Think you know the truth about Jesus?Read on...

[Poci]

Time for some logic here

Nonprofit foundations created by the philanthropist George Soros

Now explain to me why they would doctor the results?In any case a study of any kind would doctor the results to favor the people paying them to their liking,what goverment studies are....
But this study is done by a NONPROFIT organization,wow they sure must have doctored the results and they are a bunch of hippies trying convince fools like me that pot isnt harmfull
Case closed

And about my rage,yes it really pisses me off that so many people in this country are like you,beleiving all the prohibitionist lies and the moment someone trys to shed some truth in the situation you lash out with a typical in denial response on how that study is doctored or biased,when you dont even realize that the studies funded by the goverment are the doctored ones.Perfect example is in that video in the extasy thread on how rats were given methamphetamines "by accident" instead of extasy. Go figure

I have even seen studies done by I think it was the French goverment on diferent substances too measure their level of toxicity,heroin and alchol came out to be the most toxic while pot was the bottom even less toxic then caffine and aspirin. GO FIGURE
Ohh wait now the French must have doctored the results right?Cause the french are all hippies,especially mister neo con conservative Chirac

[bk94si]

Tucker plz,then what am I to beleive the studies done by NIDA or DEA funded ones?
Whats wrong with a non profit organization doing the study?See this is what pisses me off I post something with a valid point and happens to be a non biased study and you come in criticizing it saying its not what its meant to be.What do you think im some stupid teenage kid that heard a few other stoners praise the herb and Im just following their ideals?No Im someone thats been smoking for a long time and have seen studies from both the opposition AND non biased ones like the above and I beleive the latter ones.
It seems that you should be the one watching out for bs studies.

Sigh beleive what you want but what you say in your post is only true for goverment prohibitionist studies.
What you think the people that did the study I posted are a bunch of pot heads?No they are simply scientists who arent biased and came to those conclusions.

Btw heres more proof for ya

http://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html

I dont know why I even bother I know that each thing I post your automatically gonna discard it as bs.
its no use with you people jeez

I actually agree with the link you posted here (regarding health effects), although I would not put stock in a study just because it is funded by a non-profit, non-government source. Many non-profits have a point to prove also.

Although I have not seen a study to this effect, I also believe that MJ has detrimental psychological effects.

[Poci]

Wow all my links are doctored,what a coincidence!!!!

[bk94si]

Wow all my links are doctored,what a coincidence!!!!

There are just as many links showing the opposite point of view. I, for one, would not use my own brain as a guinea pig to find out which is true. Look at it this way, if I am wrong no harm done. If you are wrong, permanent damage to yourself.

[Poci]

And you think I havent seen the links which say its harmfull?
Im sorry but only the simple minded would beleive those things and like I said MOST OF THEM ARE FUNDED BY THE GOVERMENT.

Plz enlighten me post some of your links and Ill be happy to prove to you how manipulated and DISTORTED they are.
Wow I found one that says this:

Drug users also may become involved in risky sexual behavior. There is a strong link between drug use and unsafe sex and the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

I see so getting laid is bad and if you do get laid your gonna catch AIDS!!!

LOL I mean how can anyone take the prohibitionist studies seriously.They are pure bs propaganda,WAKE UP ALREADY FOLKS YOUR BEING LIED TOO AND YOU DONT EVEN REALIZE IT
I mean wow,you guys must think theres a hippie conspiracy that funds all these studys and has them biased.And they for each new stoner they get to follow their agenda that they will make money or something.
FACT:THEY ARE NON BIASED NORMAL SCIENTIST WHO PROBABLY DONT EVEN SMOKE POT

[tucker]

I see so getting laid is bad and if you do get laid your gonna catch AIDS!!!

Not necessarily but it can cause buck-teeth and squinty eyes…

[madhatter256]

MMkay so prescription drugs are good,safer then marijuana?

Your whole post is pure ignorance,read the frigen articles then talk.Its saying he used it religiously not that he was an addict.Just like rastafaris use pot sacredly and the Indians use Peyote sacredly.Simple as that

I read it. It was just that you presented the whole topic as if Jesus was a pothead which baffled me and me think that you were ignorant.

Also, prescription drugs of that kind are more potent than the pot, heroin, etc.

[/\/\adGamer]

So do all governmental funded reaserch studies fall into your "the government lies"catagory IYO or just the Ones that dont support your position?

[Poci]

Sorry to burst your bubble but almost any goverment funded study is biased.
If you even bothered to read my articles you would see that even THE AMA found pot to be not harmfull but their conclusions werent allowed to be seen by the public....
For example, two studies from 1977, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showed no evidence of brain damage in heavy users of marijuana. That same year, the American Medical Association (AMA) officially came out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. That's not the sort of thing you'd expect if the AMA thought marijuana damaged the brain.


