Smoking??????

[DeadPoked]

For the last time, dumb dumb, throw out any articles or statements by anything with a .gov on it.
Those are bullshit articles written by government officials with a very strict standard of content where they have to adhere 100% to the current and past propaganda.

You're a silly, sad man. Connecting pot to suicide? You know what I found out about suicide? 100% of people that commit suicide masturbate.
We need to ban masturbation.
See how easy that was? Best part about this argument? You've completely stopped responding to my points, but you still continue this dopey argument because your ego just won't let you not have the last word. Fascinating.
Carry on

Joe you argument is counterfeit, crafty, criminal, crooked, deceitful, devious, dishonest, dishonorable, double-dealing, duplicitous, false, forged, knavish, mock, phony, sham, spurious, swindling, treacherous, & tricky(I used thesaurus). I'll only consider your finding if you can back it up with a .gov study. They're the only studies known to be impartial and to have no agenda! Silly pot smoker, he probably has a gun in his mouth as we speak.

 

[ShootingArts]

more good news for pot smokers

"In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking."

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSHKG10478820080129?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews


Deadpoked was under some illusion that I got punished by Joe Rogan and himself in this thread because I let it die after I had been unable to post for a day or so with network issues common to many members. Actually, I have laid enough information on the table for all that aren't deeply self-medicating to understand. However while I was locked out, this article was published on 1-29-08, hardly old news.

There is a mountain of evidence that pot does harm in many different ways and a molehill of contradictory findings. Naturally those into self-delusion only want to look at the mole hill. All the studies and research from all around the world isn't valid but the study using synthetic THC 100 times more powerful than the real thing is valid because it says something Joe wants to believe? How quick would he be to throw out that study as invalid due to not using the real thing if he didn't like the findings?

Hu

Joe you argument is counterfeit, crafty, criminal, crooked, deceitful, devious, dishonest, dishonorable, double-dealing, duplicitous, false, forged, knavish, mock, phony, sham, spurious, swindling, treacherous, & tricky(I used thesaurus). I'll only consider your finding if you can back it up with a .gov study. They're the only studies known to be impartial and to have no agenda! Silly pot smoker, he probably has a gun in his mouth as we speak.

 

[DeadPoked]

"In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking."

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSHKG10478820080129?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews


Deadpoked was under some illusion that I got punished by Joe Rogan and himself in this thread because I let it die after I had been unable to post for a day or so with network issues common to many members. Actually, I have laid enough information on the table for all that aren't deeply self-medicating to understand. However while I was locked out, this article was published on 1-29-08, hardly old news.

There is a mountain of evidence that pot does harm in many different ways and a molehill of contradictory findings. Naturally those into self-delusion only want to look at the mole hill. All the studies and research from all around the world isn't valid but the study using synthetic THC 100 times more powerful than the real thing is valid because it says something Joe wants to believe? How quick would he be to throw out that study as invalid due to not using the real thing if he didn't like the findings?

Hu

LOL... Congrats on finding a study that wasn't done 50 years ago and doesn't contain .gov as a domain designator. Now moving on to the actual substance of the study.

The "study" was only done on 79 lung cancer patients. Probably lasted about a week if that. Pretty comprehensive! I could go outside and question 79 people to find out if breathing oxygen caused people to have sinus problems, maybe 1 or 2 of the individuals were allergic to the pollen in the air, doesn't mean if you breath oxygen you are 5.7 times more likely to have sinus problems! Anyone, assuming they are of sound reasoning, should be able to see that you can put an accurate number on a study like this.

And looks at how ridiculous this quote sounds...

"In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking."

How can you put a percentage on something like that? Are they saying that for it to be "5.7 times" you have to smoke every single day or the percentage changes? If they can scientifically back up the 5.7 times, with amounts of joint smoked and cigarettes smoked over a 10 year period factored in, they are the best damn scientist in the world. They are working on the wrong studies. If those same scientist were to go into actually studying how to cure cancers, all cancers would be cured by next week and we wouldn't be having this discussion about marijuana causing cancer in the first place!

 

[chefjeff]

LOL... Congrats on finding a study that wasn't done 50 years ago and doesn't contain .gov as a domain designator. Now moving on to the actual substance of the study.

The "study" was only done on 79 lung cancer patients. Probably lasted about a week if that. Pretty comprehensive! I could go outside and question 79 people to find out if breathing oxygen caused people to have sinus problems, maybe 1 or 2 of the individuals were allergic to the pollen in the air, doesn't mean if you breath oxygen you are 5.7 times more likely to have sinus problems! Anyone, assuming they are of sound reasoning, should be able to see that you can put an accurate number on a study like this.

