{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/29/2016 12:32:43 PM
25
Weed as it's impossible to overdose on! whereas alcohol poisoning kills many each year
English
-
Yet it can cause psychotic episodes in people, damages short term memory, cause hallucination and adds to lung cancer. Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's good for you.
-
Been smoking it 25+ years & have never experienced any of the side effects the anti campaign say! & as for lung cancer cannabis hasn't got any carcinogens in it! However the tobacco that it is usually mixed with does ;)
-
[quote]Psychosis. Marijuana exacerbates psychotic symptoms and worsens outcomes in patients already diagnosed with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders. Several large observational studies also strongly suggest that using marijuana — particularly in the early teenage years — can increase risk of developing psychosis. An often-cited study of more than 50,000 young Swedish soldiers, for example, found that those who had smoked marijuana at least once were more than twice as likely to develop schizophrenia as those who had not smoked marijuana. The heaviest users (who said they had used the drug more than 50 times) were six times as likely to develop schizophrenia as the nonsmokers. Until recently, the consensus view was that this reflected selection bias: Individuals who were already vulnerable to developing psychosis or in the early stages (the prodrome) might be more likely to smoke marijuana to quell voices and disturbing thoughts. But further analyses of the Swedish study, and other observational studies, have found that marijuana use increases the risk of psychosis, even after adjusting for possible confounding factors. Although cause and effect are hard to prove, evidence is accumulating that early or heavy marijuana use might not only trigger psychosis in people who are already vulnerable, but might also cause psychosis in some people who might not otherwise have developed it.[/quote] And with this Harvard University has educated you plebeians on just how "safe" marijuana is.
-
Editado por Bofeious: 4/2/2016 9:49:11 AMComplete bullshit! Psychosis isn't understood enough to know what triggers it! Let alone 1 joint doubling your risk! that's an unquantifiable claim, very unscientific! Studies like these probably paid for by the anti drugs campaign are the reason science isn't fully trusted
-
[quote]Conclusion Cannabis use is a risk factor for the development of incident psychotic symptoms. Continued cannabis use might increase the risk for psychotic disorder by impacting on the persistence of symptoms.[/quote] Straight from the British Medical Journal. Before you rant again understand the British Medical Journal has existed since 1840 and is one of the world's oldest medical journals. Doctors, surgeons and professors of modern day medical science have all learnt from this journal and all hospitals and universities that have anything to do with medical science teach from these journals. To have an article published in such a journal is a life long achievement that very few obtain. To have an article published it is all reviewed by other doctors, surgeons and professors of medical science. If they find any errors and cannot replicate the findings then the experiments and findings are tossed out. With that in mind, what were you saying again? I can find quite a lot more from the same medical journal and others of the same stature if you like?
-
Yes I am aware of the bma being British! :) However every week we get "red meat causes cancer" next week "red meat reduces risk of cancer" they're as fcukin clueless as the rest of us! ;)
-
That's not the BMA or BMJ who does that. That is media taking such studies and blowing it out or proportion.
-
Granted media do play a role in overhyping/misinterpreting data! But even scientists are guilty of this! Look at global warming! Ok let's change drugs for a sec to alcohol! If it's scientifically determined how much alcohol it's safe for a human to consume in one week, what's with the massively differing limits in different countries throughout the world?
-
Global warming has become a political lie. They use statistics to portray agenda. There are 3 types of lies. Lies, filthy lies and statistics. There is no definitive scientific proof for either side of the argument.
-
I'm in the yes we are doing it camp! We both seem like educated scientifically minded people! Yet our interpretation of available data differs! & this is the problem with most social science! As biological lifeforms differ in how their brain has been wired, their life experiences these all colour how you view the universe. Which will change the conclusions you come too ;)
-
I won't lie I care little for environmental sciences. The way I see it the world has undergone a number of climate changes, ice age, etc. Even if we slow our supposed acceleration of it eventually it I'll still occur. It's has been happening long before us and will happen long after us.
