Re: Tzeentch's Thread of Everchanging Topics

[Antistia]

[Guest]

[Velynia]

[corleth]

this image has been randomly popping up in my head the past few days often making me lol

in public

sometimes alone

[Nithel]

Hosni Mubarak is dead

or clinically dead anyways, he's on life support right now but well he's basically dead.

hasn't that jewish prime minister also been 'dead' for about a decade or so?

[Exigua]

Sitting in the sun, drinking a cold beer and reading the us thread about mop theorycrafting. Moreover, bread baking in the oven.

Life is good!

[Rasonal Dranger]

Hosni Mubarak is dead

or clinically dead anyways, he's on life support right now but well he's basically dead.

hasn't that jewish prime minister also been 'dead' for about a decade or so?

So now 'jewish' defines him?!
He has a name you know!
It's Ariel Sharon and he is in coma for ten years or so, yes. And ex-prime minister.
We have elections. Shael can tell you what it is- oh, wait.

[Ron Sexton]

[Flo]

What the fuck did you just put me through

[Guest]

hahahahha what is this

[Guest]

The reincarnation of Saint Gunther? No, I'm not clicking play.

[Guest]

if you have a spare hour or so, educate yo self, the producers just uploaded this to the jew tubes in high def

That documentary is pretty amazing. I truly felt educated after seeing it.

[Feydor]

Definitely isn't something they teach you in school

[Quin]

Seen that docu a long while ago. We stoners shouldnt be watching it tho tbh more the general crowd.

[Feydor]

yeah ive been passing it on to some less informed smoker friends of mine for a while now, and non smokers too. easier to consume than to do the research yourself and get buried by all the research papers, on the topic of studies, this list is a fucking gold mine:
http://www.scribd.com/Billy_Karlinse_6228/d/77455495-Granny-Storm-Crow-s-MMJ-Reference-List

[Shaelyssa]

Hmm I haven't seen the entire documentary, but I dunno I'm still a bit skeptical. I know it has its medical and therapeutic uses but smoking anything is bound to be bound for you, smoke itself is inherently harmful isn't it? Although I think you can eat it too or something right?

And I'd be too scared to take any kind of drug from some dealer or whatever what if there's something else in there to and it ends up messing you up or something

And I don't know that many people who smoke pot, maybe around 10, but more than half of them went from being okish, average students to flunking out of school and becoming "rappers" who smoke weed all day long lol, not saying it was because of them smoking pot (but it was)

Although I personally think alcohol and tobacco is way worse I mean arabs are so bad when it comes to tobacco, shisha, cigars, cigarettes, midwakh meh but hmm I don't think I would ever smoke weed or whatever because I'm always scared there'd be something else in it or something

I'm probably gonna sound so judgemental but I'm being genuinely curious when I ask this ... is it really worth it honestly? I mean why do people feel the need to smoke pot, I mean ok it makes you feel good maybe but you can feel good through other ways too so why risk it?

[Feydor]

The documentary actually answers all of your questions, but in order to avoid doing revision and to further my procrastination I'll answer them here.

Sure, smoking any plant matter can lead to irritation of the lungs, leading to bronchitis, but cannabis is also a bronchodilator which actually assists a lot in asthma and other respiratory problems. If you are getting at the idea of lung cancer, then there has actually been no evidence to support a direct link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer. Many would say, ahh but this is because it hasn't been around long enough, look at cigarettes, we only found out sixty years later, but cannabis has been around much longer than that. In addition, there are actually numerous studies which support the notion that cannabis actually has anti-cancer benefits which may explain why there is a lack of direct evidence linking cannabis to lung cancer. See here(lung cancer only):
http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/cancer/THC_cancer_sep_1975.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2011510/?tool=pmcentrez&page=1
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/record/17621270/abstract/Delta_9__Tetrahydrocannabinol_inhibits_epithelial_growth_factor_induced_lung_cancer_cell_migration_in_vitro_as_well_as_its_growth_and_metastasis_in_vivo
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

And yes, as you say, smoking cannabis is not the only way. Vaporisation heats cannabis up enough to activate the necessary ingredients, but it forms a vapour and doesn't activate most of the carcinogens, edibles can be made, tinctures can be made, breath strips, lollypops, you name it.

With regards to your second point, your fear of buying something from a dealer in case there might be something else in it is a great one. Let's examine it. Why would you be buying from a black market dealer in the first place? Because it is illegal. Black markets are unregulated and unsupervised. If cannabis was made legal and regulated in a similar fashion to alcohol or tobacco, there would be no need for fear of addition of any dangerous substances, so really your problem is not with cannabis, it is with the consequences of making a desired substance illegal.