And looks at how ridiculous this quote sounds...

"In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking."

How can you put a percentage on something like that? Are they saying that for it to be "5.7 times" you have to smoke every single day or the percentage changes? If they can scientifically back up the 5.7 times, with amounts of joint smoked and cigarettes smoked over a 10 year period factored in, they are the best damn scientist in the world. They are working on the wrong studies. If those same scientist were to go into actually studying how to cure cancers, all cancers would be cured by next week and we wouldn't be having this discussion about marijuana causing cancer in the first place!

It doesn't matter. Every choice in the universe has risks and rewards.

Back to THE point...If each person decided for himself to take the risks or not and to pay the consequences, and to not interfere in others' choices even if disagreed with, then 99% of the problems associated with currently illegal drug use would disappear overnight.

Freedom laced with responsiblity.....ahhhhh, a nice high, man.

Jeff Livingston

 

[ShootingArts]

this I agree with

Jeff,

This I agree with. If a person that takes the risks is the only one that pays for the consequences then I think they should be able to do whatever they please. Unfortunately most of the people that take the risks are in no position to take responsibility for the consequences. That falls on the rest of us. Most of them breed also with consequences for their children. I do find that highly objectionable.

I am actually a big believer in personal freedoms. However one person's freedoms ends where those freedoms start encroaching on someone else's freedom. Freedom with responsibility would be Utopia.

Hu

It doesn't matter. Every choice in the universe has risks and rewards.

Back to THE point...If each person decided for himself to take the risks or not and to pay the consequences, and to not interfere in others' choices even if disagreed with, then 99% of the problems associated with currently illegal drug use would disappear overnight.

Freedom laced with responsiblity.....ahhhhh, a nice high, man.

Jeff Livingston

 

[ShootingArts]

you and Joe

Deadpoked,

The scientific process has been accepted for many decades. Research is pretty simple really and so is the basic math of taking two numbers and calculating a percentage. When doing research we narrow things down to one variable with reasonable certainty. When we find the percentage of people that take in oxygen and masturbate and count how many of them commit suicide or die of cancer and then we count how many of these people do these things and smoke pot and die from these causes we get some numbers. Then a little grade school level math gives us some percentages. Big studies, little studies, all studies that don't say what you want to read are wrong in your opinion. Miraculously, all studies that say what you want to read are right.

Your first problem is the paranoia in thinking that the government and big tobacco wouldn't love to legalize pot if it was harmless. The government would regulate and tax it making the government bigger and richer and the tobacco companies already have the production and distribution systems in place so they would be the ones in a position to make the most out of it.

Hu

LOL... Congrats on finding a study that wasn't done 50 years ago and doesn't contain .gov as a domain designator. Now moving on to the actual substance of the study.

The "study" was only done on 79 lung cancer patients. Probably lasted about a week if that. Pretty comprehensive! I could go outside and question 79 people to find out if breathing oxygen caused people to have sinus problems, maybe 1 or 2 of the individuals were allergic to the pollen in the air, doesn't mean if you breath oxygen you are 5.7 times more likely to have sinus problems! Anyone, assuming they are of sound reasoning, should be able to see that you can put an accurate number on a study like this.

And looks at how ridiculous this quote sounds...

"In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking."

How can you put a percentage on something like that? Are they saying that for it to be "5.7 times" you have to smoke every single day or the percentage changes? If they can scientifically back up the 5.7 times, with amounts of joint smoked and cigarettes smoked over a 10 year period factored in, they are the best damn scientist in the world. They are working on the wrong studies. If those same scientist were to go into actually studying how to cure cancers, all cancers would be cured by next week and we wouldn't be having this discussion about marijuana causing cancer in the first place!

 

[Cuebacca]

Your first problem is the paranoia in thinking that the government and big tobacco wouldn't love to legalize pot if it was harmless.

Since when does big tobacco avoid selling things that are harmful?

 

[Cuebacca]

Since when does big tobacco avoid selling things that are harmful?

For that matter, since when does the government avoid it? I agree, the government could make a ton of money from legalizing pot, and they should, in my opinion. Unfortunately, the government is run by people, and humans are not perfect; lobbying can play a big part in the decisions they make on our behalf. Not everyone is willing to rock the boat, especially when it pays to keep it still, and that's about all I have to say about that.

 

[JoeW]

The government raised (and continues to raise) taxes on smoking products. The rational has been that the money would be used to pay for the helath care of those affected by selfish smokers.

Has anyone looked at what the state governments have done with those tax dollars? You would be surprised to find that your government may not have your health interests as a first priority.

