For the non-pot smokers--- If Pot was legal would you smoke it?

[trumad]

I admit--- I'm big time hesitant to puff the stuff because it is still illegal to have it on your person--- in Florida that is.

I simply can't afford to have a stupid Pot Bust on my record--- My employer would not be to happy about it.

It if it did become legal---who knows... I might start puffing again.

[dkf]

1. No. I hate smoke.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

2. Ditto. But I could try tea, brownies, or whatever else is it they do. -nt

[vadawg]

3. pizza is the best, or so ive been told, also in yoghurt...

[PSzymeczek]

218. Two words.

Turkey. Stuffing.

[PeaceNikki]

35. Is it illegal in Brazil?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

46. Yes. Users get only community service and mandatory "MJ is bad mmmkay" lectures, though. -nt

[walldude]

200. They are doing amazing things with THC now...

I've seen lollypops, hard candy, drinks, foods. All at medical dispensaries. It's awesome.

[Bitwit1234]

72. I'm with you, no cause I don't smoke period. Never have.

[WeDidIt]

4. No

Might eat it, though.

[Dulcinea]

186. Doubtful.

Pot makes me sleepy & brain-dead. However, if others want to smoke it, that's up to them.

Reading some of these responses, it seems to me that there are a lot of DUers that want to have people thrown in jail for smoking cigarettes in public, but they want the right to smoke pot in public? What's up with that?

[PSzymeczek]

221. I used to smoke tobacco,

and coudn't care less about that.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. No. I hear it leads to duplicate postings.

[wtmusic]

8. Some have reported hallucinations of them

Did you "see" one? :P

[trumad]

58. LOL

[Cronus Protagonist]

74. Aer you sure?

I hear it aslo causes typos.

[timeforpeace]

140. You can say that again.

[Cronus Protagonist]

75. Aer you sure?

I hear it aslo causes typos.

[alittlelark]

223. What do you mean?

[alittlelark]

224. What do you mean?

[ananda]

6. No, I'd cook it.

I think it should be legal and readily available.

[wtmusic]

7. No. It causes cancer.

"In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50–70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke."

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

[Romulox]

11. Nonsense. There is absolutely no scientific evidence of this. nt

[wtmusic]

14. You must be high

Marijuana Smoke Linked to Cancer
Scientists Say Marijuana Smoke Damages DNA

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20090623/marijuana-smoke-linked-to-cancer

[Common Sense Party]

23. Hey! Don't harsh the tokers' mellow by pelting them with facts!

In their minds, marijuana is the perfect little plant, no harmful side effects whatsoever. They've created their own little alternate reality where facts don't matter.

In that sense, they're like Republicans.

[Romulox]

38. In what sense are authoritarian busy-bodies like Republicans, I wonder?

It's always gratifying to disagree with a person with such faulty reasoning.

"In that sense, they're like Republicans." :eyes:

[Common Sense Party]

60. I'm not sure who is an "authoritarian busy-body", according to YOUR

faulty reasoning. Keep on tokin'.

[Romulox]

65. It's patently *you*. Distressing that a guy making pothead jokes is so slow on the upswing. nt

[Common Sense Party]

68. I'm neither authoritarian nor a busy-body. And potheads are their own jokes,

for the most part. They don't need any help.

[Romulox]

73. Add judgmental and defensive to the list!

:rofl:

[Echo In Light]

78. It's bizarre to read people castigating pot smokers in RW mentality at an ostensibly liberal site

[Romulox]

81. "Big tent" ultimately means a shift toward authoritarianism

Because they and we do not value tolerance to the same degree. There's very little content to any of these posts--the point is primarily to demean.

[Echo In Light]

86. Precisely (i.e. "damn liberal weirdo pothead commie pinkos!") lol

[Common Sense Party]

122. So is pot-smoking a progressive virtue?

If I don't toke, I don't belong in the resin-stained tent?

[intheflow]

127. No, but posting that people who defend marijuana uses

are somehow Republican in mind or spirit is decidedly not progressive.

[Echo In Light]

206. Indeed ...and how odd that that would actually require explanation to anyone

[Echo In Light]

207. Likely not, in my estimation, since most in that tent aren't gung-ho over insulting fellow users.

Guess that would be common sense

[shanti]

165. hello!

:thumbsup:

[shanti]

164. oh good grief

:eyes: do you say that about people who drink too much too?

[Common Sense Party]

175. Actually, yes.

[PSzymeczek]

222. OK. So,

how much is too much?

[Romulox]

29. Haha. What a clever and nimble brain you possess to spout such an inane cliche.

Learn some basic reading comprehension before casting aspersions upon others, would you?

From your link, which you either did not read or did not understand:

"These results provide evidence for the DNA-damaging potential of cannabis smoke," the researchers write, "implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development."

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20090623/marijuana-smoke-linked-to-cancer

Any links to a study conclusively establishing that smoking pot actually does cause detriment to human health because it has been observed to cause cancer?

:hi: :rofl:

[wtmusic]

37. Just tell me when you've had enough, man

Marijuana Ingredient Causes Mice Tumors to Grow Faster

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Marijuana_Ingredient_Causes_Mice_Tumors_to_Grow_Faster.asp

Marijuana use and testicular cancer

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/02/marijuana-use-a.html

Lung Cancer Risk of One Marijuana Joint a Day Equals Daily Pack of Cigarettes

"However, the New Zealand findings provide sufficient evidence that some components of cannabis itself or cannabis smoke are real lung carcinogens, according to an accompanying editorial by Christian Brambilla, M.D., and Marc Colonna, Ph.D., both of the Institut Albert Bonniot in Grenoble, France.

"The prudence principle should be sufficient to convince everybody that lung cancer has to be added to the list of secondary effects of cannabis smoking, along with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease," they wrote."

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/Addictions/8096

:rofl: :hi:

[Romulox]

44. From your first link: "a cancer research expert suggests caution in interpreting the study results.

Although the study authors conclude that THC promotes tumor growth by impairing the immune system, a cancer research expert suggests caution in interpreting the study results.

Dawn Willis, Ph.D., MPH, director of research promotion and communication for the American Cancer Society (ACS),says the study provides useful information but questions whether data from mice can be directly applied to cancer patients.

"In the mouse model, the animals were pre-treated with THC before being injected with tumor cells. That's not the way it happens with patients," she says.

Your third link says the following:

But Norman H. Edelman, M.D., chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, was more cautious.

"Since there are some studies that reach other conclusions, we can't say that it nails down ," he said. "We need larger studies."

. . .

Participants who had smoked 20 or more joints over their lifetime were not at significantly higher risk than those who had smoked fewer (RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.5 to 2.6).

You are either not reading these links, or not understanding them. I really don't care which it is. This issue is fraught with enough issues (DEA funding = mandated results, selection bias, largely survey based, etc. etc.) without approaching it with an agenda. If you were truly honest you'd at least acknowledge the more current research which shows marijuana's effectiveness at combating some types of cancer. Even cancer.org (a website you cited) acknowledges the therapeutic value of marijuana (see http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Support/marijuana )! :hi:

Honestly, I don't know how the science of this will eventually play out when (if) cannabis is studied in a truly objective fashion. But I do know agenda driven, DEA funded "science" (none of which does anything like establishing a causal connection between marijuana use and cancer in humans, btw, but you knew that!)

[wtmusic]

52. Bottom line

We can all cherry-pick evidence to support our own foregone conclusions (global warming deniers are experts at it). But the article finishes:

"While it is important to interpret the findings in the context of these limitations," the investigators concluded, "the balance of evidence would suggest a positive association between cannabis and lung cancer."

Good enough for me. I don't want lung cancer.

[Romulox]

59. So you don't understand what "conclusive evidence" means? Or "causal relationship"?

"Good enough for me."

That's because yours is a faith based argument.

