Can anyone counter this pretty compelling argument on the medical risks?

420monster

420monster

Well-Known Member
You hear what the media wants you to hear remember the old study cannabis kills 10,000 brain calls per hit? Ever research how it was done? Monkey's were given Columbia strength cannabis (the best quality at the time) adminstired threw non rebreathers for hours on end and then cut open and there brains examined problem is I can do the same simply with the fact of lack of oxygen not cannabis no bias study's conducted today shows that cannabis could have the oppsite effect

Sent from my SM-J100VPP using Rollitup mobile app
 
B

brimck325

Well-Known Member
i read an article recently about a report stating pot causing so many accidents they forgot to mention that the people were asked if they ever used cannabis not if they were high when the accident happened…lol…..it was something to that extent anyway...
 
D

Dirty Harry

Well-Known Member
If one has the money for a good study, and can find the correct group to ask the right questions worded in a way that will likely result in the answer one wants...you can pretty much get a study to come out the way you would like it. When it comes to studies, I weigh the motives of those funding the study higher than the results.
 
b4ds33d

b4ds33d

Well-Known Member
worked in the medical field for 23 years, never saw a pot related trauma besides obesity. i'm sorry, but the same scientists that say pot is bad for you are the same ones behind global warming. the science is just not there and any claims that it is is a lie. big pharma is fucking terrified of cannabis as well as most conventional wisdom medical folks. pushing meds that are known to fuck your health but have a high profit margin are good business.
 
I.G.Rowdit

I.G.Rowdit

Well-Known Member
You have to look at these 'studies' closely. If you are not experienced at reading this sort of thing it is very easy to get the wrong impression. It is easy to jump to the conclusion the authors guide you to in spite of the fact that this is not the conclusion the paper came to.

Many references in the list are articles from popular publications like newspapers and websites. Non-scientist journalists are, at best, poorly qualified to understand the actual significance of a real scientific study. Instead, they look for the grabber headline. Combine the grabber headlines with an organization or individual that has a matching agenda and you get an article like the one referenced. The usual label for this kind of journalism is 'cherry picking', i.e. include only articles that support your conclusion regardless of how many there are that do not support your conclusion or flatly deny it.

This type of journalism can be very convincing to the uninformed. A really good current example of the selling power of this sort of approach is the alternative medicine pitch from your local PBS station during pledge week. 15 minutes of watching will convince you that the presenter has solved a horrendous medical issue that has cause suffering and death for millions of years. You have to ask yourself, if you came up with a cure for the common cold would you decide that the best way to serve humanity and possibly make a profit was to sell your cure on PBS during pledge week?

I sum up this with the guiding principle of cherry pickers, three card monte dealers and PBS presenters everywhere, "If the pitch is right the suckers will bite".

Cannabis usage is one of the worlds largest ongoing, unintentional epidemiological studies. People have been using cannabis for literally thousands of years. Cannabis usage has undergone extensive study in the last 50 or so years. Any significant effects would have been noticed by now. Most of the listed studies are either just excuses to publish a scary headline or an investigation of a narrow spectrum of use or users.

I do take the studies of diminished I.Q. seriously. But the studies have trouble controlling other factors that may affect intelligence so I'm not completely convinced. However, there is sufficient evidence to keep cannabis away from children. I think this message is clear. The Colorado cannabis legislation for example contains a lot of regulations intended to keep cannabis out of the hands of under-aged users based on this evidence.

I also must add, ANY inhaled plant product is probably a carcinogen and probably has other significant long term health effects. Studies show cannabis is far safer than tobacco not because cannabis smoke is somehow less likely to have a carcinogenic effect but because tobacco smokers tend to consume 10-20 times (one joint a day vs one pack a day) as much as cannabis smokers so the carcinogenic effect is very much greater for tobacco smokers.
 
A.K.A. Overgrowem

A.K.A. Overgrowem

Well-Known Member
Just watched the Senate hearing on alternative approaches to the drug war. Dr. Ethan Nadelman and Dr. Scott McDonald were, as expected, great. The real eye opener is in the testimony of Dr. David Murray, a Bush Admin. drug warrior, who wants to EXPAND the drug war. Everyone should listen to this tin hat on the Drug Policy Alliance site. I thought I was listening to the Nixon White House as he laid out the idiocy of his double down drug policy for all to see.
 
Last edited:
b4ds33d

b4ds33d

Well-Known Member
any support of the drug war and you really have to question their sanity and motivations. the ONLY groups that have benefitted from the war on drugs is local/state/federal law enforcement and court systems, lawyers, and privatized penal systems. the People have been trampled every step of the way.
 