Our grandparents lived in caves and roasted all kinds of stuff. Those who could not hack the smoke did not contribute to the gene pool. The rest of us have pretty good lungs.

Selfish smokers now stand 50 feet from your building entrances in sub zero weather. Empathy is everywhere and selfish self righteousness is found in more people than than those who smoke.

Who wants to live to 85 anyway?, 75 is good for me, thank you very much. And I will not be such a drain on the national health system if I kick off early.

My first wife quit smoking when she was 29 and died of cancer of the kidney at age 52. Something wrong with that picture and many others as well. My step dad smoked three packs of Camels a day (smoked all his life) and died of prostate cancer -- you never know about those cigarettes.

Friends of mine say.

I am not a quitter!

Smokers get more fresh air!

Sure, its bad for me and I have always told my physician that when I can no longer swim four laps of the pool underwater, I will quit. I am 64 and getting close to having to quit -- but I don't think its the cigarettes.

Smoking is an antidepressant for some. Cheap too, well it used to be, but we are taking care of your health needs through the sin tax -- look into it if you can resolve the dissonance.

Oh yeah -- smoking is bad for you.

Beware of zealots, they start wars.
All things in moderation, even moderation -- you should get crazy oncein awhile.

Oh, I am not an advocate for smoking, I simply find the arguments (mine included) silly. Of course smoking is bad for you, so are lots of other things that you can control.

Haven't you ever felt that you getting handled by public opinion?? And who would manipulate such things, why zealots of course.

 

[klockdoc]

2 months for me. Feeling better already

Congratulations. Best move you have ever made. IMO. I was told one time that it takes at least 6 months after you quit to get all the residue of smoke out of your lungs.

Say next year, this time, you will want to get back outside doing basketball, running or something physical. You will feel GRRRRRRRRRRRRREAT..

 

[bagofpaper]

But you're forgetting that drugs like marijuana are GATEWAY DRUGS! It's not like these kids were smoking and drinking before they moved onto harder drugs... it's obviously the reefer madness that lead to it.

Oh please, let's see it's the 21st century are you are actually referring to reefer madness? How many people do you know that smoked some pot and ended up chasing the dragon or hitting the crack pipe? There are probably a lot of people who went from pot to crack but that doesn't mean they are causally connected. Roughly 40% of the people I know puff on a joint once in awhile, live in a drug infested city - heroin capital of the us, and never once have tried a hard drug.. Of course, the people I know have educations, have good jobs, have wives, husbands and kids and have something to live for.

Pot doesn't cause addiction to hard drugs.. lack of opportunity, apathy, poverty does.

 

[bagofpaper]

The scientific process has been accepted for many decades. Research is pretty simple really and so is the basic math of taking two numbers and calculating a percentage. When doing research we narrow things down to one variable with reasonable certainty. When we find the percentage of people that take in oxygen and masturbate and count how many of them commit suicide or die of cancer and then we count how many of these people do these things and smoke pot and die from these causes we get some numbers. Then a little grade school level math gives us some percentages. Big studies, little studies, all studies that don't say what you want to read are wrong in your opinion. Miraculously, all studies that say what you want to read are right.

You seem to be mistaken on how clinical research is done these days. For one, the scientific process is not nearly as simple as you describe in these studies. The human body is the most complex system we've come across and the variables that go into the response of someone's body to a foreign substance are astronomical. It is not as simple as taking an average when analyzing data from clinical studies. In fact, a lot of researchers (mostly applied mathematicians) spend their time coming up with statistical models (that are extremely complicated and many times ad hoc) that they hope can give you some information from the wildly complicated data sets coming out of the experiments. That is one reason why you see studies claiming aspartame is carcinogenic 20 years ago.. then 10 years go by and new studies show it isn't. The chemical hasn't changed, people's responses to it hasn't, the way researchers look at their data does.

 

[ShootingArts]

Well . . .

I did simplify things a bit. On the other hand I was Vice President of a corporation that was involved in, amongst other things, medical research. We can make it very complicated or we can make it very simple but at the end of the day a lot more people die or have serious problems when they engage in high risk activities. The numbers may be off by a few percentage points but when you combine all of the findings the end result is pretty accurate.

Hu

You seem to be mistaken on how clinical research is done these days. For one, the scientific process is not nearly as simple as you describe in these studies. The human body is the most complex system we've come across and the variables that go into the response of someone's body to a foreign substance are astronomical. It is not as simple as taking an average when analyzing data from clinical studies. In fact, a lot of researchers (mostly applied mathematicians) spend their time coming up with statistical models (that are extremely complicated and many times ad hoc) that they hope can give you some information from the wildly complicated data sets coming out of the experiments. That is one reason why you see studies claiming aspartame is carcinogenic 20 years ago.. then 10 years go by and new studies show it isn't. The chemical hasn't changed, people's responses to it hasn't, the way researchers look at their data does.

