Quote:
Most people don't belive In wiki for some dumb resaon. wonder why..
It's because anybody can edit Wikipedia, even the stupidest people on the planet.
I know that stupid people edit wiki. But they always fix it right?
But they always fix it right?
That depends on how long it is until the next person who knows what they're talking about comes along. 🙁
Whoever says marijuanna is chemically addictive is a knave. 'Nuff said.
My older friend smoked 99 bongs the night after Skynyrd crashed, and did he get withdrawl? No. He just got a mean heavy for about 5 days.
HOLY CRAP! 99?! (99 packets of bong on the wall, 99 packets of bong on the wall, take it around, smoke for now, and you got 91 packects of bong on the wall 
*run off*)
Yeah basically you'd have to be flying, non-stop, for like a year to develop any kind of physical dependence.
Quote:
My older friend smoked 99 bongs the night after Skynyrd crashed, and did he get withdrawl? No. He just got a mean heavy for about 5 days.
Yes. In 1977. The amount he smoked would be the equivalent of 2 or 3, modern strength. Marijuana in the 60s and 70s had 1% the potency of modern marijuana. If he smoked that much of modern, he'd OD and probably be dead.
Also...what part of "beats new niches into your cannaboids so the natural chemicals your brain makes can't fit in so you need the drug to feel normal" doesn't sound like chemical dependency?
Props for knowing the year. Unless you wiki'd it, in which case you lose respect.
Let me say this, in weed, basically nothing is consitent. The measure of "One joint equals 4 cigarretes" becuase their is no suggestion on the size of the joint, the paper, the content, etc etc.
Same thing applies to your percentages. What kind of modern marijuanna? Dirty mexican stuff, or finely grown hydro from San Francisco? Nomatter what it's bulls**t.
If weed is 1% as potent back in the day, wouldnt that require a couple OUNCES of the substance? Man. You and your crazy unchecked urban legends.
Finally, your one study was contraticted by countless studies and chemical analysis before that, saying that marijuanna is not chemically addictive. Also, I have personal knowledge of a lot of people who either smoke as little as once ever couple months or who stopped completely with no problem.
I'll take another 100 cigars before I touch marijuana, end of story.
I hate it with my everything. =b
~T2K
YAY FOR NOT TOCHING MARIJUANA! (goes to sleep)
The amount he smoked would be the equivalent of 2 or 3, modern strength.
Uh, no. You're wrong.
Finally, your one study was contraticted by countless studies and chemical analysis before that, saying that marijuanna is not chemically addictive. Also, I have personal knowledge of a lot of people who either smoke as little as once ever couple months or who stopped completely with no problem.
I'd like to see the dates on said studies, Geo. Current studies are showing that is IS, in fact, chemically addictive. And as for the second part, some people are lucky. We'll see how the ones that keep smoking it do in the long run.
Please provide conclusive evidence that casual marijuana use causes any appreciable harm in the long run. By "casual", I mean once or twice a month, and by "appreciable", I mean "more lung damage than spending a week in LA" or "more brain damage than listening to 50 Cent".
...listening to 50 Cent does not cause brain damage. 😛
...Yes it does, and it causes you have severe headaches.
Quote:
Please provide conclusive evidence that casual marijuana use causes any appreciable harm in the long run.
Please provide me with conclusive evidence that casual CIGARETTE use causes any appreciable harm in the long run. Same time and harm conditions apply. It's almost the same thing. Marijuana contains more carcinogens than tobacco, only unlike cigarettes, standard practice, or so I've been told, is to take the smoke in and hold it in, not immediately exhale it like cigarettes. ANY time your lungs ingest something besides air, they're getting damaged. Also, you miss one psychological factor: conditioning. If one enjoys an experience, they're more likely to repeat the activity that produces the effect. More and more. Weed, as I'm told, provides an enjoyable experience. The idea of conditioning states that the individual is likely to repeat the activity of smoking it more often, until it DOES become the chemical addiction with aforesaid malevolent effects. The human body can handle many things in moderation. Problem is, humans also have a tendency NOT to do anything in moderation.
Please provide me with conclusive evidence that casual CIGARETTE use causes any appreciable harm in the long run. Same time and harm conditions apply.
