What is Digg?73 Comments
- isuisorisuaint, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27@Hentez:
that's what vaporizers were made for - asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Smoked marijuana isn't that healthy but it certainly doesn't cause cancer. Tobacco smoke contains carcinogens, but Cannabis smoke does not.
Capsules containing THC are ineffective because 1) They are nowhere near as fast as smoking. How can somebody who's nauseous and vomiting keep a pill down? and 2) The pills (at least Marinol) contain a very limited number of cannabinoids. Some only THC..
I'm not for the natural vs synthetic argument. I don't believe that natural is better, but sometimes the synthetic product or extract doesn't produce the same affect as the natural product, because the natural product contains hundreds of other chemicals that also have psychoactive properties, or limit/enhance/alter the properties of the main alkaloid. What usually happens is they take a psychoactive plant, and notice that its most significant alkaloid is X, and then they think "OK, only X is responsible for all the properties the subject is reporting.. let's isolate X."
"Marinol lacks beneficial properties of cannabis, which contains more than 60 cannabinoids, including cannabidiol (CBD), thought to be the major anti-convulsant that helps multiple sclerosis patients, and cannabichromene (CBC), an anti-inflammatory which may contribute to the pain-killing effect of cannabis." (Marinol's Wikipedia page)
Being that you can vaporize marijuana, and that smoking it is not that harmful anyway - at least it causes no permanent damage and certainly doesn't contribute to cancer (quite the contrary!) -, there's no reason to keep it banned.
Cannabis is an amazing recreational drug, let alone medicinal, and there is no reason it should be banned. It doesn't impair your judgment; It merely enhances your senses. That's why you can't tell if somebody is high or not unless they tell you. Yes I know you guys will quote this and say "my friends act stupid when they're high!" but your friends act stupid when they're sober too. If you could tell when somebody is high, then you'd notice that many people around you are high everyday.
Anyone anti-legalization is either holding that position due to:
* Ignorance.
* Religious beliefs (ignorance).
* A personal disgust at all drugs (including alcohol and aspirin). A "get high on life" attitude, which makes no sense. (A lot of people associate pot with 50 cent and African Americans or Hispanics, or low culture, which is obviously false. Such people generally have a very narrow view of life.)
* Benefits from the drug's illegality, such as owning a liquor shop.
I also know people who do nothing but smoke all day, but I also know that these people did nothing productive before they started smoking. One guy used to drink instead, and another guy just dropped out of school to play WoW all day. All were 100% sober before they got into pot. Marijuana doesn't make you lazy and nonproductive, but lazy and nonproductive people might smoke Marijuana.
The same thing applies to psychosis. Psychotic people might smoke pot to self-medicate, but pot doesn't cause psychosis.
Gateway / stepping stone theory has long been debunked.
It doesn't impair your ability to drive, and studies have been done which show that people high drive safer than people who are sober, because when you're high you tend to realize that your slightly impaired, but you compensate for this by driving slower, and taking less risks. There's a joke that goes like this: If you want to find and arrest pot smokers, stop everyone driving on the right-most lane (USA) on Friday and Saturday nights. I don't advise driving under the influence of any drug, including OTC drugs like Benadryl and melatonin, which impair your ability to drive quite severely.
What other arguments do you people have against the drug? Be serious. - djskitzy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15So does this mean, for smokers of weed, quitting might actually bring on a cancer that would've lain dormant for years, perhaps forever?
No need for anymore excuses... This one hits the spot... - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11So let me get this straight. You are actually angry that news came out and made the front page showing marijuana can slow cancer growth? That's messed up man. You should take a look at your priorities in life.
- oknothing, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Another annoying article covering our needed marijuana studies. At the end it actually links to another article that says marijuana is more harmful than tobacco. OK, let me get this straight. Marijuana, which causes no deaths, is more harmful than tobacco, which causes around 435,000 deaths per year in the USA. There are no credible reports of death induced by marijuana - fact.
