good they are? No. So please don't presume I think all pharmaceutical drugs are better without any evidence of that belief.

But pharmacuticals that damage your liver and other vital organs are fine? the issue is yes smoking cannabis can contribute to respitory problems, taking some meds can cause liver problems...people should certainly be aware of the risks and benifits of any drug they are going to take to relieve symptoms and make an educated decision. I don't think the risk of respitory damage always outweights the benifits of smoking cannabis.....smoking is the quickest way to injest it which is why it is many peoples preferred method.....they do have vaporizors though which are a bit safer then smoking out of a pipe.


Sweetleaf wrote:
No one is forcing anyone to 'smoke' cannabis, and there is a thc pill but it is not nearly as effective as actual cannabis...because THC is only one active chemical in cannabis there are quite a few others and how they interact and such is important and apparently real THC works better than synthetic THC.

Then extract all the active ingredients and use trials to find out which is best? Also there's no difference between a synthetic chemical and a 'real' or 'natural' chemical. They still have the same molecular structure. Just because a plant made it doesn't mean it is any less synthesized.

It's not that simple.....besides why are you so opposed to edibles? you don't smoke those you eat them...that does not damage lungs or respitory systems. So why should people not be able to choose which method they would like? See people are far too dependent on what someone else says they should do. Basically a pill made of chemicals found in marijuana is not as effective as natural cannabis. Pharmacutical companies just don't want people to start using marijuana because they will lose money. That is what it comes down to. Besides what is more expensive extracting ingredients from marijuana to try and make it into a pill? or growing high quality strains of a plant that helps people and giving them access to it.


Sweetleaf wrote:
I would not mind if there was cannabis that could be injected...don't know if that is possible though. But there are edibles, tinctures and vaporizors. And you do realise smoking cannabis and smoking ciggerettes are quite different right? hell they cannot even relate any cases of lung cancer to smoking cannabis and one study even indicated someone who smokes ciggerettes and cannabis is less likely to get cancer than someone who just smokes ciggerettes.
First, can I see studies about this before I agree with you? And second I doubt that burning plant material and inhaling the resulting smoke is going to reduce the chances of lung or whatever cancer you are thinking of, never mind not do anything.

If I can see the studies that show marijuana causes lung cancer...well no I'll just tell you go to the library, check out a book called The Pot Book it is a book on the recent knowledge about cannabis and it goes in depth.....also at the end of the book is the references of where they got that information so you can also check the original source if you want. That is just where I found it.

And inhaling smoke does not reduce the chance, the cannabanoids in the smoke reduce the chance..the way those react with the carcinogens are what it is attributed to. So though marijuana can contribute to some respitory problems it will not cause lung cancer.

Sweetleaf wrote:
And since when does cannabis blacken teeth? I just don't see where you are getting your information.
An old person I know who smoke cannabis. Quite a few people actually in the real world smoke cannabis despite my own reservations. Greyish or blackish gums and sometimes black teeth.
Do they only smoke cannabis? and how often do they smoke everything that they smoke? Many people in my family smoke and none of them have black teeth or grey gums.

Just because I don't agree with smoking it doesn't mean I am intolerant or am not in close contact with people who disagree with my point of view. Being of a kind of people who tend not to have many friends being intolerant of the minor things in life seems quite counter-intuitive, not that I need a reason not to be a bigoted jackass.


Well I did not suggest I think you are intolarant, but there is a lot of inaccurate information out there.

Aye, there is I understand. In any case I am not a person saying marijuana causes unending suffering and instant death, but I am putting the buoys around the bay of reason and I think I can say that some form of system apart from smoking would be preferable, any system. Cannabrownies? That would be a good idea. Jamaican cannabis ginger cake.


Well yes, but there are people who prefer smoking......which I don't really see a major issue with, if in their case the benifits outweigh the dangers of smoking it.

But the problem with that argument is that in any other delivery system the benefits outweigh the dangers even more... And I already said about why I don't like the idea of smoking above before now. I will accept any counters to these arguments if you can bring them up.


It is fine if you don't like the idea of smoking...no one said you had to, but why should others not smoke it because you don't like the idea?



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

14 Sep 2011, 4:12 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
What about the dangerous side effects associated with many pharmacuticals?

Did you actually read what I put. I said as long as the delivery system is not through hammering your lungs then I am open to tests. Is that going to be okay? Furthermore did I say anything about any existing pharmaceutical drugsor how good they are? No. So please don't presume I think all pharmaceutical drugs are better without any evidence of that belief.