One or two cigarettes a month, even on a long time frame, will cause no appreciable or significant harm to a human. I don't know where I said it would. I don't see what the point of that was other than to avoid admitting that you couldn't find anything.
Also, you miss one psychological factor: conditioning. If one enjoys an experience, they're more likely to repeat the activity that produces the effect. More and more. Weed, as I'm told, provides an enjoyable experience. The idea of conditioning states that the individual is likely to repeat the activity of smoking it more often, until it DOES become the chemical addiction with aforesaid malevolent effects. The human body can handle many things in moderation. Problem is, humans also have a tendency NOT to do anything in moderation.
That is entirely dependent on the user. What you just described is essentially the same thing as being addicted to World of Warcraft.
Oh, if Cy wants to play the pull-studies-out-the-wazzoo game, I think I'll join in.
No link between marijuanna use and cancer
Chew on that, Portly.
Could you find that kind of thing on some news source that people have actually heard of before, please?
A note: Today the restaurant I work at implemented its "No Smoking Section between 8am-3pm" rule. We had 20 table walkouts and our numbers were down over $500 from last Saturday.
Thanks Dallas Mayor Laura Miller!
While I'm not involved in the current debate, using a source that you've never heard before doesn't necessarily negate the source. Just do a little research on the source--and that's not difficult to do.
Oh, and restaurant owners in NYC I think have gotten used to the lost business--people went to New Jersey. While the "no smoking" bans do help me personally, I don't like eating out anyway so it becomes a moot point. ;p
I tried to look them up but all Google had was their homepage, and Wikipedia has nothing.
You know something is obscure when Wikipedia doesn't know of it. That's why I wanted a more-known source.
Umm, I found out plenty by reading the website itself. That's the first thing you use, not Wikipedia or Google. If you had, you'd realize that Newswise only publishes info it receives from others--and the source for the research that Geogwe linked to is fairly well-known as its called the "American Thoracic Society." ;p
No, typically I don't read a website for information about that website. Websites typically don't list bad thigs about themselves. I don't want "this is tha best website evar1!!!1" without hearing SOME criticism about it.
You're not doing research correctly if you're trying to become informed about something if the only thing you're looking for is "negatives." All websites by reading their "about us" (or similarly named stuff) let you know their angle and that is what you need to know first and foremost--and if you get people's names then you can look them up if applicable. Besides, most people don't know research related sites/archives (as the large majority of research does not make "traditional" media) so that's why I'm never fond of the "I never heard of it before"-comments to dismiss something, particularly in regards to research. Call it "biased" due to something and that's acceptable as it shows some thought went behind it, but never "I don't know." Always check it out first, then use other things.
I'm sorry, I just typically don't like hearing from somehting I've never heard of before, yet never hearing of this anywhere else. Especially if that something is something controversial and/or generally regarded as incorrect.
And before you start misquoting me on that, let me make it clear what I mean by incorrect. Most people associate drug smoking with health effects like cancer. So when something says that's not true, most people would initially think that's incoorect, yeah?
And no, I don't look for JUST negative things. However, nothing is perfect. There's going to be negatives on anything, and I want to know what those negatives are. Could be small things like date or name errors, could be big things like "Frequently posts unverified and incorrect facts." I just wanted to know if one of the negatives was a big thing like that. and typically "about us" pages don't say that.
Actually, supposedly most people don't research anything, nor think for themselves. So, I don't use "most people" as a guide for much of anything.
Also, if everything has negatives, then there's nothing to pay attention to based on that logic. Oh, and because something posts supposedly inaccurate facts (though that's definitely not applicable in this case) even most of the time doesn't mean it's always wrong. ;p
That's why I said "frequently." You don't take information from a source you can't trust.
Except your logic basically means that you can't trust anything at all because everything is "new" to you at some point or has "negatives." **shrug**
I'm discussing your reasons for distrusting something, not that one is supposed to trust everything.
No, it's not wether or not it's new to me. It's not if it has negatives, everything has bad things about them. But I don't want to get my news from something - This is a what if scenario still - that's known for giving out false information frequently. That makes sense, yeah?
That's fine.