A 1997 study looked at over 65,000 men and women and found no association between marijuana and death. If marijuana was causing all kinds of cancer and tumors, it would've showed up there. If marijuana caused breast cancer, as another link at the end of the article suggests, it would've showed up there. We don't need to do studies on mice to find out if marijuana causes breast cancer in humans. We already know there are millions of women who smoke marijuana and they aren't dying from breast cancer at an increased rate.
http://www.aegis.com/NEWS/BW/1997/BW970515.html - slsanity, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10http://www.digg.com/health/Marijuana_Compound_May_Fight_Lung_Cancer
1200+ diggs
Made popular less than 36 hours ago. - Hentez, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13I hate these articles... It is saying a THC might be chemoprotective... But THC is just a small part of what will find in a joint. Just remember that inhaling anything, that is on fire is not good for you.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8o yeah, all stoners sleep in and wake up in a haze every morning right?
Oh wait, I smoke and I get up at 5:50 every morning for work. Maybe if you did some homework you would get over your preconceived perceptions of what pot does to you and how it really affects you.
PS: It's pretty sad that even us "stoners" can see thru the Bush lies and you still can't... - daedalus1982, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6THANK GOD MY MOUSE IS SAVED.
- kavery, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I don't smoke MJ, but I find it hard to believe that it's more deadly than tobacco or alcohol.
I've never seen anyone smoke marijuana and then decide to violently fight everybody. - Magnj, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Ron Paul has been really catching my eye lately...hopefully he doesn't ruin it
- Neticule, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7This is why I always smoke a joint after EVERY cigarette, its just common sense!
- PeaTearGryphon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8There's more ways to get get your thc fix then to just light it on fire...
- catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@asdfasdf
I'm not sure where you read marijuana smoke doesn't contain carcinogens. Combustion products always contain carcinogens, this is why people use vaporizers. You cannot combust most organic compounds without producing carcinogens. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10In light of all the good news about cannabis, let's consider a candidate who has the courage to end the Drug War: Ron Paul.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_The_Pot_Candidate - Hentez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3When do you get lung cancer and COPD... let me think, I would say between the ages of 60-80... and this study looked at "patients between the ages of 15 and 49". They need to follow people longer to see the ill effects. This is not a good study probably why they never got is published.
- remakeru, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3ok... So let's fill normal ciggarets with cannabis!
- meshman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"You cannot combust most organic compounds without producing carcinogens."
The article and the dictionary disagree. Carcinogen:
"any substance or agent that tends to produce a cancer"
"A substance or agent that can cause cells to become cancerous by altering their genetic structure so that they multiply continuously and become malignant. Asbestos, DDT, and tobacco smoke are examples of carcinogens."
Since pot has been proven not to cause cancer (is not a carcinogen), it can't be considered a carcinogen. - Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Too bad NIDA won't allow anyone to study marijuana unless they intend to 'prove' their predrawn conclusions to back up their meritless pot prohibition. Just like the Nixon administration ignoring their own study, NIDA ignore the orders of DEA judges that demand they allow independent, non-biased study of THC and cannabis in general.
DEA Judge Rebukes Government for Obstruction of Medical Marijuana Research
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/02/13/18362545.php - FLUX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Very nice argument, I can agree with you completely even though I am still against its legalization you are the first one here to actually speak coherently
so far on digg I have seen that pot
Is the cure all for fuel ( supposedly best product for ethanol or bio diesel (pure crap ))
it does not cause memory loss but helps you memory
now it cures cancer
you sir are the first recreational smoker to speak the truth it is a drug, it is not a very harmful drug, but still it is a drug and should be treated as so. I think the govt has gone way overboard on the persecution of this drug, but I also have seen first hand that it is a gateway drug and legalization can cause more harm than good - CitizenBane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I once heard that the reason tobacco causes lung cancer is not because we smoke it, but because it contains radioactive compounds. If this is true, then why does this research team suggest that smoking marijuana may cause lung cancer? Do they have any reasonable studies to back up their claim? Are they getting pressure from their superiors to down-play smoking, in an effort to try to sell their synthetic THC compound?