 

[BRKNRUN]

I don't smoke right now...

But when I hit 70 years old....I plan to start....

 

[DeadPoked]

Jeff,

This I agree with. If a person that takes the risks is the only one that pays for the consequences then I think they should be able to do whatever they please. Unfortunately most of the people that take the risks are in no position to take responsibility for the consequences. That falls on the rest of us. Most of them breed also with consequences for their children. I do find that highly objectionable.

I am actually a big believer in personal freedoms. However one person's freedoms ends where those freedoms start encroaching on someone else's freedom. Freedom with responsibility would be Utopia.

Hu

What are your feelings about alchohol? People that drink infringe on others freedom more than any other substance except maybe secondhand smoke and pollution caused from cigarette butts(Account for 1 in every 5 pices of litter picked up). Peoples use of alcohol account for vast majority of traffic accidents, domestic abuse cases, and many other awful things.

The scientific process has been accepted for many decades. Research is pretty simple really and so is the basic math of taking two numbers and calculating a percentage. When doing research we narrow things down to one variable with reasonable certainty. When we find the percentage of people that take in oxygen and masturbate and count how many of them commit suicide or die of cancer and then we count how many of these people do these things and smoke pot and die from these causes we get some numbers. Then a little grade school level math gives us some percentages. Big studies, little studies, all studies that don't say what you want to read are wrong in your opinion. Miraculously, all studies that say what you want to read are right.

This quote below is from me earlier in the thread. It's quite obvious how blind I am.

The problem with this research is that it doesn't span enough years for either side to say either way for certain.

Your first problem is the paranoia in thinking that the government and big tobacco wouldn't love to legalize pot if it was harmless. The government would regulate and tax it making the government bigger and richer and the tobacco companies already have the production and distribution systems in place so they would be the ones in a position to make the most out of it.

I'm of the opinion that the reason why marijuana isn't legal is that it would be too difficult to tax it and if it was legalized would reduce the sale of alcohol & Tobacco drastically. Marijuana is too easily grown by anyone. You can say that tobacco & alcohol can be made as well but how many do you see doing so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadPoked
But you're forgetting that drugs like marijuana are GATEWAY DRUGS! It's not like these kids were smoking and drinking before they moved onto harder drugs... it's obviously the reefer madness that lead to it.



Oh please, let's see it's the 21st century are you are actually referring to reefer madness? How many people do you know that smoked some pot and ended up chasing the dragon or hitting the crack pipe? There are probably a lot of people who went from pot to crack but that doesn't mean they are causally connected. Roughly 40% of the people I know puff on a joint once in awhile, live in a drug infested city - heroin capital of the us, and never once have tried a hard drug.. Of course, the people I know have educations, have good jobs, have wives, husbands and kids and have something to live for.

Pot doesn't cause addiction to hard drugs.. lack of opportunity, apathy, poverty does.

You need to get your sarcasm detector fixed. Did you read any of my other my posts in this thread? All up in the Kool-Aid and you don't even know the flava.

 

[Joe Rogan]

Deadpoked,

The scientific process has been accepted for many decades. Research is pretty simple really and so is the basic math of taking two numbers and calculating a percentage. When doing research we narrow things down to one variable with reasonable certainty. When we find the percentage of people that take in oxygen and masturbate and count how many of them commit suicide or die of cancer and then we count how many of these people do these things and smoke pot and die from these causes we get some numbers. Then a little grade school level math gives us some percentages. Big studies, little studies, all studies that don't say what you want to read are wrong in your opinion. Miraculously, all studies that say what you want to read are right.

Your first problem is the paranoia in thinking that the government and big tobacco wouldn't love to legalize pot if it was harmless. The government would regulate and tax it making the government bigger and richer and the tobacco companies already have the production and distribution systems in place so they would be the ones in a position to make the most out of it.

Hu

More dumb arguments that your simple mind no doubt struggled to slap together. I don't know what's sadder; that this is all that you could come up with, or that you thought this would be enough.

It's REAL simple why marijuana is still illegal; it's really easy to grow, and anyone could grow their own with very little effort. Even though it's federally illegal, it's legal as medicine in 11 states, and it's incredibly inexpensive compared to alcohol or tobacco, two things that are far more difficult to package and or grow.
You can't patent a plant, so you can't control who profits from it if it was legal. People would have pot growing EVERYWHERE for FREE if it was legal. That's the mentality of cannabis users.
In the long run it would cost alcohol companies money, and it would certainly cost the government a great deal in the fact that their standard propaganda just doesn't work on cannabis users.

