Tronners and weed

[syllabear]

Cigarettes is also WAY worse for us then weed. Thats a true fact.

As I've already said, smoking one "spliff" or whatever you want to call it, will have a more detrimental effect on your lungs, its just that smokers smoke more cigarettes. Also, true fact? lold

[ElmosWorld]

Also, true fact? lold

Clearly he meant this.

[sinewav]

So many dumb stoners... Can anyone say "conformation bias?"

[Kijutsu]

I don't care about weed. I don't care if someone's in a rush to die, whether it be with McDonalds food, alcohol, hard drugs or any other shit. What's it to me? Your body, your choices. To answer OP's question, whenever I play tron there's at least 1 person bragging about how high he is, which is extremely annoying and not cool. I've noticed they're usually americans, too. Just smoke dat blunt and be quiet. Weed isn't even that big of a deal, I always assume people come out of that phase once they reach the age of 17.

[tommy]

Cigarettes is also WAY worse for us then weed. Thats a true fact.

As I've already said, smoking one "spliff" or whatever you want to call it, will have a more detrimental effect on your lungs, its just that smokers smoke more cigarettes. Also, true fact? lold

Do you know what a Spliff is? Obviously not... Spliff is weed and a pinch of tobacco.

Dumb stoners? Lol, google anything I said Sine and i'll come out right.

[ElmosWorld]

Cigarettes is also WAY worse for us then weed. Thats a true fact.

As I've already said, smoking one "spliff" or whatever you want to call it, will have a more detrimental effect on your lungs, its just that smokers smoke more cigarettes. Also, true fact? lold

Do you know what a Spliff is? Obviously not... Spliff is weed and a pinch of tobacco.

Did you ever consider different words mean different things in different places?

[sinewav]

Dumb stoners? Lol, google anything I said Sine and i'll come out right.

Just because a search engine returns a result, doesn't mean it's true. More proof you are already too dumb and should probably stop smoking your brains away. I'll have the last LOL after this post...

Here is a tip for anyone who wants to know about the safety of marijuana (excluding cool tommy since he's a lost cause). Don't "google" for information, use Google Scholar instead.* Why? Because "Google Scholar provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature." You can search peer-reviewed, scientific studies. You can find information educated people can understand; stuff stoners can't be bothered to read because their feeble, smoked-out brains can't focus enough to comprehend the studies.

For example, searching for "marijuana brain damage" returns this gem from Biological Psychiatry, Vol 15(6), Dec 1980, 841-858.

Administered a battery of tests clinically employed for the estimation of auditory and visual recent memory dysfunction to 4 male and 4 female Ss having circumscribed damage to the temporal lobe and to 8 matched controls. Where data were available, the performance of the temporal lobe Ss paralleled the performance of 6 Ss acutely intoxicated with known doses of delta-9-tetrahydro-cannabinol. Results are discussed in terms of cannabinoid actions on hippocampal functioning and, in general, support the hypothesis that the action of marihuana in the brain may focus in the hippocampal region and produce behavioral changes similar to that resulting from traumatic injury or removal of the region.

If you didn't understand that, it means and experiment was done to compare stoners with people with brain damage and found they exhibited the same properties. Nice, huh?

Or how about the Journal article "Corpus callosum damage in heavy marijuana use: Preliminary evidence from diffusion tensor tractography and tract-based spatial statistics," which states:

[Mean diffusivity] was significantly increased in marijuana users relative to controls in the region of the CC where white matter passes between the prefrontal lobes. This observation suggests impaired structural integrity affecting the fibre tracts of the CC and is in keeping with previous reports of altered and diversified activation patterns in marijuana users. There was a trend towards a positive correlation between MD and length of use suggesting the possibility of a cumulative effect of marijuana over time and that a younger age at onset of use may predispose individuals to structural white matter damage. Structural abnormalities revealed in the CC may underlie cognitive and behavioural consequences of long term heavy marijuana use.

But you know, weed is totally safe and has lots of benefits.


* Often you will only have access to the article's abstract, the full text is usually behind a pay-wall. Sometimes the cost is very steep, but I recommend purchasing articles if they are in your price range and you have a genuine interest in science. If not, your local or school library can usually get things like this for you!

[Phytotron]

What sinewav said. But I want to add a bit since I bothered to watch that stupid documentary.

[Marijuana] only enhances your brain cells.