And then onto the age old, cannabis makes you lazy. It's quite funny, because when cannabis was first made illegal, it was because it supposedly made you into a psychotic, angry women raping viking assassin. Maybe not that exactly, but you should watch Reefer Madness. Full of racism and statements based on anything but fact. Then after the second world war, cannabis was bad because it would make you a pacifist, and who needs pacifists when there are soviets about? But let's not dwell on history. Let's dwell on nature (yay). Cannabis is classified under two varieties, sativa and indica. Indica is the cannabis most people are familiar with (I'll explain why in a moment). It is a wider leafed, easier to grow and more bountiful variety. It's effects are that couch lock stoned for most of the part, you just want to chill with your peeps. Due to the illegality of the plant, this is the type that black market growers will grow. Easier to grow, bigger yield, more profit, right? On the other hand sativas have longer thinner leaves, and take much more effort to grow. The effects of a sativa are usually more heady. Words fail to describe accurately, but while smoking sativas, you can really get on with your day as you like, and be 10x as creative while doing so. But really, I don't think for most people, that they are lazy because they smoke indicas. I think they're lazy, because they're fucking lazy, and they're using weed as an excuse. Look at pretty much every musician you know, they smoked weed, and they're succesful. Look at all the artists, shit tons of business folk, and past presidents. More importantly, look at athletes. In the most physically demanding sports, where laziness is NOT an option, you'll find a metric fucktonne of stoners.

And you ask is it genuinely worth it? This is presupposing that it should be illegal. It shouldn't be, you, or I should have the right to ingest a relatively harmless and mostly beneficial plant without getting locked in a fucking cell, or even executed in some backwards ass countries. And ofcourse I can 'feel good' through other ways. I do those other ways, and I get high on the side, ain't no problem there.

And on a sidenote, fuck yeah its worth it, weed is awesome.

I'd be happy to answer any other questions.

[Guest]

Nothing like an intellectual answering questions like that

[Jeanpierre]

Many would say, ahh but this is because it hasn't been around long enough, look at cigarettes, we only found out sixty years later, but cannabis has been around much longer than that.

Much longer than tobacco? I think you're looking beyond the reliable observable time then... Unless you could claim there was good observation of canabis and tobacco before we colonized America.

The long term effects of canabis seem to indicate less risk to lung cancer, but I believe it's very dangerous to make any claims towards the safety or hazard of a drug without -real- long term research. The illegal nature of the drug makes it hard to examine the impact on large scale with numbers that prove relevant. Those researches may claim to be scientific, but I call it an educated guess.

To make a proper estimate on a world scale, I remain skeptical until the researchers have examined over 30.000 (an indicate number for the population) people for over 60 years (a valid timeframe of observation). That didn't happen. Ergo, the numbers are estimated guesses. Skepticism is advised.

With regards to your second point, your fear of buying something from a dealer in case there might be something else in it is a great one. Let's examine it. Why would you be buying from a black market dealer in the first place? Because it is illegal.

Making it legal would make it more widespread and more potentially more accessible. There's dangers involved in that as well, just like there is with alcohol and health issues with tobacco.

But I agree that legalization and regulation may tackle as many issues as it delivers. It's an interesting approach to discuss at the least.

I think they're lazy, because they're fucking lazy, and they're using weed as an excuse. Look at pretty much every musician you know, they smoked weed, and they're succesful. Look at all the artists, shit tons of business folk, and past presidents. More importantly, look at athletes. In the most physically demanding sports, where laziness is NOT an option, you'll find a metric fucktonne of stoners.

The life of musicians if often marken by health hazards, problems and their average life expectancy would score lower. Your potheads die. And to call them an example of success with weed is irrelevant without proper cadre of observation. For one, you didn't count the number of musicians that failed their carreer because of canabis. Two, you didn't compare it to the total amount of musicians. Three, you didn't compare them to musicians that are successful without canabis. Four, you didn't bring into account their consumption rate and usage pattern, related to their performance.
And a "metric fucktonne of stoners" is hardly an accurate measure. The athletes I knew, only a few olympic, didn't touch any drug and even limited alcohol use. They had brief moments in which they could slack their discipline and then they'd go all out on anything they'd get their hands on, canabis included. It was escapism, not regular use.

As such, to claim it aids in one's success, or doesn't hamper it, is entirely unfounded.

Here is my observation: in my years at the university, we had a rather big portion of students smoking weed on regular basis. Of that entire group (must be over 50 students observed), only 1 succeeded. He would be a heavy user, but had the balls to stop 4 months before his exams and study like crazy to pass. Even so, he struggled, but that would be valid for many non users as well.
That's not enough, and not examined in sufficient detail, to make up a theory on larger scale.... But I doubt there's no relation.