If marijuana does indeed shrink tumors or slow down cancer... what would we need the synthetic drugs for? There are plenty of ways to use marijuana, without smoking it. - Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@diggfight
"Your brain is setup to respond to certain stimuli with hormones that cause either pleasure or pain. It's the primitive way our mind has evolved to get you to do things that are beneficial. eg: Eating food = pleasure = good. Jumping into fire = pain = bad. The problem with cannabis, and other drugs, is it triggers your pleasure response without doing anything good."
So thousands of years of evolution just suddenly made a mistake and made smoking pot feel good instead of bad? Hmmm. somehow I don't buy that. Sex feels good but, over population and STDs are bad. Food is good but obesity and heart attacks are bad. Getting a shot from the doctor feels bad but can be good for you. Working out feels bad but is good for you if done correctly. The basis for your arguement is flawed at best.
"Stoners are not well known for being over achievers. This is not a coincidence."
You are right it is not a coincidence. It is a fact that is predetermined by the definition of 'over achiver'. Unless you are talking about a group stictly defined by their advnaced achivements, no group is going to be known for being over achivers because over achivers are by definition better than the majority. The majority of any group, excluding the one previously mentioned, are not going to be over achivers.
"Most people just aren't that smart."
And you are not that different from most people. - bickdigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Alright, we pot smokers may have a weakened short-term memory, but who doesn't remember YESTERDAY's frontpage articles?!
- ElGstr, on 01/02/2009, -0/+1Lazy, Incompetent and Acceptor of Bribes at the Drug Czar’s Office & the FBI
Legalize all the drugs! In M*A*S*H, Johnny Unitas appears in one shot at the end of the football game taking a hit off of a joint.
We Really Lost This War!, http://www.broowaha.com/profile.php?id=2434
Wishing Only To Be Blind Again, http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3947 - Sambone67, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3the old 'secret agent' heh heh
- republicker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3BRAINWASHED
- MWeather, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This is the third study I've seen that has shown this. The first two reached that conclusion completely independently decades apart. The first one was "accidentaly" destroyed by the government, but news coverage of it's results still exist.
- asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Mostly it should be legalized because it's CLEAR that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous and are legal. It's fruitless to try and prove that marijuana is NOT bad for you, because it is. The goal is to prove that it's not so bad for you as to be illegal. The benefits outweigh the detrimental effects for many people, and it should be their choice."
What detrimental effects? How is the drug 'bad' for you? Define 'bad.' Does processed sugar, fast food, stress and lack of exercise also fit your definition of 'bad'?
"Sure, it's pricey, but there's no REAL reason to advocate fiercely for legalization. You can get it, smoke it, and sell it in small amounts, and no one will bat an eye. Keep a low profile, and just keep tokin."
One REAL reason to advocate for legalization is liberty. Freedom. Why is it illegal? During alcohol's prohibition, you would be saying the same thing concerning alcohol. The only reason it's still illegal is due to ignorance. Many people still believe many of the tired and debunked drug myths, such as ecstasy causing "holes in your brain" [1] or marijuana being tied to psychosis or being a "gateway drug." The politicians are informed, but being soft on any drug, including pot, is political suicide. It's not something they wish to deal with.