-
Also please let me try to convert you, to at least trying to put your mind to environmental sciences occasionally for possible solutions :) Think of earth as a biological lifeform, it has a preferred temperature to maintain a healthy existence. If it swings by just 2 degrees c it becomes very ill! By 5 degrees it dies! (Least the microbes that keep it alive do)
-
Oh I understand, I just don't care. Medical science is my thing. Why? Because my whole adult working life has revolved around fixing people and taking the lives of others. Too much opinion and political agendas are involved with environmental science, just like social science. But how the body acts/responds to trauma doesn't change. It's proven. It works.
-
I have to disagree on "the body acts the same" in generalisation yes! But having broken spine 3x & had right side of body rebuilt twice plus many other injuries I've found my bones take more towards 8 weeks to heal not the 6 they normally take the cast off! As bones take 4-8 weeks to heal! That's a big discrepancy twice as long ;)
-
We always say 6-8 weeks for bones to heal. Just like major surgery like knee replacements takes 6-12 months.
-
Editado por Bofeious: 4/2/2016 1:51:20 PMI'll bet! Thankfully not got that far yet :) though definitely in my future:( Reason I mention the time taken is because I broke my left scaphoid (as you know one of the hardest bones to break) & as standard got plaster removed after 6 weeks I continued to break it a further 8x when they said "do it again & we'll replace it" not keen on surgery I looked up bone growth & skipped my 6 week appointment & cut my own cast off after 8 weeks! It hasn't broken since! Even when powdered 6-8" of my radius & ulnar & I since have ensured doctors leave breaks to max predicted figure not somewhere in between:)
-
Editado por Bofeious: 4/2/2016 12:29:54 PMOhh that is definitely true! But we're seeing about a million years worth of previous natural warming in 50-60years! Which I feel points to our having something to do with it ;) Edit: million alittle overstated but still tens of thousands of years worth ;)
-
Editado por Dieselrose: 3/29/2016 1:31:51 PMIt doesn't have any carcinogenic CHEMICALS. Ash, charcoal, etc are all carcinogenic. You are inhaling these particles. Hell the charcoal from BBQ'ed meat is carcinogenic. So is bread. The psychotic breaks which occur occur in those who have the predisposition to it. Ever notice some people have a different experience than your self when smoking or drinking? Notice how not everyone becomes addicted/dependant? Obviously you have no education or experience in the medical field. I love talking to kids who and idiots who think weed is "pure" and "clean" and in no way dangerous. Even better are those who think it cures cancer. All I have to do is point out Bob Marley.
-
Lol if your being precise oxygen is a carcinogen! Yet we can't live without it! My biology knowledge is just fine Ty :)
-
Oxygen is not carcinogenic. The damage is done by the free radical radiation produced at mitochondrial level. Obviously you don't know your biology very well. Even more so because you claimed that since you never experienced negative effects that they simply don't exist. Please also note where I said MEDICAL knowledge/experience. Biology is grade school shit.
-
But the effect is the same mitochondrial energy production damages cells making them more prone to cancerous mutation! Which is what carcinogens do! & my biology knowledge was university lvl 20 years ago. some might not be current due to the half life of facts but most should still be correct
-
Correct apart from the bit about oxygen. Oxygen doesn't do the damage. The byproduct (free radical radiation) does the damage. And yes that is what carcinogens do. They increase the likelihood of mutation (cancer). UV radiation damages the cells as well which can lead to cancer as well. Does that make it carcinogenic too?
-
Editado por Bofeious: 3/29/2016 2:09:45 PMNo because carcinogens tend to be chemical or biological ie a "substance"whereas light isn't classed as a substance! Unless ofc that's changed aswell? Edit: though do dispute the "it's the free radicals not oxygen" bit as that's like saying cars don't add green house gases their by products do :)
-
Nah hasn't changed. Carcinogens are substance. Light as we know isn't a substance. I take my hat off to you. You know more than 99.9% of the people on here.
-
As do you my friend;) nice to meet you :)