You make the story sound nice, but it lacks undeniable proof and certainly no founded statistics.

Here's an interesting fact, however... Somewhere between 1996 and 1998 France ordered an investigation in the hopes to prove canabis to be more dangerous than cigarettes. The results were never published.
This could (though this is no longer fact) imply that it was proven cigarettes were more dangerous than canabis.

One should note, however, that this compares cigarettes and canabis in the forms they were back then. I believe it is possible to make cigarettes safer and less hazardous as well.

[Amaryl]

The long term effects of canabis seem to indicate less risk to lung cancer, but I believe it's very dangerous to make any claims towards the safety or hazard of a drug without -real- long term research. The illegal nature of the drug makes it hard to examine the impact on large scale with numbers that prove relevant. Those researches may claim to be scientific, but I call it an educated guess.

To make a proper estimate on a world scale, I remain skeptical until the researchers have examined over 30.000 (an indicate number for the population) people for over 60 years (a valid timeframe of observation). That didn't happen. Ergo, the numbers are estimated guesses. Skepticism is advised.

As much I agree with scepticism to all things social studies related, without actually seeing the data, but the bolded parts are simply just wrong.

Additionally,

Those researches may claim to be scientific, but I call it an educated guess.

This is a rather damned big claim you're making. and yet you don't back it up with anything, from the studies themselves that show they're actually guessing instead of making statistical acceptable claims.

What i'm saying is this, you're free to really just jump to conclusions about these studies, but that would make your "guess" just as "educated" as the claims of the studies.

As such, to claim it aids in one's success, or doesn't hamper it, is entirely unfounded.

As such to claim it makes you lazy, it is entirely unfounded.

[Nithel]

I remember telling a friend who is an engineer this little amazing thing I heard while in Paris. Apparently if you could find a cylinder that would fit the Eiffel tower exactly in it. The air inside that cylinder would weigh more than the Eiffel tower itself. My jaw was at my feet, I was struck.

So that friends goes: yeah sounds normal to me if you think about it


Now I'm pretty sure that life is more fun and surprising if you don't know physics It's like everything natural is magic

[Jeanpierre]

http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/cancer/THC_cancer_sep_1975.htm

No mention of numbers, test subjects, number of successes, number of failures. Only used on animals. Averages are published.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2011510/?tool=pmcentrez&page=1

The conclusions menetion as many side effects as benefits. There's also a great discussion on the dosage, which seems to vary a lot.

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer

No link to cancer, but probable link to heart attacks. However, it's based on lifestyles which takes a grain of salt.

http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/record/17621270/abstract/Delta_9__Tetrahydrocannabinol_inhibits_epithelial_growth_factor_induced_lung_cancer_cell_migration_in_vitro_as_well_as_its_growth_and_metastasis_in_vivo

Noted benefits against lung cancer on immuno deficient mice.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

Again, mice. Also, from the article:

"The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer," said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine.

Note the caution on the consumption rate.

As much I agree with scepticism to all things social studies related, without actually seeing the data, but the bolded parts are simply just wrong.

I don't consider it wrong. I believe it much easier to conduct a reliable study on the effect of Canabis on Humans in, say, Netherlands were regular consumption is possible and regulated than any other country were you can question the nature of the Canabis and purity of it.

Those researches may claim to be scientific, but I call it an educated guess.

This is a rather damned big claim you're making. and yet you don't back it up with anything, from the studies themselves that show they're actually guessing instead of making statistical acceptable claims.

Not really. Take a look at the researches they do. They always speak of "we observed this", "we noted that". Look at the prudence of using conclusions. They did it on 20 mice, and whoop dee doo, the noticed something.

Take this one as example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenium_in_biology
They had several studies going both ways. The same can be said for canabis, so there is no one-sided indication. Of course, objectiveness can be brought into this.

But if we look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics%29
I feel we have yet to see one study that presents a large enough sample size to draw a more solid conclusion. That is why these studies above are so prudent. They observed this in their case, but they know very damn well it's not enough to draw hard conclusions.

What i'm saying is this, you're free to really just jump to conclusions about these studies, but that would make your "guess" just as "educated" as the claims of the studies.

Totally.

As such to claim it makes you lazy, it is entirely unfounded.

Let me put it differently. Until I see an undeniable proof of the opposite, I see no reason to accept something with presumed side effects in our society based on the research currently available. Given more study, more indications and more knowledge on both the benefits and side effects, I would certainly re-evaluate my position.

I'm not against legalization. I simply reason there isn't enough fact available to me to reach a conclusion. So I would argument against people who try to portray it like a pretty rainbow story. Just like I would against people that portray it as hellish evil!