Hmm,I wonder why

[tucker]

Adverse Effects of Marijuana

Nonmedical use of marijuana continues to be problematic in society. Approximately one third of all Americans over 12 years of age have tried marijuana, usually experimenting first during adolescence.4 However, the age distribution of those who use marijuana among the general population declines sharply after age 34, while most medical marijuana users are more than 35 years of age.4 Since 1997, an increasing percentage of young adults aged 18 to 25 years (up from 12.8% to 16.4%) and a decreasing percentage of youths aged 12 to 17 years (down from 9.4% to 7%) perceive smoking marijuana once or twice a week as presenting great risk of harm.186 It is not clear whether these trends have been influenced by the medical marijuana debate.

Most research on the harmful consequences of marijuana use has been conducted in simulated laboratory environments and in individuals who use cannabis for nonmedical purposes. Some of marijuana’s adverse effects differ in experienced versus inexperienced users, and it is not clear to what extent the adverse effects reported in recreational users are applicable to those who use medical marijuana.

Acutely, marijuana increases heart rate, and blood pressure may decrease on standing. Intoxication is associated with impairment of short-term memory, attention, motor skills, reaction time, and the organization and integration of complex information.187,188 Although dependent on the setting, marijuana can cause relaxation and enhance mood. Ordinary sensory experiences may be intensified, with increased talkativeness, perceptual alterations, and distortion in time sense followed by drowsiness and lethargy. These effects appear to be mediated by CB1 receptors because they are diminished by selective antagonism of the CB1 receptor.189 However, some individuals experience acute anxiety or panic reactions, confusion, dysphoria, paranoia, and psychotic symptoms (eg, delusions, hallucinations).188

Heavy users may experience apathy, lowered motivation, and impaired cognitive performance.188 Chronic marijuana use is associated with development of tolerance to some effects and the appearance of withdrawal symptoms (restlessness, irritability, mild agitation, insomnia, sleep disturbances, nausea, cramping) with the onset of abstinence. Depending on the measures and age group studied, 4% to 9% of marijuana users fulfill diagnostic criteria for substance dependence. Although some marijuana users develop dependence, they appear to be less likely to do so than users of alcohol and nicotine, and the abstinence syndrome is less severe.4,188,190 Like other drugs, dependence is more likely to occur in individuals with co-morbid psychiatric conditions.

Data on drug use progression and the view that marijuana is a "gateway" drug pertain to nonmedical use. However, "present data on drug use progression neither support nor refute the suggestions that medical availability [of marijuana] would increase drug abuse."4 Of comparable or greater concern, are potential adverse effects of cannabinoids and marijuana smoke on the immune, respiratory, cardiovascular, and reproductive systems, and the potential for enhancing carcinogenesis."4

In addition to effects attributable to THC, the chronic effects of marijuana smoke are of perhaps greater concern than marijuana’s acute safety profile. Like tobacco, chronic marijuana smoking is associated with lung damage, increased symptoms of chronic bronchitis, and possibly increased risk of lung cancer.

Cannabinoids impair cell-mediated and humoral immunity in rodents and decrease resistance to infection; however, there is no conclusive evidence that consumption of cannabinoids impairs human immune function, and some evidence suggests that cannabinoids exert anti-tumor effects in human cancer cell lines.191,192 Cannabinoids and cannabinoid receptor agonists exert both inflammatory and anti-inflammatory effects and also appear to modulate hematopoiesis and possibly tumor growth.193 Clearly, cannabinoids are immune modulators, but how they regulate various elements of the human immune response is unclear.194 The initial safety trials in HIV-positive patients are encouraging regarding a lack of apparent marijuana-induced immunosuppression, but these were short-term trials

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/cate...y_of_marijuana

Hmmm...

[Poci]

Hmm?That article doesnt exactly say its harmfull.....
And it definatly doesnt say anything about burning braincells.

Thats probably the best the goverment allows them to say about it cause if you noticed in my post,the original study was done 20 years ago.
MAkes me wonder how diferent the AMA must have been compared to now....

[tucker]

Oh I see the AMA is a good reference in post#39 but not #40…

Hmm?That article doesnt exactly say its harmfull.....

Yep it doesn’t exactly say it is harmful but it doesn’t exactly say it isn’t either.

And it definatly doesnt say anything about burning braincells.

Intoxication is associated with impairment of short-term memory, attention, motor skills, reaction time, and the organization and integration of complex information.