[wtmusic]

82. Whatever. I'd hate to come between you and your weed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

[Romulox]

90. Your response makes little sense. You have no moral right to enforce your choices on others.

And furthermore, what in the world would make you think that you can "come between (me) and (my) weed"?

Enlarged sense of self importance much?

[wtmusic]

91. Ahem. Please show me where I'm "enforcing my choices on others."

Take your time. No, really. I have all. fucking. day. :rofl:

Believe me, I don't think I can or want to come between you and your weed. You're guarding it like a pit bull with a steak.

Enjoy. Hope ya don't get cancer.

[Romulox]

97. If YOU don't read the links you post, why do you expect anyone else to?

The first sentence of your link reads as follows:

The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.

Citing this principle in the context of marijuana prohibition is tantamount to endorsing drug prohibition. Your coyness comes off as forced and your "Enjoy. Hope ya don't get cancer." is ghoulishly passive aggressive.

I'll be honest: I think a great deal of this comes off as an attempt by you to project your own insecurities onto me. It simply isn't effective.

[wtmusic]

100. Tantamount in your own mind, perhaps.

This idea that I'm being "coy" or "passive aggressive" are fairly strong indicators of pathological paranoia. You should look into evidence that marijuana can contribute to it - you're pretty much a textbook example.

Marijuana Dangers

* Impaired perception
* Diminished short-term memory
* Loss of concentration and coordination
* Impaired judgement
* Increased risk of accidents
* Loss of motivation
* Diminished inhibitions
* Increased heart rate
* Anxiety, panic attacks, and paranoia
* Hallucinations
* Damage to the respiratory, reproductive, and immune systems
* Increased risk of cancer
* Psychological dependency

http://www.acde.org/common/Marijana.htm

[Romulox]

102. LOL. More pothead jokes even after you've been bested intellectually?

Whatever makes you feel better about yourself, I guess. Describing a difference in opinion (or perhaps a larger vocabulary than you are comfortable with :hi: ) as a sign of paranoia fairly reeks of a last-minute ad-hom stink bomb lobbed before an inevitable retreat! is sounded, at any rate.

:hi:

[wtmusic]

103. Um, I wasn't joking.

More paranoia. You need help (still not joking).

[Romulox]

104. That is actually much more embarrassing for you then. nt

[wtmusic]

108. You are providing valuable support

for the idea that marijuana is addictive - you sound just like a crack addict being challenged for his fix. Something to consider.

I will concede that I am embarrassed to be wasting my time arguing with you, so I'm done. You win. You kicked my ass.

PS I sincerely don't want anyone to get cancer, even those who should know better. :hi:

[Romulox]

109. Your posts are wound-licking nonsense. You've lost this debate, and so you must characterize

your opponent negatively. Your entire mode is transparent and infantile. :hi:

[Maru Kitteh]

180. You're kind of coming off as the OMC of weedism, actually.

It's not as bad as booze, but it ain't the tonic of the gods either. Get a grip.

[PSzymeczek]

225. ACDE has a vested interest

in keeping pot illegal. I would be more likely, though, to incorporate it into food.

[12string]

99. lung cancer and pot

there are also studies that say pot smoking can help prevent lung cancer and has no carcinogens at all.

[Flaneur]

57. No, you must be pushing one-sided propaganda. See below:

This guy is the leading marijuana/lung problems expert in the country.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-05-26/news/17294333_1_lung-cancer-marijuana-dr-donald-tashkin

Researchers surprised to find no link between marijuana lung cancer /
Study's findings apply even to heavy pot smokers

May 26, 2006|By Marc Kaufman, Washington Post

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana even regularly and heavily does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations" said Dr. Donald Tashkin a UCLA pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer and that the association would be more positive with heavier use" he said. "What we found instead was no association at all and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco he said. However marijuana also contains the chemical THC which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin's study funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse involved 1200 people in Los Angeles who had lung neck or head cancer and an additional 1040 people without cancer matched by age sex and neighborhood.

They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lit up more than 22000 times while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11000 to 22000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

"This is the largest case-control study ever done and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use" he said. "Bias can creep into any research but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could and so I believe these results have real meaning."

Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies lab studies of animals and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition Tashkin said previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.

While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found the study findings presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana use in their youth when it is most frequently tried.

[dysfunctional press]

184. not all smoke is created equal- and some people just can't wrap their heads around that.

cigarette smoke and pot smoke look the same...and cigarette smoke causes cancer...ergo- pot must cause cancer. :crazy:

[JoeyT]

116. There is, but it doesn't really matter.

Anything burned generates carcinogens AFAIK. So it *is* carcinogenic to smoke it.
On the other hand, you're not going to sit there and smoke the same volume of marijuana as you would tobacco.
Even if it was a hundred times as carcinogenic, it would still cause less cancer just because of the decrease in exposure.

Edited to add: And that certainly isn't a barrier to legality. We subsidize Phillip Morris and Dow, FFS.

[EOTE]

31. Actually, it cures cancer.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january112008/cancer_treatment_11008.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/661458.stm

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCS-4GH49MM-1&_user=861681&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1148377908&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000046147&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=861681&md5=5836b9956688110519dc04371b2304b8

See what I can do by posting a few links?

[Echo In Light]

56. Ha...Amazing how many Dems swallow RW drug propaganda hook, line & sinker

[ChiciB1]

36. With So Many Things That Can Cause Cancer... MJ Would Be Very, Very

low on the pole!! I don't know how old you are, but I know people who have smoked it for years and years and years, not ONE OF THEM HAS CANCER!!

Cell phone cause brain cancer too!! Now I DO KNOW SEVERAL PEOPLE who have gotten brain cancer in the past 5 or 6 years... ALL ARE DEAD!!

JMHO!

[The Straight Story]

40. What DOESN'T cause cancer anymore?? (nt)

[PSzymeczek]

220. Vintage Carlin -

Saliva causes stomach cancer, but only when swallowed in small amoounts over a long period of time.

[Le Taz Hot]

43. Not this shit again.

(Where's that graphic when I need it?)

Your claim is bullshit and here's the science:

http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com/studies.htm

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

76. you're a bit confused. I think you need cannabis ASAP

SMOKE contains carcinogens: consuming marijuana in other forms (edibles, my favorite; vaporizing releases natural oils without smoke) is not only safe, but cannabinoids, naturally occuring substances within both marijuana and your own body (didn't know that, did ya? You're already a "stoner"!) kill tumors.

I want to repeat that one more time so it sinks in: it has been proven repeatedly that both endo- and phyto-cannabinoids are incredible cancer fighters, beginning with a US-conducted medical lab study that was subsequently censored by the federal government in 1974 and literally removed from libraries and literature across the nation and since verified by independent laboratory studies at Universities in Israel and Spain. Cannabinoids kill tumors by providing cellular signals that limits a tumor's ability to create new vascular tissue.

Don't believe me, do your own reading. Start here:

Cannabinoids Inhibit the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Pathway in Gliomas -- Blázquez et al. 64 (16): 5617 -- Cancer Research
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/short/64/16/5617

THC inhibits cell cycle progression in human glioblastoma multiforme cells
Delta9-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits cell cycle progression by downregulation of E2F1 in human glioblastoma multiforme cells.
http://marijuana.researchtoday.net/archive/4/10/1467.htm




Here is my personal favorite because it comes with pictures of the mice (http://www.jci.org/articles/view/16116/files/JCI0316116.f5/medium) with visibly reduced skin tumors after the use of cannabinoids:


http://www.jci.org/articles/view/16116/version/1
Published in Volume 111, Issue 1 (January 1,2003)
J. Clin. Invest. 111(1): 43-50 (2003). doi:10.1172/JCI16116.
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Clinical Investigation
Research Article
Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors

M. Llanos Casanova1, Cristina Blázquez2, Jesús Martínez-Palacio1, Concepción Villanueva3, M. Jesús Fernández-Aceñero3, John W. Huffman4, José L. Jorcano1 and Manuel Guzmán2

1Project on Cellular and Molecular Biology and Gene Therapy, Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas, Madrid, Spain
2 Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, School of Biology, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain
3 Department of Pathology, Hospital General de Móstoles, Madrid, Spain
4 Department of Chemistry, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA

Address correspondence to: Manuel Guzmán, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, School of Biology, Complutense University, 28040 Madrid, Spain. Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; E-mail: [e-mail].