But pharmacuticals that damage your liver and other vital organs are fine? the issue is yes smoking cannabis can contribute to respitory problems, taking some meds can cause liver problems...people should certainly be aware of the risks and benifits of any drug they are going to take to relieve symptoms and make an educated decision. I don't think the risk of respitory damage always outweights the benifits of smoking cannabis.....smoking is the quickest way to injest it which is why it is many peoples preferred method.....they do have vaporizors though which are a bit safer then smoking out of a pipe.


Sweetleaf wrote:
No one is forcing anyone to 'smoke' cannabis, and there is a thc pill but it is not nearly as effective as actual cannabis...because THC is only one active chemical in cannabis there are quite a few others and how they interact and such is important and apparently real THC works better than synthetic THC.

Then extract all the active ingredients and use trials to find out which is best? Also there's no difference between a synthetic chemical and a 'real' or 'natural' chemical. They still have the same molecular structure. Just because a plant made it doesn't mean it is any less synthesized.

It's not that simple.....besides why are you so opposed to edibles? you don't smoke those you eat them...that does not damage lungs or respitory systems. So why should people not be able to choose which method they would like? See people are far too dependent on what someone else says they should do. Basically a pill made of chemicals found in marijuana is not as effective as natural cannabis. Pharmacutical companies just don't want people to start using marijuana because they will lose money. That is what it comes down to. Besides what is more expensive extracting ingredients from marijuana to try and make it into a pill? or growing high quality strains of a plant that helps people and giving them access to it.


Sweetleaf wrote:
I would not mind if there was cannabis that could be injected...don't know if that is possible though. But there are edibles, tinctures and vaporizors. And you do realise smoking cannabis and smoking ciggerettes are quite different right? hell they cannot even relate any cases of lung cancer to smoking cannabis and one study even indicated someone who smokes ciggerettes and cannabis is less likely to get cancer than someone who just smokes ciggerettes.
First, can I see studies about this before I agree with you? And second I doubt that burning plant material and inhaling the resulting smoke is going to reduce the chances of lung or whatever cancer you are thinking of, never mind not do anything.

If I can see the studies that show marijuana causes lung cancer...well no I'll just tell you go to the library, check out a book called The Pot Book it is a book on the recent knowledge about cannabis and it goes in depth.....also at the end of the book is the references of where they got that information so you can also check the original source if you want. That is just where I found it.

And inhaling smoke does not reduce the chance, the cannabanoids in the smoke reduce the chance..the way those react with the carcinogens are what it is attributed to. So though marijuana can contribute to some respitory problems it will not cause lung cancer.

Sweetleaf wrote:
And since when does cannabis blacken teeth? I just don't see where you are getting your information.
An old person I know who smoke cannabis. Quite a few people actually in the real world smoke cannabis despite my own reservations. Greyish or blackish gums and sometimes black teeth.
Do they only smoke cannabis? and how often do they smoke everything that they smoke? Many people in my family smoke and none of them have black teeth or grey gums.

Just because I don't agree with smoking it doesn't mean I am intolerant or am not in close contact with people who disagree with my point of view. Being of a kind of people who tend not to have many friends being intolerant of the minor things in life seems quite counter-intuitive, not that I need a reason not to be a bigoted jackass.


Well I did not suggest I think you are intolarant, but there is a lot of inaccurate information out there.

Aye, there is I understand. In any case I am not a person saying marijuana causes unending suffering and instant death, but I am putting the buoys around the bay of reason and I think I can say that some form of system apart from smoking would be preferable, any system. Cannabrownies? That would be a good idea. Jamaican cannabis ginger cake.


Well yes, but there are people who prefer smoking......which I don't really see a major issue with, if in their case the benifits outweigh the dangers of smoking it.

But the problem with that argument is that in any other delivery system the benefits outweigh the dangers even more... And I already said about why I don't like the idea of smoking above before now. I will accept any counters to these arguments if you can bring them up.


It is fine if you don't like the idea of smoking...no one said you had to, but why should others not smoke it because you don't like the idea?

Because if the chemicals in Marijuana are actually useful as a pharmaceutical drug then I have every reason to make sure that if made legal the system of delivery is also as safe as possible. That's just good medical practice.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

14 Sep 2011, 4:37 pm

Gedrene wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
What about the dangerous side effects associated with many pharmacuticals?

Did you actually read what I put. I said as long as the delivery system is not through hammering your lungs then I am open to tests. Is that going to be okay? Furthermore did I say anything about any existing pharmaceutical drugsor how good they are? No. So please don't presume I think all pharmaceutical drugs are better without any evidence of that belief.

But pharmacuticals that damage your liver and other vital organs are fine? the issue is yes smoking cannabis can contribute to respitory problems, taking some meds can cause liver problems...people should certainly be aware of the risks and benifits of any drug they are going to take to relieve symptoms and make an educated decision. I don't think the risk of respitory damage always outweights the benifits of smoking cannabis.....smoking is the quickest way to injest it which is why it is many peoples preferred method.....they do have vaporizors though which are a bit safer then smoking out of a pipe.


