https://www.aan.com/press/index.cfm?fuseaction=release.view&release=250 I'd say the AAN is pretty credible. Harming bloodflow to the brain? Time to cut back to once every 2 weeks...
God damn! Who the fuck smokes 50 joints a day? I'm less than a light user...which is nice to know. But I wish these studies would specify in quantitative terms the potency and amount of it, since the unit "joint" might as well be scientifically useless.
My question is, when do you ever hear that a vaporizer made it harmless? It is better than smoking a blunt, but I've NEVER heard anyone say it was harmless.
http://forum.grasscity.com/apprentice-tokers/691371-how-long-before-problems-occur.html#post8676988 http://forum.grasscity.com/apprenti...smoker-here-need-some-help-2.html#post8205119 http://forum.grasscity.com/medical-marijuana/653968-so-weed-harmless-2.html#post8182535 to name a few @Blazed Bacon, it says if you smoke even 2 joints a weeks the blood flow only improves over about a month of abstinance I believe a "joint" is equvilant to 1.0-0.5 grams
Fuck the above the influence commercials, I am still going to smoke I'm just saying people who think marijuana use under almost any premise is harmless are in denial
Word. Actually, I haven't smoked in a while because of a possible pre employment DT, but still, I might have a few sheses a week, but my bowls are so small it probably adds up to only a joint a week. But I suspect that it might not be the mass of the plant matter that matters (hehe, pun), but actually the active drugs.
What a load of shit. This study was done in 2005 and there have been other studies SINCE then that dispute these findings. Plus, this is government agency that has to follow federal guidelines regarding marijuana. Anyone read the latest study regarding alcohol and how it is more harmful that crack or heroin? I wonder why this agency didn't do a study on alcohol if they're so concerned about health. it's strictly another political ploy to get people to fear Marijuana.
I have to ask to provide a source, an extrodinary claim like that requires some evidence. It's a professional society, not a government agency.
I asked to provide the source or evidence that would back up your arguement against the AAN's credibility, not a inventory of marijuana research. Your in denial.
That should be "you're" as in you, and are. Unless my marijuana addled brain is getting it wrong...from what I've read here, these studies were conducted between control subjects, and people that smoke marijuana. At no point is it mentioned that any of the existing users used vapourisers before, or during the study. So what exactly are you trying to say OP? It would appear that you're assuming that because this test shows smoking the substance will have a certain effect, that vapourising it would have the same effect? ...sometimes my concentration is poor, I've formerly been diagnosed with A.D.D, but I've read over the posted article a few times and try as I might, I cannot find one mention of the use of vapourisation whatsoever. Perhaps in future if you're going to stir up some kind of controversy or negativity about vapourisation, you should post something of any relevance to it whatsoever.
I think he was pointing out that it could be anywhere in the 20,000 other documents on Marijuana research, and that patience is a virtue is the researching field. That, and I see nowhere that I actually says in your study that Marijuana is bad for you. It simply states that it raises your PI values. Guess what, when blood vessels constrict and vessel diameter shrinks, but the volume of blood does not.... hey! Velocity and pressure increase (I think we knew that marijuana raises your blood pressure?), resulting in a higher PI. This is absolutely nothing new at all. Also, it states that it increases blood flow velocity to the brain. Huh? They are simply taking a guess and relating it to diseases which have the same symptoms. Take a look at alcohol; it depresses your blood pressure, and then raises it. They still don't know the exact mechanism by which it does this. I almost want to say non sequitur here.
Licking tinfoil and inhaling the fumes that come off it when it's burnt, do different things to your brain don't they? When you burn marijuana you release more than just THC, you release other carcinogens as well, so in answer to your question that you really didn't need to ask: Yes, that's what I'm saying. Your body absorbs, processes and deals with things differently on the basis of how they are consumed. Be against weed all you want, but don't go attacking vapourisation without being able to back it up better than unrelated source material.
Did I not say... "give me a minute?" The few imaging studies that have assessed the effects of marijuana and THC on brain blood flow and metabolism in humans have produced conflicting results. You can google the rest.
The effects vary greatly, for one when vaporizing your not inhaling any crude cumbusted plant matter, just cannibanoid and residual water vapor. Smoking on the other hand lets in CO2, CO and whatever else is lingering in the smoke, those will have different effects.
Bottum line, everyone says the only thing bad about marijuana is what smoking it can do to your lungs. And that using a vaporizer or edibles will fix that. This study shows that using marijuana period effects not only the respiratory system in some circumstances but is directly related to deficiencies in the brain. Now due to the lack of deliberation in the article, I can understand that the argument against vaporizers is DEBATABLE but I doubt changing the medium of administration will change the effects on the brain.
Fair enough...though try something out for me? Next time you cross a fairly congested road, take a few hits on the exhaust pipe of each car, and let me know if it effects your brain any differently than just the walk. If you can.
i dont know if i can believe any study done on mj anymore, after hearing about how the govt. suffociated those monkeys tryin to say pot caused brain damage