Last edited:
bartow

bartow

Well-Known Member
I am pretty old and have had memory problems for a while. I started taking infused oil for another health problem. For about two weeks my memory was worse. Then it went back to normal but after not too long my memory is better than it was before I started using the oil. Clearly it is a myth, at least in my case that it destroys a person's memory.
 
Indacouch

Indacouch

Well-Known Member
These same people that pay for these studies to get mmj frowned upon sometimes end up getting sick or having a family member who is having seizures to the point where they gotta bite the bullet in there mind and resort to the very thing they were fighting against MMJ ....I've seen it several time and I actually know a police officer personally who is retired now but has cancer and he feels bad for doing what he did to legit users when he was still working ......gotta find a legitimate neutral party to test it or like mentioned above cash is king for results ..........kinda like an atheist spending there whole life telling people there's no God but guess who there asking for help or what there usually saying on there death bed ....oh God ....that's just an example of what I'm trying to say above most people who are against it and saying these things would use it if that was there only option for quality of life .......the only reason pots not completely legal is because they are still trying to figure out how to make the most money off of it IMO .......nothing wrong with good well grown clean mmj it saved my sisters life literally
 
VirtualHerd

VirtualHerd

Well-Known Member
bassboy2k said:
Found this article which, even for someone who's pro legalization like me, makes scary reading:https://www.tremr.com/marty-nemko/should-marijuana-be-kept-illegal

Can all these studies be wrong?
Click to expand...

One post? Ya, that's not suspect.... Like others have mentioned you have to look at who funded the studies and look close at the studies themselves.

Wonder what pharm company/pharm funded group is paying people to post these on forums. Things are heating up here in AZ with big Pharm funding groups that opose legalization to "protect the children" Who is protecting the children from all the opiates? Greedy, filthy, liars.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
I.G.Rowdit said:
You have to look at these 'studies' closely. If you are not experienced at reading this sort of thing it is very easy to get the wrong impression. It is easy to jump to the conclusion the authors guide you to in spite of the fact that this is not the conclusion the paper came to.

Many references in the list are articles from popular publications like newspapers and websites. Non-scientist journalists are, at best, poorly qualified to understand the actual significance of a real scientific study. Instead, they look for the grabber headline. Combine the grabber headlines with an organization or individual that has a matching agenda and you get an article like the one referenced. The usual label for this kind of journalism is 'cherry picking', i.e. include only articles that support your conclusion regardless of how many there are that do not support your conclusion or flatly deny it.

This type of journalism can be very convincing to the uninformed. A really good current example of the selling power of this sort of approach is the alternative medicine pitch from your local PBS station during pledge week. 15 minutes of watching will convince you that the presenter has solved a horrendous medical issue that has cause suffering and death for millions of years. You have to ask yourself, if you came up with a cure for the common cold would you decide that the best way to serve humanity and possibly make a profit was to sell your cure on PBS during pledge week?

I sum up this with the guiding principle of cherry pickers, three card monte dealers and PBS presenters everywhere, "If the pitch is right the suckers will bite".

Cannabis usage is one of the worlds largest ongoing, unintentional epidemiological studies. People have been using cannabis for literally thousands of years. Cannabis usage has undergone extensive study in the last 50 or so years. Any significant effects would have been noticed by now. Most of the listed studies are either just excuses to publish a scary headline or an investigation of a narrow spectrum of use or users.

I do take the studies of diminished I.Q. seriously. But the studies have trouble controlling other factors that may affect intelligence so I'm not completely convinced. However, there is sufficient evidence to keep cannabis away from children. I think this message is clear. The Colorado cannabis legislation for example contains a lot of regulations intended to keep cannabis out of the hands of under-aged users based on this evidence.

I also must add, ANY inhaled plant product is probably a carcinogen and probably has other significant long term health effects. Studies show cannabis is far safer than tobacco not because cannabis smoke is somehow less likely to have a carcinogenic effect but because tobacco smokers tend to consume 10-20 times (one joint a day vs one pack a day) as much as cannabis smokers so the carcinogenic effect is very much greater for tobacco smokers.
Click to expand...
If smoking weed caused cancer, we'd know about it. In fact, many long term studies have shown that while tobacco certainly causes cancer, cannabis does NOT.

Cannabis is being given to children with a variety of health problems, notably epilepsy, with few if any side effects.

I don't recommend giving anyone, children or adults, medication 'just because'. Recreational use is for adults who can make their own choices. In this society, minors aren't allowed to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top