Sweetleaf wrote:
No one is forcing anyone to 'smoke' cannabis, and there is a thc pill but it is not nearly as effective as actual cannabis...because THC is only one active chemical in cannabis there are quite a few others and how they interact and such is important and apparently real THC works better than synthetic THC.

Then extract all the active ingredients and use trials to find out which is best? Also there's no difference between a synthetic chemical and a 'real' or 'natural' chemical. They still have the same molecular structure. Just because a plant made it doesn't mean it is any less synthesized.

It's not that simple.....besides why are you so opposed to edibles? you don't smoke those you eat them...that does not damage lungs or respitory systems. So why should people not be able to choose which method they would like? See people are far too dependent on what someone else says they should do. Basically a pill made of chemicals found in marijuana is not as effective as natural cannabis. Pharmacutical companies just don't want people to start using marijuana because they will lose money. That is what it comes down to. Besides what is more expensive extracting ingredients from marijuana to try and make it into a pill? or growing high quality strains of a plant that helps people and giving them access to it.


Sweetleaf wrote:
I would not mind if there was cannabis that could be injected...don't know if that is possible though. But there are edibles, tinctures and vaporizors. And you do realise smoking cannabis and smoking ciggerettes are quite different right? hell they cannot even relate any cases of lung cancer to smoking cannabis and one study even indicated someone who smokes ciggerettes and cannabis is less likely to get cancer than someone who just smokes ciggerettes.
First, can I see studies about this before I agree with you? And second I doubt that burning plant material and inhaling the resulting smoke is going to reduce the chances of lung or whatever cancer you are thinking of, never mind not do anything.

If I can see the studies that show marijuana causes lung cancer...well no I'll just tell you go to the library, check out a book called The Pot Book it is a book on the recent knowledge about cannabis and it goes in depth.....also at the end of the book is the references of where they got that information so you can also check the original source if you want. That is just where I found it.

And inhaling smoke does not reduce the chance, the cannabanoids in the smoke reduce the chance..the way those react with the carcinogens are what it is attributed to. So though marijuana can contribute to some respitory problems it will not cause lung cancer.

Sweetleaf wrote:
And since when does cannabis blacken teeth? I just don't see where you are getting your information.
An old person I know who smoke cannabis. Quite a few people actually in the real world smoke cannabis despite my own reservations. Greyish or blackish gums and sometimes black teeth.
Do they only smoke cannabis? and how often do they smoke everything that they smoke? Many people in my family smoke and none of them have black teeth or grey gums.

Just because I don't agree with smoking it doesn't mean I am intolerant or am not in close contact with people who disagree with my point of view. Being of a kind of people who tend not to have many friends being intolerant of the minor things in life seems quite counter-intuitive, not that I need a reason not to be a bigoted jackass.


Well I did not suggest I think you are intolarant, but there is a lot of inaccurate information out there.

Aye, there is I understand. In any case I am not a person saying marijuana causes unending suffering and instant death, but I am putting the buoys around the bay of reason and I think I can say that some form of system apart from smoking would be preferable, any system. Cannabrownies? That would be a good idea. Jamaican cannabis ginger cake.


Well yes, but there are people who prefer smoking......which I don't really see a major issue with, if in their case the benifits outweigh the dangers of smoking it.

But the problem with that argument is that in any other delivery system the benefits outweigh the dangers even more... And I already said about why I don't like the idea of smoking above before now. I will accept any counters to these arguments if you can bring them up.


It is fine if you don't like the idea of smoking...no one said you had to, but why should others not smoke it because you don't like the idea?

Because if the chemicals in Marijuana are actually useful as a pharmaceutical drug then I have every reason to make sure that if made legal the system of delivery is also as safe as possible. That's just good medical practice.


What makes pharmacuticals so much better than a naturally occuring drug? And also we have covered the bit about lung/respitory damage and marijuana...and it is clear you do not think people should smoke it and I disagree with that as does the state I live in. But what about the edibles and tinctures? there is no lung or respitory damage possible with those.

The chemicals as they occur in cannabis are useful as is, no need to mess around with the chemistry and then add you know 500 mg of that nasty liver damaging active ingredient found in tylenol and vicodin known as acetaminophe to the minimum dose of the active ingredients found in marijuana.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

14 Sep 2011, 4:53 pm

Listen to me already! I already said that I wanted to make it as safe as possible, so don't think that just because I use the word pharmaceutical doesn't mean I will use something that causes liver damage. I don't care what your state thinks is dangerous. Arguments from authority will not convince me whether something is a good idea or not, and the fact remains that smoking it was the only thing I had a problem with, so please don't start talking about edibles like I object to them.