1: "He is best known in the drug advocacy community for his retracted article on the neurotoxicity of ecstasy, originally published in Science. This article was retracted after it was found that the testing materials were switched from MDMA to methamphetamine. It is unknown whether the materials were switched intentionally, whether it was an accident of Ricaurte, or whether the supplier from Research Triangle Park (which was overseen by the DEA) either switched the test materials accidentally or intentionally. All sides deny responsibility and the results of an investigation are still pending. Rick Doblin, director and founder of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, suggested after the incident that all Ricaurte's work was politically motivated and should be reevaluated."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ricaurte - Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I beleive the study in 1972, commissioned by the Nixon administration, may be the study you are refering to. It does still exist. Here is a link of you care to read it.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm
It shows that for 35 years or longer, the government has known that marijuana prohibition as it exists today is a mistake. - FLUX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2asdf
your a moron it is proven to be a gateway drug (if you'd spend a little less time tokin and submitting legalize pot sites here youd know that) examples below
http://www.acde.org/common/Marijana.htm
http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/marijuana-gateway-drug.htm
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/Marijuana.htm
I watched her go from smoking a J to trying to find a better high which included meth , acid, and ex so dont tell me its not a gateway drug ( by the way she cleaned up her act and is totally clean now ) You are a moron if you think that it is not a gateway drug but your probably too stoned to understand any way
go back to your pot is great sites and pot is the answer to all the worlds problem crap and please please dont reproduce the world has enough idiots - Nevrast, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3That's ridiculous, I'm not a pot fanboy by any stretch of the imagination but it's a totally different situation from cigarette studies. In the case of cigarettes the commonly held belief was that they were harmless and new studies showed that they did cause harm.
In this case, there has been an assumption that marijuana is a bad thing, but now information is coming out that it is not *as bad* as people assumed.
The only reason we have this discussion is because it's illegal for arbitrary reasons. Alcohol can affect you the same if not more and can lead to significant bodily harm. Tobacco affects you less, but can lead to greater bodily harm.
It needs to be legalized. Not only because it's the right thing to do, but because it wastes law enforcement time, taxpayer dollars, and ruins peoples lives when they are caught. - DiggFight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There are Apple fanboys, Wii fanboys, Linux fanboys, and cannabis fanboys too.
It's funny how predictable the response to these types of articles are. Reminds me of the people who used to, (and some still do) cling to the tobacco studies that found that cigarettes are not addictive and do not cause cancer. - GlargTheKelfn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yep, pot either cures / prevents cancer, or slows the hell out of it. but remember, the gov says weed has absolutely 0 medical value, so we can't study it in america
- Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So nice of you to blow off the validity of a study because you don't know how many mice were used and then make an absolute statement like that with nothing to back it up. You have some real credibility there, buddy. /sarcasm
@diggfight
And there will always be close minded people like you who don't do any research but label anyone with an opposing view (well researched or not) a 'fanboy' so you can attempt to discredit them while having nothing to say yourself. - jake3988, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3 andburn1 30 minutes ago Block/Report this User
@asdfasdf I agree with most of what you said, except for one thing - marijuana smoke contains MORE carcinogens than cigarette smoke. Don't refute me on this, I know my ***** - give it a google.
No it doesn't. And yes, I've scoured google, I've scoured books, I've scoured everything except lame biased government studies. These all state the obvious benefits of marijuana. Its harmless, doesn't give you lung cancer, is a very effective anti-nauseate, a painkiller about 10x as effective as morphine. And... unlike morphine and even caffeine... it IS NOT addictive. - Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1FLUX, littlegreenfootballs is that way >
If you don't like digg, then submit your own stuff, leave or find some other alternative. Just don't expect sympathy because you troll a website that doesn't agree with you. - leetleo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think the most important statement in this article is:
He adds that that "a lot of work needs to be done" before scientists fully understand how THC affects tumours. - asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2There's no such thing as a gateway drug. What you "saw" was a weak-minded individual who tried different drugs and maybe got hooked on something. Why did you link it to pot? I've seen heroin users who smoked pot, but they also ate white sugar, smoked cigarettes and drank alcohol. I can just as easily, and correctly, label white sugar as a stepping stone to heroin, under your inane, debunked, disproved, laughed at, theory.
If Cannabis was a gateway drug, then there would be a correlation between the number of pot smokers and the number of heroin addicts. This has never been in the case in _any_ country or county in the entire time we've been keeping record.
