Ron Paul will win the Republican Primaries

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dariolovesdeb, Nov 17, 2011.


  1. Haha, this isn't high school dude. That "dot com" website provides sources and research from credible sources.

    Nope, no proof smoking pot causes any problems. But keep up the myth though! :smoke:

    http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/779373-feds-finally-own-up-anti-cancer-potential-cannabis.html
     

  2. Shhhhhhh, I doubt he even read it before replying with his usual nonsense. ;)
     

  3. Find me a doctor that condones smoking ANYTHING for medicinal use and I'll find you as quack who does not or soon will not have a license to practice medicine. Science can't change its position based on not hurting stoners feelings or whatever. They need to focus on the scientific method.
     
  4. LOL!

    Here's a .org............happy now?

    CCRMG
     

  5. I may not find a doctor but I can find plenty of scientists (that have doctorates) but you won't read them because they're .com sources
     

  6. That's a start. But just because the website is credible doesn't mean it isn't biased. California cannabis research medical group. Seriously?
     

  7. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak516vtDTEA&feature=related]My allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy! - YouTube[/ame]
     
  8. You obviously didn't read it did you?

    Here, let me help you...


    "Coming from Tashkin, this conclusion had extra significance for the assembled drug-company and university-based scientists (most of whom get funding from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse). Over the years, Tashkin's lab at UCLA has produced irrefutable evidence of the damage that marijuana smoke wreaks on bronchial tissue.

    Tashkin decided to settle the question by conducting a large, population-based, case-controlled study. “Our major hypothesis,” he told the ICRS, “was that heavy, longterm use of marijuana will increase the risk of lung and upper-airways cancers.”

    You've lost all credibility by not even skimming the article I posted.
     
  9. Are the people from Harvard biased too?

    Face it, you were wrong, now just man up and admit it.
     
  10. Marijuana Research: The Effects of Marijuana Smoke

    Did any of you think that you're all partly correct? AlienBlood does have a point that smoke is damaging to the lungs, that is a fact. Cancer is not the only lung disease, however lung cancer is reduced even from smoking. Other respiratory diseases, such as chronic cough, chronic sputum production, and acute lower respiratory tract illnesses CAN show up in very heavy smokers. Also, marijuana smoke contains much more tar than tobacco smoke. However, that does not change the fact that THC has MANY benefits to medicinal users, and they still get those benefits from smoking. Granted, smoking is not the best way to get medicinal benefits (I don't think anyone would say it is), but that doesn't mean it is not longer a medicine.
     

  11. Try to read this slowly...

    I never said cannabis doesn't have medicinal benefits. Number 1. number 2, all these random studies you are sending me aren't proving my allegation at all, in fact they are solidifying it. Read these studies carefully they aren't testing benefits of smoked cannabis because they understand why that would be a waste of time. They are testing isolated chemicals from Marijuana, specifically THC. What is and isn't accepted medicinal administrations of medicine is a scientific fact.
     
  12. I guess you don't absorb thc, cbd, cbn, etc when you smoke cannabis, thus nullifying it's medicinal value.

    Who would've thought!
     
  13. LMAO!

    You're telling me to read the articles I posted when you didn't so much as skim over them?

    Ready to be wrong again? Here's the first sentence of the first article I posted:

    Marijuana smoking -“even heavy longterm use”- does not cause cancer of the lung, upper airways, or esophagus, Donald Tashkin, MD, reported at this year's meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society.

    You clearly aren't practicing what you're preaching.

    Here's another quote from the article:

     
  14. And yes, the Harvard study was testing isolated chemicals.

    Does the smoke combined with these chemicals somehow minimize their medical effect?
     

  15. If smoking was the only known method of getting marijuana in your system then maybe, just maybe you'd have a point. However it isn't and every other method just happens to be safe or safer. So smoke marijuana if smoking is your thing, but don't come at me talking about medicinal bongs :laughing:
     

  16. So because one study said it somewhere it is true? :laughing: You clearly know nothing about science or the effects bias has on its studies.
     
  17. I could post dozens more, but what fun would that be? You wouldn't read them anyway!

    And I already posted why Tashkin wasn't biased in his findings. Do you need me to go back and show it to you again?

    Fuck it...here ya go buddy!

     
  18. The point is smoking cannabis still has medicinal value, as you still absorb the cannabinoids.

    Smoking cannabis has yet to be proven unsafe, only that it contains more tar then tobacco smoke. However, this has yet to translate into any substantive results proving the danger of smoked cannabis.
     

  19. less harmful = more medicinal

    and my bong is WAY LESS harmful than the aspirins in your bathroom.

    and for you to scoff at one study.. it is data. ALL data must be used.
     

Share This Page