 

[bsmutz]

Wow, there are definitely some people with strong opinions on the marijuana issue. Personally, I believe that there are arguments to be made on both sides, like most anything else. Since the drug itself has different effects from one person to another, what may be fine for one person, may not for another. I knew a lady at one time that had narcolepsy when she smoked pot. I agree that most of the negative image of the drug comes from our government and its illegality, but there are health issues for some as well that shouldn't be overlooked. Some people don't know how to control their habits as we have all been witness to. Others have very negative reactions to things that most of us can use without fear or loss of control. I don't think marijuana should be illegal.

That being said, I don't agree with some opinions regarding how we should be living our lives. There seems to be a pervasive attitude that every person should be doing everything possible to prolong their life for as long as possible. This attitude just isn't realistic. There are many people who do things either recreationally or professionally that will tend to shorten their life expectancy besides smoking. It could be argued that our addiction to oil could be detrimental to everyone on the planet, yet I don't see any massive movement to wean ourselves. I watched a show the other night that dealt with why we age and die. Apparently there is no gene or natural predisposition for death. Our cells just start to deteriorate faster than our repair system can keep up with. They found a gene in some experimental organisms that allowed them to live 10 times longer than normal and expect to eventually find the equivalent gene in humans. When they interviewed people to see if they would want to live 600 to 1000 years, most said that would be too long.

We all make decisions during our lives that have a negative affect on us and those that love and care about us. Sometimes they are decisions that most agree are stupid or obviously harmful but that doesn't mean they are necessarily selfish. Even if they are selfish, don't we all do things that are selfish sometimes (at least most of us)? And, couldn't it be argued that wanting someone to live longer so that we can enjoy their company for a longer period is selfish, too? I saw a story on TV last week about a lady that had a tumor removed that weighed 300+ pounds. She was afraid of going to the hospital. This is an example of something that most people would agree was not in her best interest, yet she obviously thought it was, up to the point where she finally decided to get something done about it. We can't really fault people for this type of stuff because we aren't them. It's their life, let them live it the way they want unless they are harming others. That's my opinion on the matter. You can take it or leave it. I will continue to smoke as long as I enjoy smoking more than I don't enjoy the negative side effects. I understand that I may not live to be 65 or 75. Heck, I might not even make it to 60. That doesn't mean that I haven't enjoyed my life, done what I can to help others, and loved my family with all my heart. Yes, I've made some bad choices, but I've also made some good ones. I can die with that.

 

[JoeW]

A few years ago the oldest person in the world was a lady from France. She was 114- 117 (or something like that). She was asked for her new year's resolution.

"To cut down on smoking and eat less chocolate." she said.

Yeah, yeah, I know there are outliers everywhere. But this was cute. Some of us just can't quit.

My physician told me today that a pulmenologist told him that it is 8X more difficult to quit smoking relative to heroin -- I have no idea where he got those numbers or how anyone could come up with those numbers but some of us can really realy rationalize.

Rationalize: rational lie, sounds good won't fly.

If you don't start you'll never have to try to stop.

 

[JimS]

If you smoke weed frequently you'll come to depend on weed to change your mood(s). Your problem solving mechanism will notice you are tired, lonely, angry, bored.... whatever and it will suggest you get high to fix the emotional dip you were experiencing. You'll smoke some weed and feel the familiar effects and you will come to depend on the weed to get through the ups and downs in life.

Then the day will come when you run out of weed and can't find any and you'll not have a way to cope with all the crap in life. It will be difficult. Some call that psychological addiction. It's not physical addiction but when a guy is experiencing that sort of thing the NEED to get high can sure be strong.

It's chemical dependence.... i.e. depending on a chemical (drug) to get you through life.

 

[bsmutz]

I don't know about that, Jim. That may be true for some, but not everyone. I've quit smoking pot several times cold turkey after smoking every day for a few years or so and noticed no such phychological dependence. I've also known others that didn't seem to have any problems quitting, either. I might add that my personal usual demeanor is pretty laid back, so I might have less issues with it than most. I don't let much get to me and let go quickly when something does. If only it were so easy to quit smoking cigarettes. : (
The thing I liked most was that for me there were no drawbacks to smoking pot. I could do anything stoned that I could do not stoned with no discernible impairment. There was the occasional light feeling of paranoia when walking into a well lit store or having to talk to someone that would not approve of me being high after smoking, but nothing much else to speak of. Alcohol, completely different story.