Published January 1, 2003
Received for publication June 7, 2002, and accepted in revised form November 19, 2002.

Nonmelanoma skin cancer is one of the most common malignancies in humans. Different therapeutic strategies for the treatment of these tumors are currently being investigated. Given the growth-inhibiting effects of cannabinoids on gliomas and the wide tissue distribution of the two subtypes of cannabinoid receptors (CB1 and CB2), we studied the potential utility of these compounds in anti–skin tumor therapy. Here we show that the CB1 and the CB2 receptor are expressed in normal skin and skin tumors of mice and humans. In cell culture experiments pharmacological activation of cannabinoid receptors induced the apoptotic death of tumorigenic epidermal cells, whereas the viability of nontransformed epidermal cells remained unaffected. Local administration of the mixed CB1/CB2 agonist WIN-55,212-2 or the selective CB2 agonist JWH-133 induced a considerable growth inhibition of malignant tumors generated by inoculation of epidermal tumor cells into nude mice. Cannabinoid-treated tumors showed an increased number of apoptotic cells. This was accompanied by impairment of tumor vascularization, as determined by altered blood vessel morphology and decreased expression of proangiogenic factors (VEGF, placental growth factor, and angiopoietin 2). Abrogation of EGF-R function was also observed in cannabinoid-treated tumors. These results support a new therapeutic approach for the treatment of skin tumors.


Good luck, amigo. I think you might need it.

[wtmusic]

191. OP asked would you smoke it.

The devil is in the details: All smoke contains carcinogens, and is bad for you. It doesn't only cause cancer but a wide range of other lung problems.

Another important detail which you missed in your quoted research is the following:

"The present data indicate that local cannabinoid administration may constitute an alternative therapeutic approach for the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer."

Cannabinoids inhibit mitochondrial function in all cells, not just cancerous ones. When applied locally, they can make the cancer go away. But:

"Here we show that the CB1 and the CB2 receptor are expressed in normal skin and skin tumors of mice and humans". They also inhibit growth of healthy tissue, which would imply they're ineffective for anything but localized treatment.

Can you debunk this more recent research?

Marijuana Smoke Linked to Cancer
Scientists Say Marijuana Smoke Damages DNA

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20090623/marijuana-smoke-linked-to-cancer

[jmowreader]

80. The flipside of that is...

the amount of smoke consumed per day.

We'll say the average number of cigarettes consumed every day by a tobacco smoker is 30--this balances the social smokers and half-pack folks with the people who smoke a carton in two or three days.

We'll then say the average number of joints consumed every day by a pot smoker is one--many tokers don't smoke pot every day and NO ONE smokes as many joints a day as a cigarette smoker does cigarettes. (People who use vaporizers, pipes or bongs, substitute "load" for "joint." People who just eat the shit stay out of this--the carcinogenic hydrocarbons are not released into spaghetti sauce.)

I wonder about this study, though: did they put the joint in a smoking machine and measure its smoke, then put a filter-tip cigarette into the machine and measure it? If so the study's not valid because joints are unfiltered and cigarette filters have microscopic air holes to fool the machines. (This is how they make "light" cigarettes--they don't mix ground-up socks into the tobacco or use special blends with lower tar and nicotine, they just change the filters.) Comparing Forsyth County Coffin Nails--unfiltered Camels--to joints would have been more fair. We know why they didn't do it--anything to make weed look really dangerous is good. They may as well publish a study contrasting the number of cigarette smokers who are arrested for cigarette possession with the number of pot smokers arrested for weed possession.

- - - - -

To answer the original question: since I keep taking safety-sensitive jobs that wouldn't let you smoke weed even if it WAS legal, I have to say no.

[progressoid]

118. Ha ha ha ha! Read the rest of your link.

...however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.9 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.

[intheflow]

134. But of course you've never used or encouraged use of any of these suspected carcinogens:

birth control pills
Teflon cookware
barbecue grilling
gasoline
sunlight
plastic wrap and/or plastic containers
microwave
mobile phone
coffee
dry cleaning/rubber/adhesives/fuel oil (all contain benzene)
batteries (contain cadmium and nickel)
paint (sometimes contains Hexavalent chromium(VI) compounds)

All of these have been linked in some study or another to increased rates of cancer. But I'm sure since you live a pure life in a germ-free bubble, and of course are holy enough to never touch alcohol, you have every right to sit in judgment on other people who defend marijuana use because it might be cancer-causing and they might smoke it. :eyes:

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[intheflow]

139. Here are some judgmental posts from you just in this thread:

#14: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7339592&mesg_id=7339707 (calling someone high because they disagree with you)

#108: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7339592#7340910 (telling someone defending marijuana usage that he's like a crack-addict)

And of course you admit freely in this post I'm replying to that you're freely sitting in judgment on me for being "excessively paranoid" even though I have not indicated anywhere if I smoke weed or not. Do you keep fit by jumping to conclusions like this offline too? :eyes:

[wtmusic]

148. Ah, but I never claimed I wasn't judgemental.

I claimed I never judged anyone for smoking pot. See the difference?

I called someone high because there is plenty of evidence that it does indeed cause cancer. Whether you agree with that evidence or not is moot; to deny it exists is to just be stupid. Or high.

Defending marijuana smoking (not usage - see the difference?) in an irrational, defensive manner is behaviorally very similar to a crack addict defending his addiction. Reasoning goes out the window.

Finally - and I'm really getting tired of pointing out the obvious - by passing judgement on your for being excessively paranoid I'm in no way, shape, or form implying you smoke pot. See the difference?
:eyes:

[intheflow]

157. Except you specifically bolded that symptom of pot smoking in post #100:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7339592#7340795

That you chose that word to describe my post is very telling within the context of the entire thread. So I'm done talking with you. You're obviously too blinded by your contempt for everyone who disagrees with you to be rational. I feel sorry for you.

[Selatius]

169. +1 nt

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

147. delete

[Selatius]

167. Not if you eat it in the form of magic brownies. Regardless, pot is largely illegal brownie or not.

If I can't smoke it, I'd rather eat it.

[Ghost in the Machine]

183. *cough* BULLSHIT! *cough*

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16078104&dopt=Citation
Cannabinoids selectively inhibit proliferation and induce cell death of cultured human glioblastoma multiforme cells. Journal of Neurooncology. 2005

http://www.bentham.org/mrmc/contabs/mrmc5-10.htm#6
Cannabinoids and cancer. Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry. 2005

http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/full/308/3/838
Anti-tumor effects of cannabidiol, a non-psychotropic cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 2003

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17931597?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Cannabinoid receptor agonists are mitochondrial inhibitors: a unified hypothesis of how cannabinoids modulate mitochondrial function and induce cell death.Athanasiou A, Clarke AB, Turner AE, Kumaran NM, Vakilpour S, Smith PA, Bagiokou D, Bradshaw TD, Westwell AD, Fang L, Lobo DN, Constantinescu CS, Calabrese V, Loesch A, Alexander SP, Clothier RH, Kendall DA, Bates TE.
School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.