It doesn’t exactly say it’s burning brain cells but obviously it clearly isn’t doing them any good.

Thats probably the best the goverment allows them to say about it cause if you noticed in my post,the original study was done 20 years ago.

I see the AMA knew more about marijuana in 1977 than they do today. So much for progress, eh?

Oh I see the government controls the AMA. I wonder if the AMA is aware of that.

MAkes me wonder how diferent the AMA must have been compared to now....

I would guess the AMA is far more advanced today than they were 20 years ago. If they are not all of us are in big trouble.

I have this bird dog that’s a real stubborn knot head but he is……..

Oh never mind.

[Poci]

Im not saying they knew more back then compared to now.What im saying is thats its probably run by diferent people.And with Bush in office........

That article proves nothing and like I said is only semi accurate

All I know is that if all that were true really woudlnt be such advocates of decriminalization like It said in my post.And if they changed their views even if its not really condoning it I suspect they were pushed to change those views.

Time for another logical thinking moment,how come almost every other country in the world except the USA is considering or already has decriminalized mj?And before this legalizing it for medical use?And many researchers and doctors clearly prefering to give thier patients medical pot then the other crap they usually get?Huh?
Btw heres another bullet lets see if you can dodge this:

Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer

The smoke from burning marijuana leaves contains several known carcinogens and the tar it creates contains 50 percent more of some of the chemicals linked to lung cancer than tobacco smoke. A marijuana cigarette also deposits four times as much of that tar as an equivalent tobacco one. Scientists were therefore surprised to learn that a study of more than 2,000 people found no increase in the risk of developing lung cancer for marijuana smokers.
"We expected that we would find that a history of heavy marijuana use--more than 500 to 1,000 uses--would increase the risk of cancer from several years to decades after exposure to marijuana," explains physician Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles, and lead researcher on the project. But looking at residents of Los Angeles County, the scientists found that even those who smoked more than 20,000 joints in their life did not have an increased risk of lung cancer.


ADVERTISEMENT (article continues below)



The researchers interviewed 611 lung cancer patients and 1,040 healthy controls as well as 601 patients with cancer in the head or neck region under the age of 60 to create the statistical analysis. They found that 80 percent of those with lung cancer and 70 percent of those with other cancers had smoked tobacco while only roughly half of both groups had smoked marijuana. The more tobacco a person smoked, the greater the risk of developing cancer, as other studies have shown.

But after controlling for tobacco, alcohol and other drug use as well as matching patients and controls by age, gender and neighborhood, marijuana did not seem to have an effect, despite its unhealthy aspects. "Marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so there's less filtration through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles will be inhaled," Tashkin says. "And marijuana smokers typically smoke differently than tobacco smokers; they hold their breath about four times longer allowing more time for extra fine particles to deposit in the lungs."
The study does not reveal how marijuana avoids causing cancer. Tashkin speculates that perhaps the THC chemical in marijuana smoke prompts aging cells to die before becoming cancerous. Tashkin and his colleagues presented the findings yesterday at a meeting of the American Thoracic Society in San Diego. --David Biello

Source:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...7F0000&ref=rss

Damn they must be hippies too!!!

[PaternityTest]

im an occasional user... I wont say its harmless..and while not chemically addictive is sure can habit forming.. id rather smoke someone elses cause if i buy .. ill smoke it till its gone... a $20 lasts a week for me when i feel up to it... and i will say i get mild irritability and slight insomnia when its gone...not long term usually irritability last a day but insomnia last about 2-3 days. maybe its cuz i never was a chronic user that i notice......i think a lot of testing needs to be done but im for legalizing it. i hate the process of buying knowing that its illegal and i hate the variation in quality ...I wont grow even though growing has its benefits...something about prison and asset seizure negates any benefit. Id say id rather be around a heavy pot smoker than the dailly drinker. I think the "POT is Great" community makes the stereptypes worse..with the whacked out... "Jesus is a Rastafarian" ideas. It loses a lot of mainstream support becuase most normal folks will read that crap and be like..."is this what ill be like if i smoke pot?"

[Poci]

Its not silly (Jesus) jeez guys just read the BBC article it doesnt say he was a pot head it says he used it as an ingredient in an anointment to cure people.The idea of him being a pot head is silly but thats not what the article says.And it shouldnt suprise any of you that he did use it cause like I said the friggen plant has been used for thousands of years even before Jesus was around as a medicine,so why wouldnt he use it too?
Think people THINK,in Jesus time there WAS NO war on drugs,every substance around today thats illegal was around back then and widely used (as medicine mainly).