[Velynia]

If you folks plan to continue the discussion, wouldn't it be a better idea to take it to the General Debate Thread? This kind of discussion seems more suited there.

http://www.defiasrp.com/t4419-general-debate-thread

[Amaryl]

As much I agree with scepticism to all things social studies related, without actually seeing the data, but the bolded parts are simply just wrong.

I don't consider it wrong. I believe it much easier to conduct a reliable study on the effect of Canabis on Humans in, say, Netherlands were regular consumption is possible and regulated than any other country were you can question the nature of the Canabis and purity of it.

Damn straight it is wrong. There is no reason to believe that 30k dutchmen are a far better sample, then 30k Americans. Considering that the differences in cannabis found in the Netherlands is just as varied as the stuff wound in the US. the only difference is availability making the study more difficult to conduct in the US.

But that has nothing to do with sample.

additionally simply saying; I want X size of a sample before I find the study acceptable! Is just silly, without motivation on the make-up of those 30k and why 30k is better then say 20k...

Those researches may claim to be scientific, but I call it an educated guess.

This is a rather damned big claim you're making. and yet you don't back it up with anything, from the studies themselves that show they're actually guessing instead of making statistical acceptable claims.

Not really. Take a look at the researches they do. They always speak of "we observed this", "we noted that". Look at the prudence of using conclusions. They did it on 20 mice, and whoop dee doo, the noticed something.

Yes, since unequivocally claiming something to be true based one test is the epitome of the scientific method, especially when conducting research mostly based on statistics.

So I'm curious what you are hinting at here, I can't decide if you think that the scientists aren't actually studying something called "science", or if you suggest that the scientist don't actually believe that the Link they find is actually there.

Again, i'm not disagreeing with the fact that you need to take social studies and statistical evidence with the largest grain of salt you can find, but I'm rather baffled at certainty with which you dismiss it.

Let me put it differently. Until I see an undeniable proof of the opposite, I see no reason to accept something with presumed side effects in our society based on the research currently available. Given more study, more indications and more knowledge on both the benefits and side effects, I would certainly re-evaluate my position.

I'm not against legalization. I simply reason there isn't enough fact available to me to reach a conclusion. So I would argument against people who try to portray it like a pretty rainbow story. Just like I would against people that portray it as hellish evil!

And yet according to the exact same standards there isn't undeniable proof that the default opinion is actually true either..

the point we're getting at is, that we're all just regurgitating our own opinions without actually discussing anything. which is the biggest problem with these discussions, I love it when people say: "studies have said" without linking to those studies or even linking to a story that links to that study. and the reply of people that directly claim that the study is bollocks...

[Jeanpierre]

additionally simply saying; I want X size of a sample before I find the study acceptable! Is just silly, without motivation on the make-up of those 30k and why 30k is better then say 20k...

Well I calculated it once based on some sample rules for statistics. It's the square root of the world population divided by its deviation I believe (2?). Which yields about 20K or 40K (damn memory...)
The idea there is that only if there is enough research on such a number, do I think it's viable to draw a conclusion for the world population, meaning the conclusions of such research would be viable anywhere. But of course, if we're going to differentiate between different groups of people and plants, smaller samples could be used to draw more region-bound conclusions.
But that would only make it even harder to make this discussion... "Yup, in the Netherlands you'd actually get healthy from smoking pot, but in England you die from it". Well that's just joking, but it requires more nuances than a large population examination.

Yes, since unequivocally claiming something to be true based one test is the epitome of the scientific method, especially when conducting research mostly based on statistics.

I'm claiming the research to be true. I'm claiming their conclusions correct. But their conclusions aren't saying "Canabis is good". Their conclusion is "in these circumstances, these conditions, we observed this with a notable link". When they translate that back to human language, you can clearly see they speak of "indications" in a direction, without drawing conclusions to the benefits of Canabis on a large population.
Their research does not prove that. There is no research proving Canabis to be -good- for the people. There's indications that show some beneficial factors for some cases of cancer and there's indications of undesirable side effects such as memory being affected and heart attacks. The difference between indication and proven benefit at a large scale is where I'm pointing at.

And yet according to the exact same standards there isn't undeniable proof that the default opinion is actually true either..

What's the default opinion?
I have no intention of agreeing with any default opinion without proof that it is right.

and the reply of people that directly claim that the study is bollocks...

How people interpret a study is important. I have rarely seen media capable of doing it right. There is no scientific proof turning Canabis in a happy ever after story. But there are remarkable indications that there are beneficial effects to the plant that are worth further exploration.
Just saying... These studies indicate something. They don't offer solid proof on which one could build conclusions for sociological points of discussion.

[Sponsored content]