Marijuana (Good, Bad, Ugly?)

[BILI]

Well it shouldn't effect everyone different really, if it does again it is not the weed it is the individual.

If your high lasts you more than 2 days, please send me some ASAP...never heard of that in my life.

Haha,you don't want that, I had real high for 3,4 hours, other 2 days were really fucked up,it felt like you were in a state of wearing off, but just for so long,its probably cause I smoked much more last month then what I'm used too. And of course it effects everyone different and ofc it should effect everyone different,that's with everything, cigs,cocaine,alcohol,some people drink few shots of vodka and puke, get dizzy,bla bla, it all depends on metabolism and your mind state. Especially if you feel stressed or depressed.

Well, it could take me 3 sips of vodka too get drunk and it could take someone else a bottle to get drunk but being drunk is drunk it should be the same, the way you act when u r drunk is again the individual.
Everyone gets high and some people need 2 pulls or 2 joints to get high but it is the same high for everyone.
With Cocaine it is different cuz you have no clue what is in there and I have lots of experience with coke.

It's not the same drunk,someone has blank spots,someone pukes,someone ends up on ER. I can drink two bottles of johnny walker and just feel good and wake up in the morning all regular. While someone can drink even few shots mixed with coke and get all fucked up, and have all sorts of problems, but still I agree that Mary Jane is better for your physical health then alcohol,it even has a healing side with some illnesses, I would never smoke it if I felt different, but I'm not a huge pot head either. But I still know that it effects you on a mental level, especially people with anxiety and depression cause It's a known fact that it makes those stats harder to deal with,and empowers them. I'm not saying its bad, but I'm not even saying its a saint drug like some people are, its definitely better then heroin or cocaine, but i still causes harm to you. I have a huge alcohol tolerance and I was only really really fucked up few times from it while with weed I get fucked up more easy cause of my low tolerance, I know how much I can smoke, but some people dont know and they try that good shit and smoke much more then they can and end up in mental hospitals, one guy thought he got schizophrenia for a month after he tried to smoke much more then he can. He's fine now but had to go to therapy. So that's where I think you are wrong about the same high for everyone,cause yes someone needs only few puffs and someone needs two joints,it would all be perfect if those who need few puffs would stop there and be high and happy, but they unfortunately try to keep up and fuck themselfs upWhen I get high I get out of the circle and most of my pot buddies continue cause they can handle it. So imo all stimulants are bad in one way or another, plus when you get addicted it also becomes another problem, I know there are like many addictions and they are all bad, so same with weed, I had gambling problem which is not even that big of a deal for me since my parents earn a really nice salary, but it was still fucking up with my life cause that's all I would think about all day. Same is with a friend from high school, he got addicted to weed really early and now 6,7 years later he is with no school,no job,living with his parents and all day smoking pot doing nothing with his life,how sad is that and he was such a nice kid,it makes me cry. So basically while you can control it and do it like once a week or during weekends then I say smoke all the way, that's how I pass by,but as long as it doesn't interfere with your plans,life,future its all good. My 2 cents,I'm on phone so sry for typos and a long ass post with no paragraphs..

[SliK]

To be fair though, it only helps to manage symptoms (like loss of apetite, nausea, insomnia, etc) which can be very useful, but it doesn't help to cure the cause of the symptoms.

[AbramIsaac]

SliK, there have been multiple studies that indicate that THC and other non-psychoactive cannabinoids actually do help fight cancer directly, as well as managing the symptoms.

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows

The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

Marijuana Fights Cancer and Helps Manage Side Effects, Researchers Find

Mounting evidence shows ‘cannabinoids’ in marijuana slow cancer growth, inhibit formation of new blood cells that feed a tumor, and help manage pain, fatigue, nausea, and other side effects.

Cannabis extract shrinks brain tumours < I believe this is referencing the same lab as the second link
Article about a study done at the Medical College of Virginia in 1974, and the Madrid Study
An excerpt from a local article about the study in 1974:

"The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered." The researchers "found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."

While it's not cut-and-dry, it's clear that there is a direct action upon cancer tumors.

[SliK]

I don't see it say anywhere that it cures cancer though, or even help to cure it, which is what I said.

I've read studies like that before, but does that take into account the damage done by filling your lungs with smoke every day for 3 decades? No. It's just tests on lab mice.

[AbramIsaac]

How does shrinking tumors and preventing them from spreading not help to cure cancer? I'm not saying it's a direct cure, but my point is that there is definitely a direct action upon the cancer tumors themselves.

Beyond that, if you're using marijuana therapeutically, it's wise not to smoke it. Eat it, use extracts, or vaporize the THC. That minimized the negative effects from the plant material combustion. As far as 3 decades of inhaling the smoke, the study I linked a few pages back was actually a 30 year study, and showed that regular use left the smokers with no decrease in lung function.