It doesn't take a genius to know that telling people to smoke a burning material as medication IS NOT good medical practice. I already said that the insistence on smoking cannabis sounds fishy because it makes it sound like people use it for recreational purposes.

It will also ineveitably cause lung damage. Particles of partially combusted plant matter, carbon monoxide and tar will be inhaled and that is dangerous. That's true no matter what you smoke from cigarettes to paper bleeding towels.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

14 Sep 2011, 5:11 pm

Gedrene wrote:
Listen to me already! I already said that I wanted to make it as safe as possible, so don't think that just because I use the word pharmaceutical doesn't mean I will use something that causes liver damage. I don't care what your state thinks is dangerous. Arguments from authority will not convince me whether something is a good idea or not, and the fact remains that smoking it was the only thing I had a problem with, so please don't start talking about edibles like I object to them.

It doesn't take a genius to know that telling people to smoke a burning material as medication IS NOT good medical practice. I already said that the insistence on smoking cannabis sounds fishy because it makes it sound like people use it for recreational purposes.

It will also ineveitably cause lung damage. Particles of partially combusted plant matter, carbon monoxide and tar will be inhaled and that is dangerous. That's true no matter what you smoke from cigarettes to paper bleeding towels.


The point is I don't think the pharmacutical companies should be the ones producing and distributing cannabis in pill format with other chemicals possibly being added to it. It is fine as it grows....and I am pretty sure most in the pharmacutical industry are not very good at gardening.

And we already covered the smoking thing and I agreed that yes smoking is the least safe method of ingestion and you keep bringing that up when I try to move on to edibles so I thought you objected to them as well.

Also for some the risks associated with smoking it do not outweigh the benifits, so i feel it is fine if they have the option to smoke it but are educated on what the risks are. And personally I think it should be legal in general its no worse than drinking a beer as far as recreational use goes.



number2
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 288

14 Sep 2011, 6:10 pm

I'm totally for legalization sure i can go and buy booze to help me cope with my chronic depression but I know that alcohol is far more harmful then marijuana so I like to stick to marijuana becuase of that. my theory that marijuana is a substance about somewhere as harmful inbetween coffee and beer.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

14 Sep 2011, 6:17 pm

number2 wrote:
I'm totally for legalization sure i can go and buy booze to help me cope with my chronic depression but I know that alcohol is far more harmful then marijuana so I like to stick to marijuana becuase of that. my theory that marijuana is a substance about somewhere as harmful inbetween coffee and beer.


Honestly, it is more likely someone could die from caffine easier than they could die from marijuana. I mean on some of the powerful energy drinks it says 'Do Not Exceed One Can' per day for a reason. I find cannabis to be quite benificial, but the illegal status of it kind of interferes but the cannabis is not what causes that that would be unjust laws against smoking cannabis. at least I think those laws are unjust.



number2
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 288

14 Sep 2011, 6:52 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
number2 wrote:
I'm totally for legalization sure i can go and buy booze to help me cope with my chronic depression but I know that alcohol is far more harmful then marijuana so I like to stick to marijuana becuase of that. my theory that marijuana is a substance about somewhere as harmful inbetween coffee and beer.


Honestly, it is more likely someone could die from caffine easier than they could die from marijuana. I mean on some of the powerful energy drinks it says 'Do Not Exceed One Can' per day for a reason. I find cannabis to be quite benificial, but the illegal status of it kind of interferes but the cannabis is not what causes that that would be unjust laws against smoking cannabis. at least I think those laws are unjust.


I know caffine is more harmful then marijuana thats why i said coffee i don't think anyone has died from drinking too much coffee becuase there isnt as much caffine as in a red bull.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

14 Sep 2011, 6:58 pm

number2 wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
number2 wrote:
I'm totally for legalization sure i can go and buy booze to help me cope with my chronic depression but I know that alcohol is far more harmful then marijuana so I like to stick to marijuana becuase of that. my theory that marijuana is a substance about somewhere as harmful inbetween coffee and beer.


Honestly, it is more likely someone could die from caffine easier than they could die from marijuana. I mean on some of the powerful energy drinks it says 'Do Not Exceed One Can' per day for a reason. I find cannabis to be quite benificial, but the illegal status of it kind of interferes but the cannabis is not what causes that that would be unjust laws against smoking cannabis. at least I think those laws are unjust.


I know caffine is more harmful then marijuana thats why i said coffee i don't think anyone has died from drinking too much coffee becuase there isnt as much caffine as in a red bull.


True it would be kinda hard to overdose on coffee.