Achalemoipas's argument that pot shouldn't be advocated as being completely harmless is correct. Not even oxygen is completely harmless. The main argument for legalization should be for liberty. This is a great argument, but most people are ignorant about the FACTS on Cannabis.
The reason we constantly have to debate the same tired old things over and over is because most people refuse to enlighten themselves. They hold a belief on Cannabis based on only their faith. Reason and logic is meaningless to these people. Tell them that it should be legalized because its illegality is a violation of our liberty, and they will say that it is for our own protection, because Weed is a gateway drug, or it causes psychosis, or causes cancer, or kills people, or causes anyone who smokes it to stab their mothers and grandmothers repeatedly, and have no recollection of the incident. Then we have to get into a debate on these boring issues. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's not more deadly.
It's pretty much equal, if not less harmful than alcohol/tobacco.
At least, commercial tobacco which is treated with additives to make it burn faster. If you smoke something like Indian Spirit, you'll notice the diff between treated and non-treated tobacco. - KnockoutNerd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Im glad I have a less chance of getting lung cancer.
- chrisrowe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Cannabis slows down everything in everyone!
- uglypug, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@ oknothing
The (multiple) studies show that there is no link between CANNABIS and longevity. The health problem is when we (I mean you) smoke it, and take it into our (I mean your) lungs - there are numerous studies showing this link between poison smoke and ingestable marijuana if you care to look.
A few facts: Most recent studies, including the ones the gumment gives you but leaves out pertinent facts, (Princeton,1994, Stanford,1996 - google it, kids), show that a non-nicotine pot smoker lives longer than a cigarette smoker who doesn't smoke pot at all.
Most CANNABIS users are more creative, are in the same or higher tax bracket, are less likely to have Alzheimer's disease, are less prone to arthritis (all we do is throw frisbees, right?), and generally have a better overall sense of being.
CANNABIS users default on their home loans less than regular folks, go to prison for violent crimes less, get fired less, and are ***** less than the population at large.
Sorry for ranting, but the truth hurts. - asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You're ignorant. I'm not bashing you, but I hope that by pointing out this fact, it will help you be aware of it, and get you on your way towards enlightenment.
- SPARTACVS, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm pretty sure cannabis slows EVERYTHING.
- Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The federal government WANTS you to get cancer to fuel their political machine.
The pharmaceutical companies are a huge source of campaign income and cancer patients use a lot of expensive drugs. - funk49, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@republicker
My local dispensary has "kind bud" spacecake all day long....so hahahahaha for you, It's indeed quite common to make edibles with da' kine. - andburn1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@asdfasdf I agree with most of what you said, except for one thing - marijuana smoke contains MORE carcinogens than cigarette smoke. Don't refute me on this, I know my ***** - give it a google. It doesn't cause cancer because of the counteractive effect THC has on cancer. Mostly it should be legalized because it's CLEAR that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous and are legal. It's fruitless to try and prove that marijuana is NOT bad for you, because it is. The goal is to prove that it's not so bad for you as to be illegal. The benefits outweigh the detrimental effects for many people, and it should be their choice. That being said, what's the big deal. Marijuana is easier for me to get then cigarettes or alcohol as a minor, because more people are selling, even soliciting, the sale of marijuana. As it is, it's very easy for almost anyone to get weed. Sure, it's pricey, but there's no REAL reason to advocate fiercely for legalization. You can get it, smoke it, and sell it in small amounts, and no one will bat an eye. Keep a low profile, and just keep tokin.
- katnap27, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This goes to show that even cancer is lazy when on pot. I didnt need a study to tell me this.
- toppgun, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2the only thing that is left is for it to cure cancer and then it would be legal. none of this 'just slows it down' crap.
/celebrating tomorrow
//no, not hitler or columbine
//yes, 420 - maexus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Well, you don't have to smoke it, you can vaporize it or even cook with it. Slows down lung cancer without causing lung cancer ;)
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is