Some even had better lung function than non-smokers. That has more to do with holding the smoke in though. Stress training for the lungs or whatever.

[SliK]

It says helps to shrink the tumor and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.
So, they still died of cancer, just 36% slower...

you know what, you could vaporize tobacco or eat it and take extracts and it would be a lot better for you but at the end of the day people smoke it and it causes them harm. Same with weed.

[Chet Starr]

I'm so fucking high right now guys

Weed has kept me 17 days sober from bad drugs. Weed is my anti drug -giggles-

[AbramIsaac]

It says helps to shrink the tumor and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.
So, they still died of cancer, just 36% slower...

you know what, you could vaporize tobacco or eat it and take extracts and it would be a lot better for you but at the end of the day people smoke it and it causes them harm. Same with weed.

Right...but that was 28 years ago, and they were only treated with THC. I'm not saying it's a cure, I'm saying--in response to your original statement--that it does more than just manage the symptoms, and can be used to help with the cure. Obviously, it would be a good idea to do more than just smoke weed if you have cancer, but I think it's clear that it does more than just help manage the symptoms.

Regardless of whether or not you eat or vaporize, that's not the point. The point is that the THC and other cannabinoids can help treat the cancer tumors directly. The harm reduction is a secondary point, and is arguably not a major concern for a normal person, since other studies have shown that even over 30 years of regular use, lung function in people was not decreased.

[BILI]

Hah,come on bigray,go read a bit about weed...not causing anxiety after you smoke it yet up to 30% of smokers say they have it after?...I stopped reading there tbh

[SliK]

My point with smoking for 20-30 years is that I haven't seen a study that proves the effictiveness of THC in fighting/preventing cancer would be enough to counter-balance all the cancer causing carcenogens etc that you would inhale over a lifetime of smoking weed.

so yes, I'm agreeing THC helps, but I don't think you can accurately say "Oh yeah, smoke all day every day for decades because 28 years ago a study showed that it decreased the size of tumors".

Maybe THC reduces the risk of cancer by 30% (arbitrary number), but smoking every day for 30 years might increase it by 40%. You see what I'm saying?

[AbramIsaac]

My point with smoking for 20-30 years is that I haven't seen a study that proves the effictiveness of THC in fighting/preventing cancer would be enough to counter-balance all the cancer causing carcenogens etc that you would inhale over a lifetime of smoking weed.

so yes, I'm agreeing THC helps, but I don't think you can accurately say "Oh yeah, smoke all day every day for decades because 28 years ago a study showed that it decreased the size of tumors".

Maybe THC reduces the risk of cancer by 30% (arbitrary number), but smoking every day for 30 years might increase it by 40%. You see what I'm saying?

Fair enough, that's a valid point.

While there is a shortage of long-term human studies on that, I was able to find one. It was conducted by the American Thoracic Society, and was a long term, lifetime based study. What they found is that people who smoke marijuana--even more than 22,000 joints in a lifetime--are not at an increased risk for developing lung cancer.

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/2 ... ung-cancer

“We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD. “But we did not find any evidence for an increase in cancer risk for even heavy marijuana smoking.” Carcinogens are substances that cause cancer.

[SliK]

I hate people who argue with studies, but that one doesn't seem very scientific. They took a small sample of people with and without cancer and asked about their smoking habits? Seems unreliable, i prefer ones with test subjects. Let's give mice or monkeys weed every day and see how it goes.

Even then, what else lives for 80 years like humans? Humans generally don't get cancer until they're 50+. Mice don't live that long so just because they don't get cancer doesnt mean it wouldn't cause cancer after more use.

I don't know, I just find it hard to believe that it doesn't increase the chance of cancer even minutely.

[SliK]

From the study above:

“We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD. “But we did not find any evidence for an increase in cancer risk for even heavy marijuana smoking.” Carcinogens are substances that cause cancer."

There is evidence to suggest that it does, but not enough reliable studies to conclusively make a decision either way as far as I'm concerned.

[AbramIsaac]

That was the point though.

They were saying that due to the carcinogens in the smoke, it was assumed there would be a link between the smoke and cancer risk. Regardless of what's in the smoke, the point is that the evidence is building that smoking marijuana does not increase your cancer risk.

So if the risk isn't increased, and the THC also helps combat cancer if you do get it, then I would say we're looking at at very least a neutral substance, and possible a positive one.

EDIT:

SliK, there have been animal studies, but you didn't want those. You expressed interest in long-term human studies.

EDIT 2:

That study alone wouldn't be enough to convince me either, but the idea is that there are many, many studies that show THC combats cancer, that marijuana doesn't decrease lung function. The point is that cumulatively, it's a fairly benign substance even when you smoke it.

[SliK]

I'm certainly not opposed to the idea, but I am on the fence until I see more conclusive studies.

I think it's definitely safe to say that the risk is far lower than cigarettes.

Edit: i'd be interested in long term studies on other primates.