Time-lapse microscopy of human lung cancer (H460) cells showed that the endogenous cannabinoid anandamide (AEA), the phyto-cannabinoid Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and a synthetic cannabinoid HU 210 all caused morphological changes characteristic of apoptosis. Janus green assays of H460 cell viability showed that AEA and THC caused significant increases in OD 595 nm at lower concentrations (10-50 microM) and significant decreases at 100 microM, whilst HU 210 caused significant decreases at all concentrations. In rat heart mitochondria, all three ligands caused significant decreases in oxygen consumption and mitochondrial membrane potential. THC and HU 210 caused significant increases in mitochondrial hydrogen peroxide production, whereas AEA was without significant effect. All three ligands induced biphasic changes in either mitochondrial complex I activity and/or mitochondrial complex II-III activity. These data demonstrate that AEA, THC, and HU 210 are all able to cause changes in integrated mitochondrial function, directly, in the absence of cannabinoid receptors.

---

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16078104?ordinalpos=10&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Cannabinoids selectively inhibit proliferation and induce death of cultured human glioblastoma multiforme cells.

McAllister SD, Chan C, Taft RJ, Luu T, Abood ME, Moore DH, Aldape K, Yount G.

California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, 475 Brannan St., Suite 220, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA. [e-mail]

Normal tissue toxicity limits the efficacy of current treatment modalities for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). We evaluated the influence of cannabinoids on cell proliferation, death, and morphology of human GBM cell lines and in primary human glial cultures, the normal cells from which GBM tumors arise. The influence of a plant derived cannabinoid agonist, Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol Delta(9)-THC), and a potent synthetic cannabinoid agonist, WIN 55,212-2, were compared using time lapse microscopy. We discovered that Delta(9)-THC decreases cell proliferation and increases cell death of human GBM cells more rapidly than WIN 55,212-2. Delta(9)-THC was also more potent at inhibiting the proliferation of GBM cells compared to WIN 55,212-2. The effects of Delta(9)-THC and WIN 55,212-2 on the GBM cells were partially the result of cannabinoid receptor activation. The same concentration of Delta(9)-THC that significantly inhibits proliferation and increases death of human GBM cells has no significant impact on human primary glial cultures. Evidence of selective efficacy with WIN 55,212-2 was also observed but the selectivity was less profound, and the synthetic agonist produced a greater disruption of normal cell morphology compared to Delta(9)-THC.


http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com/studies.htm#Cancer

Please educate yourself some more instead of spouting a lot of already debunked bullshit...

Thanks,

Ghost

[wtmusic]

189. I hope that cough is nothing serious

All of your links are at least two years old and don't address MJ smoke, only cannabinoids in your system. Maybe you can debunk the following recent research for me; I love to be proven wrong.

"Marijuana Smoke Linked to Cancer

Many studies have shown that tobacco smoke damages DNA in a way that boosts risk for lung and other cancers, but until now, it's been unclear whether cannabis smoke could do the same. Of particular concern is a cancer-causing chemical called acetaldehyde, which is found in both tobacco and marijuana smoke. Using new chemistry techniques, study researchers showed that the chemical, when present in marijuana smoke, caused DNA damage in a laboratory setting.

The discovery suggests that marijuana smoke may be as harmful, or perhaps even more toxic, than tobacco smoke. In fact, study researchers say that smoking three to four marijuana cigarettes a day causes as much airway damage as smoking 20 or more cigarettes a day."

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20090623/marijuana-smoke-linked-to-cancer

[Ghost in the Machine]

193. Study: Smoking Pot Doesn't Cause Cancer--It May Prevent It!

Study: Smoking Pot Doesn't Cause Cancer--It May Prevent It!
The Greatest Story Never Told
By FRED GARDNER

Smoking Cannabis Does Not Cause Cancer
Of Lung or Upper Airways, Tashkin Finds;
Data Suggest Possible Protective Effect

The story summarized by that headline ran in O'Shaughnessy's (Autumn 2005), CounterPunch, and the Anderson Valley Advertiser. Did we win Pulitzers, dude? No, the story was ignored or buried by the corporate media. It didn't even make the "Project Censored" list of under-reported stories for 2005. "We were even censored by Project Censored," said Tod Mikuriya, who liked his shot of wry.

It's not that the subject is trivial. One in three Americans will be afflicted with cancer, we are told by the government (as if it's our immutable fate and somehow acceptable). Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the U.S. and lung cancer the leading killer among cancers. You'd think it would have been very big news when UCLA medical school professor Donald Tashkin revealed that components of marijuana smoke -although they damage cells in respiratory tissue- somehow prevent them from becoming malignant. In other words, something in marijuana exerts an anti-cancer effect.

Tashkin has special credibility. He was the lead investigator on studies dating back to the 1970s that identified the components in marijuana smoke that are toxic. It was Tashkin et al who published photomicrographs showing that marijuana smoke damages cells lining the upper airways. It was the Tashkin lab reporting that benzpyrene -a component of tobacco smoke that plays a role in most lung cancers- is especially prevalent in marijuana smoke. It was Tashkin's data documenting that marijuana smokers are more likely than non-smokers to cough, wheeze, and produce sputum.

Tashkin reviewed his findings April 4 at a conference organized by "Patients Out of Time," a reform group devoted to educating doctors and the public (as opposed to lobbying politicians). Some 30 MDs and nurses got continuing medical education credits for attending.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse supported Tashkin's marijuana-related research over the decades and readily gave him a grant to conduct a large, population-based, case-controlled study that would prove definitively that heavy, long-term marijuana use increases the risk of lung and upper-airways cancers. What Tashkin and his colleagues found, however, disproved their hypothesis. (Tashkin is to marijuana as a cause of lung cancer what Hans Blick is to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -an honest investigator who set out to find something, concluded that it wasn't there, and reported his results.)

Tashkin's team interviewed 1,212 cancer patients from the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance program, matched for age, gender, and neighborhood with 1,040 cancer-free controls. Marijuana use was measured in "joint years" (number of years smoked times number of joints per day). It turned out that increased marijuana use did not result in higher rates of lung and pharyngeal cancer (whereas tobacco smokers were at greater risk the more they smoked). Tobacco smokers who also smoked marijuana were at slightly lower risk of getting lung cancer than tobacco-only smokers.

These findings were not deemed worthy of publication in "NIDA Notes." Tashkin reported them at the 2005 meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society and they were published in the October 2006 issue of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. Without a press release from NIDA calling attention to its significance, the assignment editors of America had no idea that "Marijuana Use and the Risk of Lung and Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control Study" by Mia Hashibe1, Hal Morgenstern, Yan Cui, Donald P. Tashkin, Zuo-Feng Zhang, Wendy Cozen, Thomas M. Mack and Sander Greenland was a blockbuster story.

http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner05032008.html

This is a fun game... you can post anti-drug propaganda all day... and I can post something that debunks it!

:hi:

[wtmusic]

196. Ooh I was hoping you'd quote Tashkin

This IS fun!

"The results of animal and cell culture studies are mixed with respect to the carcinogenic effects of THC, some studies showing that THC promotes lung cancer growth and others showing an anti-tumoral effect on a variety of malignancies. Although the results of epidemiological studies are also mixed, a large, recently completed case-control study has failed to find a direct link between marijuana use (including heavy use) and lung, throat, or other head and neck cancers. "Nevertheless, there is evidence that suggests precarcinogenic effects in respiratory tissue," Dr. Tashkin says. "Biopsies of bronchial tissue provide evidence that regular marijuana smoking injures airway epithelial cells, leading to dysregulation of bronchial epithelial cell growth and eventually to possible malignant changes." Moreover, he adds, because marijuana smokers typically hold their breath four times as long as tobacco smokers after inhaling, marijuana smoking deposits significantly more tar and known carcinogens within the tar, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, in the airways. In addition to precancerous changes, Dr. Tashkin found that marijuana smoking is associated with a range of damaging pulmonary effects, including inhibition of the tumor-killing and bactericidal activity of alveolar macrophages, the primary immune cells within the lung.

