Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #618 - luidias (02/07/2012) [-]
I won't try to argue the rest of the points on here because the potential effects of legalizing ********* are still contested, but that doctor deserves a nice and painful beating with a cricket bat.

the tar in pot causes cancer, as does inhaling heated smoke. the experiment where 'pot fights cancer cells' was done with an isolated compound in ********* .

like any other drug, it's not good for your health. pot does damage mainly to the lungs and to your brain, as it's been shown to aggravate or cause disorders like bipolarity, depression, personality issues, etc.

tl;dr smoking pot won't cure your cancer.

P.S. if anyone decides to argue this(which they WILL, this is the internet), please a) do so in a civilized manner and b) don't try to back up your points by repeating facts that you heard from other pot smokers, about how it's good for you because it's green, or because it's got no additives like cigarettes, or any of that **** .
#716 to #618 - drunkfacebutthose (03/06/2012) [-]
Can you please show me one, just one instance where pot caused cancer? Smoking anything is bad but you can't compare it to cigarettes. I think you're making some **** up. There has never been a case of a pot related death. (not counting the illegal nature/guns/etc.) . Oh and out of question- why are you so ************** ? And what in your opinion would be the worst thing to come out of legalization? Do you ever drink? Y/N Either way think about this- alcohol is far worse and is still legal. No one smokes a joint and then leaves for home to crash their car or if they make it, beat their family. There are soooo many alcahol related deaths every year. I bet you you can think of one. You known anyone to die from smoking too much or smoking and driving? Do social norms dictate your views? Crime syndicates exist because *********** illegal. (Just like prohibition in the states created people like Al Capone) People serve longer jail sentences than Rapists and ********* for ********* possession. Oh and have you ever tried it? I doubt it because your such an uptight person. I'm not going to say it's a miracle drug or anything. I see it as a recreational tool. I don't give a **** if I change your mind but why do you care?
User avatar #717 to #716 - luidias (03/07/2012) [-]
man, I've been waiting for someone to try and pull this one on me.

the following link is to a medical journal specializing in the respirator system. in terms of academia, journals are by far the most accurate sources of information short of encyclopedias(your little online articles that mention second-hand 'studies' don't even compare).
http://www.ersj.org.uk/content/31/2/280.short
in the article, they show that there is a correlation between pot and lung cancer, and it's about the same as cigarette smoking. the abstract gives you a quick rundown, and if you want to get into detail, you can get to the full article from page I linked.

to briefly answer the questions you rambled at me:
-I never said I'm anti-legalization. what I'm arguing against is people spewing **** like "pot cures cancer" and "pot isn't bad for you" as if they knew what they were talking about.
-"alcohol is bad too" isn't a valid point for legalization of cannabis. no matter how many worse substances there are, cannabis is still bad for you. just because it's shy in comparison to alcohol doesn't make it any better.
-don't put words into my mouth. you call me an uptight person, but you ramble on like any other biased pothead I see out there. I try to be objective about it, but you're just as bad as the bigots who are against legalization just because the government says it's bad. you're just on the other end of the scale.

User avatar #682 to #618 - jlhaehl (02/08/2012) [-]
Cannabinoids - the active components of Cannabis sativa and their derivatives - exert palliative effects in cancer patients by preventing nausea, vomiting and pain and by stimulating appetite. In addition, these compounds have been shown to inhibit the growth of tumour cells in culture and animal models by modulating key cell-signalling pathways. Cannabinoids are usually well tolerated, and do not produce the generalized toxic effects of conventional chemotherapies. Are you sure you've done actual research or is all of your information derived from anti-pot propaganda?
User avatar #688 to #682 - luidias (02/08/2012) [-]
oh, you want go get into this?

CITE. that's how you prove anything on the internet. I've had a LOT of research thrown at me in the past, none of it was conclusive, and was showed merely that there MIGHT be a link between cannabis and cancer-fighting effects. furthermore, the negative side effects (specifically, aggravation of mental disorders.If you need me to point you to proof for this, then you've been looking at nothing but pro-pot propaganda) put cannabinoids behind other alternatives, both potential and already in use.

tl;dr show me research that ABSOLUTELY proves that cannabis DOES fight cancer and that it's possible to negate its side effects, and only then will you be able to say that cannabis is viable as a cancer-fighting substance.

P.S. the fact that your profile pic is a pot leaf makes me think that you might be just slightly biased.
User avatar #633 to #618 - cudaman (02/07/2012) [-]
actually there was a 20 year study done between the effects of tobacco and ********* use and it was clearly shown that ********* DOES NOT impede lung function nor cause cancer in any way whatsoever. here is the link to that study. have a nice day

[url deleted]
User avatar #640 to #633 - cudaman (02/07/2012) [-]
damn thing. just go and google ********* vs. tobacco study. the story is in science daily. oh and i dont smoke weed so im not a pot head
User avatar #637 to #633 - luidias (02/07/2012) [-]
your link was deleted. and ANY heated smoke in your lungs will cause cancer. you can burn paper and breathe it, and the smoke can cause lung cancer. studies only take into account the chemical aspects.
User avatar #651 to #637 - cudaman (02/07/2012) [-]
Did you read that study? It was presented to the American Thoracic Society not the local hippy club, really quite interesting. I can bring up more studies to back up my argument, can you? The fact is that ********* has been shown time and again that it has very real and useful medicinal purposes, it wont cure cancer like someone said BUT it will help a person undergoing chemo and radiation therapy retain their appitite AND keep the food down which will in turn help with keeping strength up. additionally the list of side effects for ********* use is fairly short as opposed to many other man made drugs which can have some really nasty side effects.
User avatar #654 to #651 - luidias (02/07/2012) [-]
the side effects include aggravation of psychological illnesses. there's no way that'll ever be an effective appetite booster.