THC acts on cannabinoid receptors which are found on neurons in many places in the brain. These brain areas are involved in memory (the hippocampus), concentration (cerebral cortex), perception (sensory portions of the cerebral cortex) and movement (the cerebellum, substantia nigra, globus pallidus). When THC activates cannabinoid receptors, it interfers with the normal functioning of these brain areas. In low to medium doses, marijuana causes:

• relaxation
• reduced coordination
• reduced blood pressure
• sleepiness
• disruption in attention
• an altered sense of time and space — a good reason not to drive or operate machinery while under the influence

In high doses or long-term use, marijuana can cause:

• impaired memory
• disorientation
• loss of ambition
• feelings of detachment
• can aggravate and exacerbate pre-existing mental illnesses, including depression

You want to call that enhancement? OK. You're just as dishonest as Reefer Madness.

P.S. Theres actually a very good Documentary of Marijuana speaking some awesome Facts.

I love the phrasing of this. "There's actually," as though its existence is remarkable, it's the only one, and it's uncovering stuff no one knew about until now! And, "awesome facts?" Or, maybe it's just you that just learned about any of this; typical adolescent response to new information: "how come nobody knows about this!?!?". Fact is, that documentary is retread. And yes, I watched it. Here are some of the notes I took, and comments to follow:

• The street interviews have obviously been selected to feature only the most goofy, ignorant, moronic people. "See, people who don't smoke pot are just clueless dummies. We're wise and enlightened."

• Meanwhile, some of these mooks in favor of it? Like the former dealers? Joe Rogan? This is your celebrity spokesperson? Seriously? His argument: "If you don't get this, you're f'cking dumb." Well, I don't want to be called f'cking dumb by Joe Rogan; my mind is changed. (Side note: Second-best sitcom of the '90s, News Radio.)

• The argument against potheads becoming lazy: "well, these are people who would be lazy, anyway." Firstly, anecdotal; evidence? Indeed, my experience, personal and in the case of everyone I've known, has been that regular pot use has in every instance made those people lazier, lose interest in things they otherwise had, and lose ambition and motivation. Secondly, this argument can be flipped: Those who still manage to function and be productive while being regular pot smokers are able to do so in spite of it; they're people who would be highly driven anyway.

• It notes a bunch of "successful" famous people who smoked pot, as though that's some sort of argument. Still, how many of those were actively and regularly smoking pot during their productive periods? Bill Clinton and George W. Bush? Come on.

• They declare repeatedly, forcefully, and snidely that there has never been any crime associated with marijuana. No theft, robbery, assault, or murder. Not once, ever. Besides this being absurd on its face, they then move straight into the section on all the crime that results from prohibition. Smooth.

• In rebutting the "gateway drug" argument they cite a statistic (unsourced, if I recall) that the ratio of pot users who use "hard drugs" is 100:1, here making the point that this is an insignificant number. Later, the very same ratio of 100:1 is cited in noting how many homes in this particular area have home growing operations, but here making the point of how significant a ratio that is. Look how many people are doing it!

• Studies and reports are cherry-picked throughout to support the argument that pot is absolutely harmless, no deleterious effects whatsoever. Amusingly, Government studies/reports are cited both for and against, but with the only distinction as to their veracity being whichever supports their argument. If it does, it's the truth. If it doesn't, then it's conspiratorial, propagandist government lies.

• This documentary (and our two recent supporters) hinge so much on this single monkey study. First, there seems to be the notion (expressed by Nivek) that this is the only study on the effects of marijuana that has ever been conducted. But worse, the implication that since that study was flawed, even fraudulent, therefore all studies that show adverse effects of marijuana must also be false.

• Makes a big point of the question of whether it kills brain cells, not even a major scientific claim. Worse, it (and you) again goes on to imply that since brain cells aren't actually killed, there can't be any other negative mental effects that may occur. (It doesn't have to actually kill brain cells in order to have negative effects; see above.)

• There is only one instance in the entire documentary where they even suggest that there might be some harmful affect of marijuana use, and that's in noting that use by children might increase the likelihood of schizophrenia. However, this one example is only given as a convenient argument against prohibition and for regulation (protect the children!). Furthermore, it is hedged with "might, but might not." This same consideration is not given for any other scientific study. Indeed, at one point in the documentary the word "may" is hi-lighted in the pejorative to dismiss science. These people don't understand how science works.