Taken together, Dr. Tashkin's survey of clinical and epidemiological studies and Dr. Moore's assessment of self-reported and clinically observed effects provide an extensive catalog of respiratory and pulmonary damage associated with marijuana smoking. Smokers are subject to:

* Coughing and phlegm production on most days;
* Wheezing and other chest sounds;
* Acute and chronic bronchitis;
* Injury to airway tissue, including edema (swelling), increased vascularity, and increased mucus secretion; and
* Impaired function of immune system components (alveolar macrophages) in the lungs."

http://www.drugabuse.gov/nida_notes/nnvol21n1/marijuana.html

[Ghost in the Machine]

199. LMFAO!! Why did you leave this part out??

"The information Dr. Moore and his colleagues analyzed was gathered through the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), conducted between 1988 and 1994. Participants included 4,789 nonsmokers of either tobacco or marijuana; 1,525 smokers of tobacco but not marijuana; 320 smokers of both marijuana and tobacco; and 94 who smoked marijuana only. On average, marijuana abusers had smoked the drug on 10 of the preceding 30 days, with 16 percent reporting daily or almost daily smoking. Tobacco smokers consumed roughly the same number of cigarettes—averaging 19.2 per day—whether or not they also smoked marijuana. Survey participants answered questions about their experiences of a range of respiratory symptoms and were examined for signs of respiratory abnormalities."

That is from your very own link....


It doesn't look like Tashkin's study was quoted properly by Moore, either. Here's the abstract of Tashkin's study:

"The THC in marijuana could contribute to some of these injurious changes through its ability to augment oxidative stress, cause mitochondrial dysfunction, and inhibit apoptosis. On the other hand, physiologic, clinical or epidemiologic evidence that marijuana smoking may lead to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or respiratory cancer is limited and inconsistent."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16128224?dopt=AbstractPlus


are you purposely being intellectually dishonest??

Are you still having fun?

:hi:

[wtmusic]

203. Lots of fun!

Can refute the most recent findings I quoted?

"Marijuana Smoke Linked to Cancer

Many studies have shown that tobacco smoke damages DNA in a way that boosts risk for lung and other cancers, but until now, it's been unclear whether cannabis smoke could do the same. Of particular concern is a cancer-causing chemical called acetaldehyde, which is found in both tobacco and marijuana smoke. Using new chemistry techniques, study researchers showed that the chemical, when present in marijuana smoke, caused DNA damage in a laboratory setting.

The discovery suggests that marijuana smoke may be as harmful, or perhaps even more toxic, than tobacco smoke. In fact, study researchers say that smoking three to four marijuana cigarettes a day causes as much airway damage as smoking 20 or more cigarettes a day."

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20090623/marijuana-smoke-linked-to-cancer

You weren't having so much fun you forgot, were you? Of course you weren't. :hi: :toast:

*crickets*

[Ghost in the Machine]

208. Oops, I thought I covered that, my bad...

The link you provided pretty much debunks itself, actually... and there's nothing really definitive about the article.

June 23, 2009 -- Smoking pot causes cell damage that could make a person more likely to develop cancer, researchers report.

Scientists at the University of Leicester have discovered that marijuana (cannabis) smoke alters DNA, the genetic material located in cells of the human body. Some forms of DNA damage can lead to cancer.

Many studies have shown that tobacco smoke damages DNA in a way that boosts risk for lung and other cancers, but until now, it's been unclear whether cannabis smoke could do the same. Of particular concern is a cancer-causing chemical called acetaldehyde, which is found in both tobacco and marijuana smoke. Using new chemistry techniques, study researchers showed that the chemical, when present in marijuana smoke, caused DNA damage in a laboratory setting.

The discovery suggests that marijuana smoke may be as harmful, or perhaps even more toxic, than tobacco smoke. In fact, study researchers say that smoking three to four marijuana cigarettes a day causes as much airway damage as smoking 20 or more cigarettes a day.

"These results provide evidence for the DNA-damaging potential of cannabis smoke," the researchers write, "implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development."

See? Nothing really definitive, just a bunch of "coulda, shoulda, woulda", isn't it?

As for this statement, in the above study:

"Using new chemistry techniques, study researchers showed that the chemical, when present in marijuana smoke, caused DNA damage in a laboratory setting"

Tashkin also admitted that it damaged DNA, but that those damaged cells DID NOT turn cancerous. Nothing in your study above proves that pot "causes cancer", as per your assertion. Remember that?

wtmusic (1000+ posts) Mon Dec-28-09 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
7. No. It causes cancer.
"In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50–70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke."

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

:hi: :toast:

Peace,

Ghost

[wtmusic]

215. There's nothing "definitive" either way

"Several research studies have shown a link between cannabis and cancer. But other studies have shown no link. This makes it difficult to say exactly what the risk is. There have been a couple of systematic reviews that have tried to draw some conclusions on this.

In 2005 a review looked at the results of several studies into marijuana use and cancer risk. The researchers looked at 2 cohort studies and 14 case control studies. The case control studies involved many different types of cancer. Results were mixed and the researchers could not make any firm conclusions about the risk of cancer. It was also difficult to draw conclusions because of limitations in the studies. They included small numbers of people, involved too few heavy marijuana users and possibly underreported marijuana use in those countries where it is illegal.

In 2006 a systematic review looked at marijuana use and lung cancer risk. Although they could not find a significant link between marijuana and cancer, the reviewers reported that smoking marijuana increased tar exposure and caused changes to the lining of the small tubes in the lungs. They recommended that, until we have more definite evidence, doctors should warn people of the possible harmful effects of marijuana smoking. A New Zealand study in 2008 compared people with lung cancer to people who did not have lung cancer and found that regular cannabis use does increase the risk of lung cancer."

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-cancer/cancer-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer

We all make decisions about what evidence we choose to believe - I choose to believe it does cause cancer, you choose to believe it doesn't, based on available evidence. But since lung cancer is often fatal, due to the precautionary principle, it's reasonable to require a greater burden of proof from those who proclaim it doesn't.

[Forkboy]

185. You're the one in this thread that needs it the most.

[walldude]

201. LMAO... You are using data from an anti drug site to make your point?

Do you use the studies made by Exxon/Mobile to claim there is no global warming? :rofl:

Something they forgot to mention to you in their little study. 90% of the carcinogenic hydrocarbons that you inhale when you smoke pot aren't from the pot. It's from the butane in lighters. Pot smokers have known this for years. Many use wooden matches, some even use a magnifying glass to light up on sunny days.

Pot smokers have also known for years how to filter out most of the bad. Bongs were great for awhile but now vaporizers are eliminating all but the THC content when it vaporizes the crystals right off the plant. Don't be fooled, we pot smokers are not as dumb as you think.

[wtmusic]

204. Correction: an anti-drug abuse site.

Are you claiming it's impossible to abuse marijuana?

Do you have any substantiation for your claim that "90% of the carcinogenic hydrocarbons that you inhale when you smoke pot aren't from the pot"?

[walldude]

210. Yeah but they are all from pot smoking magazines so you would just

use the same argument against me that I did for you. Suffice it to say that using a vaporizer or eating it kills all your arguments against it. Those studies are useless because there are lots of ways to administer it without the carcinogens. Now if you want to argue the merits of the effects fine but your claims that it's worse than smoking are false.

And I didn't say it's impossible to abuse pot. I don't know where you got that from. It's possible, but extremely rare.

Oh and that is an anti-drug site. Warp it up in a nice bow and call it what you want, it's an anti drug site.

[blondeatlast]

9. No, simply not interested. I support legalization, though. nt

[rox63]

10. Probably not

Smoking anything is unhealthy. I did for a short while when I was married to a pothead. But I don't miss it at all. I have no problem with legalization, for those who want to smoke it.

[HipChick]

12. I like herbal teas..but not a smoker of anything

[billyoc]

No, I have a job.

:hi:

[shanti]

166. and?

most pot smokers do too....