I read your study, and it wasn't conclusive. it's still undergoing tests. What they found is an indication, not conclusive proof. they also didn't explain what their criteria was.

as for my proof, I urge you to go look up what happens when any foreign substance gets deposited in the lungs. in the study you pointed me to, they even state that they we're surprised at the apparent lack of cancer, considering the amount of substance that ends up in the lungs of a ********* smoker.

granted, tobacco is much, much worse for your lungs than weed, but that doesn't make weed harmless. like I said, there's other negative effects aside from lung damage.

her's the link to the article I found, by the way. it looks like the right one. www.sciencedaily.com/releas...
User avatar #667 to #654 - cudaman (02/08/2012) [-]
i hate it when I click the wrong thing. had a nice good response and poof. gone in an instant. ill try and do it all again

Please GOOGLE - ********* WITH CANCER PATIENTS - the 2nd link down is link to the amerifat cancer society about *********** use as an effective appetite booster and anti-nausea treatment in patients with cancer and aids. here is a cut and paste of the overview

"The cannabinoid drug THC has been approved by the US Food and Drug that good feeling when you poopistration (FDA) for use in relieving nausea and vomiting and increasing appetite in people with cancer and AIDS. Testing of other ********* extracts is still in the early stages. Results are mixed in studies of ********* use for muscle tremors and spasticity in people with multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s disease. "

The study i sited was not conclusive it was also 6 years old. There is another study that was done over a 20 year period that showed that lung function was not impaired with mild use of ********* . meaning smoking a few joints a month. It also showed that there was no link between ********* use and lung cancer.

This is from the NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE.

"Cannabis and cannabinoids have been studied in the laboratory and the clinic for relief of pain, nausea and vomiting, anxiety, and loss of appetite (see Question 6 and Question 7).

Cannabis and cannabinoids may have benefits in treating the symptoms of cancer or the side effects of cancer therapies (see Question 7).

Two cannabinoids (dronabinol and nabilone) are FDA approved for the prevention or treatment of chemotherapy -related nausea and vomiting (see Question 7 and Question 10).

Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory and to affect the immune system. However, there is no evidence that Cannabis' effects on the immune system help the body fight cancer (see Question 6)."

dronabinol has been shown to have stronger and more severe side effects then smoking a joint or eating a brownie.
User avatar #679 to #667 - luidias (02/08/2012) [-]
hmm. I'm still not entirely convinced about the lung cancer thing(IMO, hot smoke+lungs=bad), but I'll grant you that.

in terms of helping with cancer, I maintain that there are much better alternatives than cannabis, even if it cancer-treating properties are confirmed. weed still has negative psychological side effects that put it below other potential options.
User avatar #704 to #679 - xakter (02/12/2012) [-]
The tar in ********* was a study conducted by a university where they took leaves from tobacco and ********* and compared the tar. Now everyone who has ever talked about weed or been around weed knows that nobody smokes the leaf and that most smoke the bud. Thus the ************* connection cannot be proven.
User avatar #705 to #704 - luidias (02/12/2012) [-]
that doesn't have much to do with what me and cudaman were talking about. or are you just randomly dropping that in there?
User avatar #706 to #705 - xakter (02/12/2012) [-]
it was just stuck with me for about a month now and I have to hang around old people so I had to let it out man
User avatar #708 to #706 - luidias (02/12/2012) [-]
lol, okay.
User avatar #712 to #708 - blazedallday (02/16/2012) [-]
Also, i dunno where you got your facts, but you obviously got them from some government owned website, if you find a decent article they will all tell you that while weed isnt good for your lungs because theres smoke, there has never been a case of lung cancer that was caused by long term ********* use because their isnt harmful chemicals in it like their is in tobacco, its all natural without all the crap that gets added to cigarettes
User avatar #714 to #712 - luidias (02/16/2012) [-]
don't be too quick about labeling my sources as "skewed by the government" or what have you.

hot smoke+lungs=bad. not only is it common sense, but it's a medical fact. I could burn oak leaves all day and inhale the smoke, and it would still be bad for me.

also, whoever told you it isn't associated with lung cancer obviosuly wasn't looking to hard for sources(mind you "articles" are normally ****** and uninformed sources of information).

contrary to most people, I can give you an actual scholarly source:
www.ersj.org.uk/content/31/...
that's a JOURNAL for respiratory science (case you don't know, journals are professionally considered to be one of the most accurate sources of information; scientists used the published works in them as information for their own research). the page I linked contains the abstract only, but there's a link on the same page that leads to the full article.

User avatar #711 to #708 - blazedallday (02/16/2012) [-]
recent study done about a month ago proves that ********* also does not effect your lung capacity vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/...
User avatar #713 to #711 - luidias (02/16/2012) [-]
'shows' isn't the same as 'proves.'

that article itself said that studies about this kind of thing have been contradicting themselves. in truth, most knowledge (in ANY field that requires practical experimentation) needs to be rigorously tested and observed before it's considered fact. one study doesn't constitute absolute proof, much to the contrary actually.

I find too many people are using studies as proof, when they're only mere indications.
0
#635 to #633 - cudaman has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)