• It gets even sillier when it moves into the "alternative medicine" portion, where insipid, pernicious anti-medical science diatribes are paraded out and marijuana is portrayed as a wondrous miracle drug that can cure everything! Then this fool who is presented as an expert authority puts forth lines like "sub-atomic quirks and quarks if you like." "Synthetic compounds don't work." "I don't condone stupidity." Or science, apparently.

• A lot of references to "government supported research." Guess what, most science in this country, including probably that UCLA study they cite as their Big Win, is funded by the government.

• In general, science and the government are portrayed as ominous, dishonest, corrupt, propagandist, and even conspiratorial.

The point is, all in all, this is an overtly biased, sloppy, fallacious film that qualifies more as one big op-ed than a documentary. This is why critical thinking needs to be taught in schools.

On the subject of the effects of marijuana use (a small part of the documentary), it is not science-based. I don't want some mook making sound-bite rhetorical arguments; that won't do. I want science, people who understand what science is and how it works, and critical analysis based on reason. Not people who bash the very enterprise.

Yes, misconceptions about marijuana and marijuana use exist—on both sides. This does not mean that every negative claim is false and that it is instead a magical wonder plant.

Of course, the main thrust of this documentary is its argument against prohibition. OK, but that's irrelevant in this discussion. And again, the arguments against prohibition do not equal an argument that marijuana is harmless.

Indeed, not one person featured in this documentary (with sole exception to Lester Grinspoon, in voicing his concern about youngsters using) could bring themselves to admit that maybe recreational pot use, especially overuse, maybe isn't the greatest thing in the world, that marijuana isn't a completely harmless drug—while still being in favor of legalization.

And that's the problem, this lack of nuanced, rational, reasonable thought. It's just as dishonest, disingenuous, and ignorant as those they (and you) oppose, who do lie and distort in their opposition to marijuana use and legalisation.



And one more thing—totally irrelevant, doesn't mean anything or impact any argument—but just looking at this Adam Scorgie, I want to punch him in the face. Mook.

[Phytotron]

Oh yeah...

I don't care if someone's in a rush to die, whether it be with McDonalds food, alcohol, hard drugs or any other shit. What's it to me? Your body, your choices.

Yeah, there's no such thing as society, right? One person's, or several people's, actions do not affect others in any way, positively or negatively. Therefore, no social responsibility, empathy, or concern for the rest of humanity. We're completely autonomous individuals whose only moral imperative is to look out for our own self-interest.


That avatar is from American Psycho, huh?

[Kijutsu]

That avatar is from American Psycho, huh?

Great movie, although it pales in comparison to the book.

[NIVEK]

well what you've said has enlightened me, and I can agree with the majority of your statements. regardless using marijuana isn't causing me any trouble, and if I cared about long turn health effects I would've quit smoking cigarettes, so I'm going to continue to smoke it and support the acceptance of using marijuana.

[Word]

I'm not sure whether I should find this sad or funny.

Think about this: would you still say that in 5, 10, 20 years when you've found something meaningful to do with your time (and somehow happen to have a family) and then get a heart attack or lung cancer? If you're certain that humanity already benefits enough from your addiction, nevermind.

[Kijutsu]

I'm not sure whether I should find this sad or funny.

Think about this: would you still say that in 5, 10, 20 years when you've found something meaningful to do with your time (and somehow happen to have a family) and then get a heart attack or lung cancer? If you're certain that humanity already benefits enough from your addiction, nevermind.

So you never eat fat foods, right? Or use anything that might be harmful to your health in a few years? I bet you run every morning and evening?

If not then uh, I hope in 5, 10, 20 years............

[Clutch]

Eh. I'm sure as hell not saying that weed doesn't have negatives, but I swear that they find something new that gives you cancer everyday almost haha. Brushing your teeth, sweeping, eating cooked food..I could throw a rock outside and it will hit something that could give me cancer Might as well get it from something that brings me a lot of happiness haha

[Word]

So you never eat fat foods, right? Or use anything that might be harmful to your health in a few years? I bet you run every morning and evening?

Exactly. I have UC - so eating fat foods would already now be counterproductive to my health. I instantly regret whenever I'm beginning to lose the necessary discipline.

(well, except that I don't run - but I do a few excercises every morning...nothing I'd like to talk about further )