[calico1]

13. No, just not interested...n/t

[Adelante]

15. No, I wouldn't smoke it

I smoked it freely when I was young, so it's not because it's illegal, but I just stopped enjoying it. I do think it should be legal since alcohol is legal, and the tax revenues would be nice to have.

[Tailormyst]

16. Yes- occassionally

I would love to have that option, especially with bouts of insomnia, anxiety and bad headaches. No insurance and pot being illegal I just suffer through whatever the over counter stuff doesn't help and occasionally have a few drinks if its bad. Strange how the alcohol which is far more damaging is the legal one.

[shadesofgray]

17. No. But I t hink it should be legal.

[Salviati]

18. Probably not, but I am for its legalization.

I just don't think that it's for me...

[nevergiveup]

19. Maybe before reading Obama bashing posts on DU

and possibly before sex but otherwise probably not.

[Mz Pip]

20. Probably not

It's practically legal here in the Bay Area of CA. Not at all uncommon to see people toking up on the street. So for me it probably wouldn't make any difference. I don't smoke it because I don't like the way it makes me feel. I either get confused and slightly paraniod or I just feel really slow. I did have a good time at a Rolling Stones concert in 1997 though.

I doubt I'd go out of my way to try it again. Maybe, just to see if I had a different reaction.

[davidwparker]

21. No.

[Common Sense Party]

22. No, thanks.

High school was a long time ago.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

24. I might try it

though I remember some not-so-pleasant reactions once in a while, when I, well, back-in-the-day.

I think I've lost touch with my sources in the last 30 years, though. I wouldn't know where to get it, how much to pay, etc.

I may have forgotten how to roll one.

I think I'm hopeless on this subject.

:hi:

[hlthe2b]

25. I've no problem with pot,... but anything that increases my appetite

is pure EVIL! LOL

[ChiciB1]

41. Just Posted The Very Same Thing! I Did Like Smoking It... BUT!! nt

[intheflow]

101. Don't you mean "...BUTT"?

:rofl: :hi:

[ChiciB1]

121. YES! It Was One BUTT & Then Another! And I Think I Have Both Under

control now! Right back at ya!
:hi: And I did do a lot of that :rofl: in the day!

[Beetwasher]

26. I Would Immediately Become A Heroin Addict

n/t

[wtmusic]

30. You have opportunities on the high school lecture circuit nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. No, because I have respiratory issues

Back in the day, I tried it a few times and found that the irritation wasn't worth the high.

(I never smoked cigarettes either, because I find the smell nauseating.)

[Gidney N Cloyd]

28. I would *now* but I have no idea where to buy it or what it even costs these days. nt

[ieoeja]

128. Try your local high school. (nt)

[name not needed]

161. Or community college.

Chances are the high schoolers are stuck with schwag.

[Iggo]

173. ...plus, doing drug deals with children at a high school...

...just seems like a really baaaaaaaad idea...lol.

[ChiciB1]

32. I Am A Huge Supporter Of Legalization... Used To Smoke It But Not

an every day thing. But I did my share! I quit because of the same reason I stopped drinking beer. It started to make me gain weight (munchies) but I would do it again if it wasn't for the weight factor! I can however drink some beer now and then, but not like I once did!

I have a FEAR of being overweight (REALLY) because I have 5 overweight sisters, It runs in the family, or so I think. No, not anorexic, just a normal weight! I actually think if more people smoked, it would be much more helpful for many, many people!

I too live in Florida... not the most open minded state and there is FEAR about this too!

[Goldstein1984]

33. My job makes me subject to random DOT drug tests, but...

if that restriction disappeared along with legalization, I would probably use it in some way other than smoking.

I've been told that making "green dragon" is a good way. You soak the pot in something like Everclear or vodka. Thew THC is soluble in the ethanol. It also looks pretty sitting in the window with the light shining through it.

I don't necessarily trust and health warnings about marijuana that come from the government, they're still of the Reefer Madness mindset. But it does make sense to me that the combustion products of burning marijuana, which would include particulates and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from incomplete combustion of resins, would have health effects similar to smoking tobacco. I would recommend another way of using the substance if you consider that risk unacceptable.

[Iggo]

34. Nope.

I quit 13 years ago.

I also quit drinking 13 years ago, and alcohol's legal.

But I'm not against others partaking. Just me.

[dmallind]

39. Nope - smoking of any kind holds no appeal for me.

I'm a fan of breathing clean air and a small fire inches from my face holds little attraction.

[LWolf]

42. Probably not, unless

there was a medical reason for it.

I smoked enough in the 70s; I'd given it up by the 80s.

I observed that pot, besides making people overeat, tended to exaggerate characteristics that were already there. So, while my friends were giggling, telling stupid jokes, etc., I, the introvert, was over in the corner watching the muscles in my leg twitch and examining the pattern of threads in the denim I was wearing.

I could do that without smoking, lol.

[BanzaiBonnie]

45. No

Bad affects from pot. It makes me paranoid.

[MadrasT]

47. No.

Can't stand the stuff, personally.

[Missy Vixen]

48. No

Not into it, or any other smokable material.

[old mark]

49. No. I stopped using it about 40 years ago because I got bad effects from it

that went away after I stopped using it. It is a drug, after all, and does things to your body and mental health. I don't use alcohol of tobacco, not even sodas more than one a month or so.

Pot is NOT totally benign, and I know of quite a few people who were harmed by using it. I am sure some of you disagree with this, but it is true.

mark

[LeftinOH]

50. Yes- I'd try it. Currently (for me), its not worth the risk to get busted over it.

[Ian David]

51. I might have some if someone was sharing, but I don't think I'd buy the stuff. n/t

[annabanana]

53. I would, for sure.

I enjoyed it back in the day when I had "nothing to lose", and would light up in a heartbeat.

[Brickbat]

54. No. I'm not interested in it. I get where I want to go with alcohol.

I never tried it in college, either, because I had enough trouble dealing with alcohol I figured I didn't need two vices.

[Warpy]

55. I want the freedom to bake loaded brownies a couple of times a year

but there's no way I'm going to inhale smoke into these lungs.

The war on drugs is a war on civil liberties. End it.

[trumad]

I'm with you there...

[tabbycat31]

61. no, I don't have any desire to smoke anything

[HughBeaumont]

62. Nope.

No smokeable products for me. "Mellow" isn't my thing anyway.

[On the Road]

63. Yes -- I Would Smoke Occasionally

I know where to get the stuff. I just have too much to lose to risk arrest and jail.

[Edweird]

64. No for 3 reasons. 1) I don't smoke anything. 2) Tried it. Didn't take to it.

3) This guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWTE97GteZA
http://www.ric.org/research/accomplishments/Bionic.aspx

and I are in the same profession. I you lose focus, a fate far worse than death awaits. I would be putting not only myself at risk, but those working with me as well. Not worth it.

[Blasphemer]

66. I never much liked it the few times I had it here in the US but I had some while abroad...

and, well, it was a very different experience. I guess I finally got some "good stuff". If it were legal, I would have easier access to better quality stuff so I'd probably be more likely to indulge every once in a while. I don't drink much at all and I gave up smoking years ago so it definitely would be a rare occurrence.

[safeinOhio]

67. Yes I would

I quit 20 years ago when I smoked it daily. Now it would be like I use alcohol. I have to replace my pint bottle of Jack every 3 months. When I do drink, I drink less than a half shot. So, I could see me use a couple of tokes on a rare occasion.

[racaulk]

69. I doubt it.

I don't think I would smoke marijuana for the same reasons I don't smoke tobacco -- that is smells bad and is gross in general (to me). I'm not sure that its legality would change my mind.

:hi:

[havocmom]

70. With chronic pain and intolerance of pain medications? Yeah, you betcha

Like you, can't do with a pot bust. Annoyed as hell that a middle-aged (or better) law abiding, solid productive citizen can't have what might just help a situation which is likely shortening my life, and definitely my productive years.

