Thread: Study shows No long-term lung damage from marijuana

Originally Posted by HonestJoe

That was the impression I got from the OP and other similar statements. The idea that marijuana use could cause any harm appears to be being dismissed as a "myth".

Then we might as well refer to salt as harmless. Or coffee. Everything in moderation, including marijuana.

Most prescription drugs will harm nobody other than the person taking it. That isn't the reason we have the process of qualified medical professions providing them on prescription only.

And you claim that marijuana harms people other than those ingesting it? Tell me, when a person lights up a joint, who is the victim?

That's a complex question but regardless, the issue of morality are entirely irrelevant here.

On the contrary, it is an issue of morality because it has entirely to do with self-ownership and, by extension, the right to use one's body in whatever manner one see fit.

The knee-jerk objection because of it's use as an illegal drug is a problem but just as disruptive is the knee-jerk promotion because it is an illegal drug.

Those who aren't obedient to authority because obedience is demanded like to tweak the nose of authority with overt references to that which authority has insisted is verboten.

There are plenty of people out there arguing for "medicinal marijuana" just because they want to use it recreationally with fewer or no legal controls. If that dishonesty didn't exist, it would be one big stumbling block removed from the possibility of marijuana being used professionally to help people with real medical need.

Well, I'm not one to hide behind the medical marijuana debate. Government has always been dishonest about drugs and the war on human behaviors. I have no problem with doing whatever is necessary, so long as it is peaceful, in order to, step by step, re-legalize drugs starting with marijuana.

If it's ok for sick people, why isn't it ok for healthy people?

Why?

Because you're an evil sonofa(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) for doing something harmless that helps you live your peaceful life, that's why.



I don't understand fascists, really

Originally Posted by dreadpiratejaymo

http://news.yahoo.com/no-long-term-l...220625384.html

So there is that. Another myth debunked by a 20 year study.

Yet people still feel the need to deny marijuana to others who could use it to improve their quality of life.

When I don't smoke daily, I can't work. I have epilepsy but my seizures are completely controlled by daily marijuana use. When I don't have access to it, I tend to have Petit Mal seizures at a rate of 2 or 3 an hour.

Why would anyone want to deny such a drug from people who could benefit from it?

I notice you didn't emphasise the fact that the report used the word 'occasionally' (smoking marijuana) and this sentence:

'However, they warned that the risks of heavy marijuana use were difficult to assess and cautioned against regular or frequent smoking."

When you are qouting statements, it's best that you quote them properly or you willbe found out!

Originally Posted by diligent

I notice you didn't emphasise the fact that the report used the word 'occasionally' (smoking marijuana) and this sentence:

By occasional they mean "One joint a day for seven years". That doesn't sound very occasional to me...

'However, they warned that the risks of heavy marijuana use were difficult to assess and cautioned against regular or frequent smoking."

Notice how it's the smoking of the drug that is bad for you? The drug is much MUCH more effective when it is ingested. Apparently it is safer, too.

You have to use a LOT more to feel the effect, so people generally save money by smoking it instead.

When you are qouting statements, it's best that you quote them properly or you willbe found out!

?

Title of the article:

No long-term lung damage from marijuana: study

vs. title of the thread:

Study shows No long-term lung damage from marijuana

What did I misquote?

Originally Posted by Peter Szarycz

Get a medical perscription for marijuana for your condition, then you will be free from all legal harassment. Your condition warrants a legal use of the drug, so why the complaint? Then again, perhaps different states have different laws, and in some all options need to be exhausted before you get a perscription you want.

...

The federal government can (and does) still prosecute users and owners of medical dispensaries in the states where it is "legal".

Even so, I live in TN. The closest state to me where it is legal (on the state level only) is New Jersey. It takes about 11 hours to get there from here.

Originally Posted by dreadpiratejaymo

I never claimed it was harmless, nor did the article I linked to.

As I said, it was the implication I received. You focused on the positive statement and suggested it means nobody should deny marijuana for medical reasons but you ignored the references to other potential risks.

Originally Posted by dreadpiratejaymo

There is plenty of medication that is legal, gets you high, is addictive, and extremely harmful.

And they are widely recognised as such and are supplied and used with care and controls. As I've said, I'm all for marijuana or derivatives of it being used for medical treatment. What I object to is the biased views in favour of it overlooking any difficulties or complications involved, biases no better than those irrationally against it because it's an illegal drug. I don't think it should be treated differently to any other potential medicine, positively or negatively.

I'm basically looking at the difference between telling people with infections to eat mouldy bread or developing penicillin.

Originally Posted by HonestJoe

As I said, it was the implication I received. You focused on the positive statement and suggested it means nobody should deny marijuana for medical reasons but you ignored the references to other potential risks.

Which are all related to smoking. I would much rather ingest it than smoke it. If it weren't illegal, I could afford to buy enough to ingest it.

Problem solved.

And they are widely recognised as such and are supplied and used with care and controls.

How about OTC medications that are abused? Ever heard of teenagers drinking cough Syrup? That is because Dextromathoraphin is a powerful hallucinogen. How about pseudoephedrine? You can still buy it without a scrip, then use it to make meth.

Setting them on the shelf where any 15 year old can steal them isn't supplying them with care and control.

Originally Posted by dreadpiratejaymo

Which are all related to smoking. I would much rather ingest it than smoke it. If it weren't illegal, I could afford to buy enough to ingest it.

Problem solved.

Possibly. It depends on how and where it was legalised (or decriminalised) and while it might solve your problem, it could create problems for other people. We don't allow for the use of opiate based pain-killers by simply making all opiates legal.

Again, I'm not against marijuana based medicines being developed and made available. That development would include processing, dosage and delivery methods to reduce any side-effects. Just like anything else.

Originally Posted by dreadpiratejaymo

How about OTC medications that are abused? Ever heard of teenagers drinking cough Syrup? That is because Dextromathoraphin is a powerful hallucinogen. How about pseudoephedrine? You can still buy it without a scrip, then use it to make meth.

I never said the existing system was perfect (nothing is). I don't see how any of that is an argument for circumventing that system for marijuana alone.

The title is deceiving. A quote from the article, "In our findings we see hints of harm in pulmonary function with heavy use", shows there's some kind of damage to our lungs. Besides in the same article, it states "other studies have shown that marijuana use increases a user's likelihood of a heart attack... and impairs the immune system's ability to fight disease".

Originally Posted by HonestJoe

Possibly. It depends on how and where it was legalised (or decriminalised) and while it might solve your problem, it could create problems for other people. We don't allow for the use of opiate based pain-killers by simply making all opiates legal.

Again, I'm not against marijuana based medicines being developed and made available. That development would include processing, dosage and delivery methods to reduce any side-effects. Just like anything else.

I never said the existing system was perfect (nothing is). I don't see how any of that is an argument for circumventing that system for marijuana alone.

It isn't an argument for/against circumventing. It is evidence that a statement you made is not correct.

That statement being

And they are widely recognised as such and are supplied and used with care and controls.