[silverweb]

71. I'd like to try it, but not smoked.

There are a couple of medical issues that I'd like to try it for -- as tea or in a brownie or whatever eaten form works best.

Setting aside legal issues, my main worry is that if it works for me, I'll gain weight because of the munchie factor. Definitely would like to know if there's a way around that!

[rockymountaindem]

77. Nope

That stuff smells like a rubber fire.

[bikebloke]

79. No

Never have and never will.

[TwilightGardener]

83. No. I've got enough shit in my lungs just from home remodeling and occupational exposure.

Don't need any more chemicals and free radicals and crud floating around inside me.

[TicketyBoo]

84. No.

I've never even taken a puff of a regular cigarette, and the older I get the more averse I am to the smell of smoke. It stinks.

[Echo In Light]

85. I suspect the average age of DUers plays a significant role re this

Those who are 30+/40+ and who don't smoke are far more unlikely to seek it out, at least upon entertaining the idea briefly, even if the laws were finally changed and were more humane ... if for any reason they've spent many yrs w/o being around it in any capacity, and they're more firmly rooted in careerism, outside of circles where pot is readily available.

[The Backlash Cometh]

87. No. I would not smoke it.

Trumad, this reminds me of the scene with Meryl Streep and Steve Martin in "It's Complicated," when they partake in a reefer to get that old feeling again. Good actors and a lot of sight gags. Some messages, but overall, more entertaining than Academy Award winning material.

[AngryAmish]

88. No. BUt it should be legal.

Being a stoner loser is not a crime. Well, it is a crime right now. I mean prospectively it should be legal. But you would still be a loser.

[shanti]

170. so....

you would tell that to the doctor, lawyer, police officer, and judge (and on and on)? they all smoke - you calling them losers?

[azmouse]

89. Nope. Never been interested in smoking pot.

[bvar22]

92. An unqualified YES.

We have been tempted to grow our own, but the risk of losing our property is too high.

[krabigirl]

93. You know, you don't have to *smoke* it.

[uncle ray]

194. too bad very few have tried other delivery methods.

vaporizing is exploding in popularity, and is a much safer way to use cannabis. basically the vaporizer heats the bud to about 190 degrees, where the THC vaporizes, without burning any plant matter, you inhale the vapor as you would the smoke, but it contains nothing harmful, and doesn't have near the smell that people are citing as a reason not to smoke. the biggest drawback to vapes is the cost, but with time i expect to see portable vapes under $100. i think non-smokers would enjoy the clearer more uplifitng vapor high.

[eShirl]

94. I would stop buying cheap red wine and switch to that instead

provided it were readily available

[PassingFair]

95. Absofuckinglutely! The only reason I DON'T smoke is because it's illegal.

I hate alcohol.

I hate what it does to people.

Pot is a MUCH better alternative than alcohol
or prescription drugs to help people relive
stress in their lives.

[Thickasabrick]

96. Yes!! nt

[Caliman73]

98. No.

I wouldn't smoke pot just because it was legal to do so. The only thing that concerns me with the probable legalization of pot is how corporations will market and advertise it. I see nothing wrong with pot, but much wrong with corporations wanting to make money above all and not caring about consequences.

[Codeine]

105. Nope. Why would I?

Never understood the need to intoxicate oneself.

[trumad]

117. Snarf---and your name is Codeine...

LOL

[whistler162]

106. Nope already have enough bad habits why

add a more destructive one!

[Gregorian]

107. No. I don't obey stupidity. Plus, I quit after 30 years of smoking it.

I smoked cannabis for most of my life, up until about 5 years ago. I did it in order to try and isolate an ailment I have. I wouldn't start again until I felt that I was free of the ailment.

I wear seatbelts whether or not there's a law. I'm not a total idiot.

[RedCappedBandit]

110. I don't reall like weed

I'd probably smoke it occasionally though, if there were no repercussions. The only reason I don't is because of job drug testing.



Everyone should be free to choose what goes in their own body.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

111. No. I have absolutely no interest in impairing my personality or getting high

I also abhor smoking in any form.

I like my personality as it is. I also don't drink alcohol regularly (a glass of wine or a beer here and there, but nothing to give me a buzz).

I don't like being in an altered state; back when I was doing clinical research trials, I was a lab rat for a high-dose morphine which made me very sick and out of it. I can't believe people get addicted to that crap.

I know pot is not like morphine, but either way I have no need to get high, be it with pot or glue or alcohol, never mind the legal complications or the inability to get a decent job.

[AwakeAtLast]

112. I would have to try it first

I've never tried it. As a teacher I would never want to as long as it is illegal. If the law changed I might alter that view.

:smoke:

[notadmblnd]

113. Been smoking 35 years

have never been busted. Not driving, not buying, not smoking. It is my drug of choice. Alcohol does not get it for me, it make me feel sick and tired and the after effects are even worse. Headache, dry mouth, throwing up etc., just isn't my cup of tea. I smoke only at home, most of the time when I buy, someone brings it to me so there is very little risk of being caught. Keep it at home, don't carry it around with you and chances are you'll never get caught.

[JoeyT]

114. I dunno about smoking it.

I'd probably eat it in brownies.
I never smoked the stuff for kicks because "*puff puff* Alright, I'm going to bed." was never much fun.
It'd beat the hell out of taking sleeping pills to go to sleep, though.
Oh, and I don't smoke it now because getting busted with it isn't worth it. Nor is flunking out a drug test, should I have to take one anytime soon.

[lapislzi]

115. No. I don't care for it.

But it should be legal and safe.

[MilesColtrane]

119. Not any more than I do now.

...which is hardly at all.

[progressoid]

120. Maybe.

But it didn't do all that much for me back in the day. Maybe it will now. :shrug:

[fascisthunter]

123. The Reason Most People Don't Smoke it is because its illegal

and the concept of smoking an ILLEGAL substance for folks now is unthinkable. I'm pretty sure most thought of booze as being taboo too, until it was legalized.

Over time marijuana will become just as acceptable/inacceptable as alcohol.

[Echo In Light]

129. You can 'hear' condescension & strong ideological opposition in the words of some who don't smoke

... particularly as it pertains to those who do smoke pot, and not so much the substance itself. That may speak to the illegality you alluded to, but there's also the unmistakable whiff of 'We Don't Care For Those Kind of People' to be found also.

[fascisthunter]

133. Yes... unfortunately, their POV comes from prejudice itself

I think you make a more direct point than I did.

Some really don't like it, and that's fine, but don't bother prejudging, because most of the time when we all prejudge we find out that we are wrong, that all people are different. It's easier to lash out at pot smokers to convince others that those that smoke are bad or doing something bad. They are also trying by default to strengthen or maintain a particular POV of the substance and those that indulge in it.

Well, tonight I will smoke some fine "diesel"... cough, cough... :smoke:

[Echo In Light]

135. Yep. 4:20 now!!!

;)

[fascisthunter]

153. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

that was good... I guess I'm a bad person. :evilgrin:

[Common Sense Party]

217. It's nowhere near the disdain against religious people here on DU.

"We don't care for THOSE kind of...Christians," sneered with contempt and, often, hatred is commonplace and encouraged here.

But poking fun at potheads is absolutely a no-no.

Got it. Okay. I'll try to keep it straight in the future. Christians BAD. Weedheads GOOD.

Thanks.











(By the way, the "unmistakeable whiff" is from the toking section.)

[Codeine]

142. Some folks are just straightedge by nature, however.

I don't even take pain meds if i can avoid it, and I never drink. Intoxication just doesn't seem to be in my makeup. The desire simply isn't there, regardless of legality or acceptability.

[rebel with a cause]

160. I am mostly like you but the times they are achanging.

Because I don't like taking pain meds that I am allowed to take because they are a stronger/more additive drug than pot. I am not allowed to take aspirin or Tylenol now and some of the treatments and other medications I take cause me intense pain and nausea. I would like to have something that I could take to make my life more livable. I could not smoke pot, my breathing problems would probably not allow me to smoke anything and I don't know what other method would benefit me, but if it was made legal and my doctors agreed it would help/not hurt me then I would be willing to give it a try.

Oh wow, boohoo. There are people that have it much worse than I do; this is just one of many times I have taken to wallow in self pity. ;)

Edited to add: Once I tried it, I might never do it again because I don't like feeling like I am not in total control of myself. :shrug:

[madinmaryland]

124. Huh?

Rush would be upset with the pot? But oxycontin would be ok??

:popcorn:

[Cleita]

125. No. I'm against breathing in smoke into my lungs, however, I wouldn't

mind a groovy brownie or two.

[Kaleva]

126. No.

[Retired AF Dem]

130. No

For the same reason I don't smoke tobacco, I don't want to fuckup my lungs.

[ieoeja]

131. Like a lot of people here: smoke, no; eat, maybe. (nt)

[phasma ex machina]

132. No, qualified with "live and let live."

Prov 31:6-7

Give strong drink to him who is perishing,
And wine to those who are bitter of hear.
Let him drink and forget his poverty,
And remember his misery no more.

[Kitsune]

136. Smoke, no. Otherwise partake of, yes.

Like many have surely posted above, I simply don't see the upside to inhaling burning carbon into my lungs on purpose, even if I'm going to get good and stoned from it, especially if I can just make brownies out of the stuff.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

138. If id become legal, I think big corp will still keep it as a "bad" drug

meaning you could still get fired or even not getting hired.

[Mudoria]

141. No.. I don't smoke cigs so I wouldn' be interested in pot either..

[RyboSlybo]

143. I Smoke Marijuana Mother Fucker!

Freedom for the Win!

[AngryOldDem]

144. No, because I don't smoke and don't intend to start.

That said, I have no problem with pot being made legal.

[TheWatcher]

145. It really doesn't do anything for me, personally, so no. HOWEVER

It should be legalized.

Period.

[skipos]

146. No, it smells bad and my friends are annoying when they smoke it

I still think it should be 100% legal.

[Motown_Johnny]

149. Yes

[iris27]

150. I would at least try it once. Never have.

I don't know if I would like it any more than I do alcohol...I drink only very rarely because alcohol, in any quantity in a drink, tastes disgustingly bitter to me. But I would give it a shot.

[jillan]

151. No - but only because I don't like how it makes me feel. BUT I do think it should be legal.

(I'm not much of a drinker either.)

[Meldread]

152. I'm for full legalization of all drugs, but the answer is no.

I think people have the right to put whatever they want into their own bodies. But I don't smoke or drink, both of which are legal for me to do, and likewise I wouldn't smoke pot. It just isn't something I'm personally interested in... but my personal interests shouldn't dictate the actions of others.

[WillowTree]

154. Nope.

Always intended to try it when I was in college and never got around to it. No interest/desire at all anymore.

[pipi_k]

155. I've smoked the stuff before, wouldn't do it again because

I have a host of anxiety disorders and pot makes a lot of really bad stuff happen to my head.

[KoKo]

156. No!...But, would I ban others from using it? Probably not...n/t

[LeftyMom]

158. No. But I support other people's right to do so responsibly.

I think I'm allergic- the smoke triggers my asthma and bodycare stuff with hemp oil in it does a number on my skin.

[NNadir]

159. No. I'm dumb enough already.

[wtmusic]

188. +1 nt

[Arkana]

162. Nah. I hate the smell.

[dana_b]

163. yes

I was a very occasional smoker in my early twenties and I see nothing wrong with it once in a while.

[Quantess]

168. No. I don't like marijuana.

I know where to find it, but I'm not interested.

[WonderGrunion]

171. I'm straight edge, so no

But whatever floats your boat.

[TK421]

172. No...pot started to become boring in the late 90's for me

[BreweryYardRat]

174. Possibly, but not in significant quantities.

A little mellows me out. Too much makes me burst into disturbing, hyena-like evil laughter, and gives me an urge to go commit acts of vandalism.

It'd be nice to have the option of a joint or two when I'm feeling sad or angry, though.

[davsand]

176. Legalize it and I'll buy a bag straight way.

I hold public office and cannot afford any sort of criminal issue. I know that a lot of people think possession is no big deal, but it IS still a crime, and as such, I steer clear of it.

Frankly, if they ever DO manage to legalize it I figure it would probably be a part of the evening cocktail hour in my house because I really do prefer pot to booze for relaxation and stress reduction



Laura

[JI7]

177. no, if i was going to do it i would do it now

[davidpdx]

178. No

And it has nothing to do with employment, just that I don't smoke anything. I have plenty of other habits though.

[Maru Kitteh]

179. No. I don't generally enjoy the company of people after they get high so it's not a state

I'd be anxious to emulate. So many perfectly intelligent and engaging people I know become dulled and quite frankly, really boring people after they light up. No thanks.

[bertman]

182. yep.

[drbtg1]

187. No, because I think it makes you post on DU threads that never seem to end

..............Oh, wait a second ;)

[struggle4progress]

190. Dunno. I haven't smoked it since I was a kid. I liked it then, but it didn't make me any smarter

[Kajsa]

192. No, I wouldn't.

I'm trying to stick with my 12 step program,
one day at a time.

And- when I did smoke it, way back
in the day, it made me paranoid.

But do I support legalization of pot?

HELL YES!

[AndrewP]

Nope. Not my thing at all. I hope it does become legal though...

for those who have pain issues.

[AndrewP]

195. Nope. Not my thing at all. I hope it does become legal though...

for those who have pain issues.

[quiller4]

197. No. I did my experimenting 40 years ago-not interested in smoking anything anymore.

[defendandprotect]

198. Sure --

[hyphenate]

202. I can't smoke

Which is fine with me. I'd cough up a lung if I tried. So no, no desire to smoke pot, cigars, or cigarettes.

[Geek_Girl]

205. Probably on special occasions but not in my house though

I usually don't drink heavily when I am at home I have a child and I don't want to be a bad influence but about once every couple of years I get wasted at a friends house on New Years and spend the night so I don't have to drive back. I can see myself doing the same if pot was legal.

[LostInAnomie]

209. I would, but there would be some caveats it.

1. It would depend on the restrictions my work would put on pot use. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you can't get fired over it.

2. I would not do it in my place. It would have to be in a very well ventilated area or outside. Some people might disagree, but I think weed smoke stinks.

3. Even if I use it, it would be very rarely.

[agentS]

211. Nope: have asthma. Any kind of smoke bothers me

I'm not a big fan of the smell either. Cig smoke stinks too, but weed smoke stinks worse.

[SeattleGirl]

212. Nope. Been there, done that, and I'm done with it.

Just not to my taste anymore.

[nickinSTL]

213. no.

for one thing, I'm completely against the idea of inhaling smoke of any kind.

I can't imagine that breathing smoke is ever good for your lungs.

I probably wouldn't eat brownies with the stuff, either. I tend to prefer to avoid any kind of drug, legal or otherwise if I can. Caffeine is about the only thing I take other than prescriptions. And that in no more than one Dr. Pepper a day (usually a 16.9oz bottle).

I don't drink alcohol, which is legal, I don't smoke cigarettes, which are legal. I don't even like taking pain relievers when I have a headache.

That's probably just me, though. :shrug:

[lildreamer316]

214. Nope. It gives me headaches and just makes me sleepy.

If I want that I can drink wine.

[Morning Dew]

216. No. Been there, done that. Quit 30 some years ago

Tried it again when I was about 27 or so. All I got was tired, hungry and a little paranoid - not good houseguest material.


Oh well, that's one less thing to spend money on.

[Hugabear]

219. Just because it might someday become legal, doesn't mean employers have to follow suit

I can imagine that quite a few employers would still use that as a means to weed out potential employees. (pun fully intended :evilgrin: )