no1tovote4 said:
They were in the NIDA study that you clearly didn't read... They mention the mice getting cancer when given THC without smoking the substance,
Can't find that link, but I did find this page at NIDA which states:
"Its hard to know for sure whether regular marijuana use causes cancer."
http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/Marijteenstxt.html
Hmmmm.. gee, that seems a far cry from "conclusive" to me.
no1tovote4 said:
Okay here's one:
http://www.wctu.org/marijuana_-_safe_.html
"The effects of marijuana last longer than those of alcohol. Studies show that three to five hours after smoking one joint, the user is still significantly impaired. An experiment with pilots, using a computerized flight simulator,
showed impairment 24 hours after smoking one joint."
(the bolded part speak of the impairment of the testing after 24 hours, clearly beyond the "high").
An article with no cite, but they are obviously citing the same exact study as shown below:
no1tovote4 said:
Okay, this actually discusses the facts of the study a bit more.
In summary, some pilots were given joints and got very stoned. They were then brought back the next day, complaining of a hangover. they performed *slightly* less well.
The team that did this research ALSO studied alccohol, and found that alcohol ALSO had this "hangover" effect.
Myth: A Single Joint Has Effects That Linger for Days and Weeks
While it is true that THC and other cannabinoids are fat-soluble and linger in the body for prolonged periods, they do not normally affect behavior beyond a few hours except in chronic users. Most impairment studies have found that the adverse effects of acute marijuana use wear off in 2-6 hours, commonly faster than alcohol[24] The one notable exception was a pair of flight simulator studies by Leirer, Yesavage, and Morrow, which reported effects on flight simulator performance up to 24 hours later[25] The differences, described by Leirer as "very subtle" and "very marginal," were less than those due to pilot age. Another flight simulator study by the same group failed to find any effects beyond 4 hours[26] Similar "hangover" effects have been noted for alcohol[27]
References on Accidents and Drug Testing:
Alcohol, Drugs and Driving: Abstracts and Reviews Vol. 2 #3-4 (Brain Information Service, UCLA 1986);
Dale Gieringer, "Marijuana, Driving, and Accident Safety," Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20 (1): 93-101 (Jan.-Mar 1988);
Dr. John Morgan, "Impaired Statistics and the Unimpaired Worker,"
Drug Policy Letter 1(2): May/June 1989, and "The 'scientific' justification for drug urine testing,"
The University of Kansas Law Review 36: 683-97 (1988); John Horgan, "Test Negative: A look at the evidence justifying illicit-drug tests,"
And as a side note - I am a pilot. I am familiar with the FRESCA 142 simulator used in the studies.
This is NOT a "motion simulator" - as such it is really only useful for developing skills in instrument flight rules. It SUCKS as a landing sim, because when landing, a pilot uses FEEL. take away the "feel" aspect of landing and most pilots will not perform the landing as well as in actual flight, or in a motion sim. the *slight* variations in the "hung over" pilots are hardly an incapacitation, particularly in view of the type of simulator used.
no1tovote4 said:
That's an inane comparison. People have died, yes actually died, from the withdrawals associated with alcohol, none have with caffeine.
I am quite aware of the fact that alcohol withdrawal can be fatal - that was hardly the point. My point was that even caffeine can result is a negative effect on performance.
no1tovote4 said:
Once again, only to you. It takes less than thirty seconds to find these things online. You have clearly not studied the subject of the carcinogenic effects of MJ, or the long-term effects...
No, I've read many of these links, and heard the same things over and over.
Put them in context - compare to alcohol or tobacco, for instance.
Out of context, it's easy to say all kinds of bad things. For instance, perhaps some people would like to ban di-hydrogen Monoxide:
http://www.dhmo.org
no1tovote4 said:
The impairment with MJ continues as it builds up in your system, there is a large difference. Alcohol actually leaves your system and the impairment does not continue after a period of time, THC does not and will actually build up and continue in the impairment long after the effects of the high have worn off.
THIS is the statement you keep making that I take exception to, if you want to boil it all down. It is Not supported by evidence, nor any of the links you've thus far submitted. It is only your conjecture.
no1tovote4 said:
"Clearly marijuana smoke contains more of the potent carcinogen benzopyrene than tobacco smoke. Furthermore, the technique of smoking marijuana by inhaling deeply and holding the smoke within the lungs presents a chance of much greater exposure than a conventional
tobacco cigarette. "
http://www.lung-cancers.com/
"Smoking marijuana may cause cancers of the mouth and throat as well as the lung, although the connection is tough to make because of the illegal nature of marijuana. However, marijuana is suspect because it contains more tar than tobacco, it is deeply inhaled and held in the lungs, and many cancer causing substances are found in marijuana."
Just stop arguing your case from it's largest weak point, it makes you look far less intelligent than you are.
I have NEVER suggested that marijuana is "harmless".
CLIPPING:
Just as most experts agree that occasional or moderate use of marijuana is innocuous, they also agree that excessive use can be harmful. Research shows that the two major risks of excessive marijuana use are: (1) respiratory disease due to smoking and (2) accidental injuries due to impairment. In addition, marijuana speeds the heartbeat, which can be dangerous for patients with serious heart disease.
Marijuana and Smoking:
A survey by the Kaiser Permanente Center found that daily marijuana-only smokers have a 19% higher rate of respiratory complaints than non-smokers[01] These findings were not unexpected, since it has long been known that, aside from its psychoactive ingredients, marijuana smoke contains virtually the same toxic gases and carcinogenic tars as tobacco. Human studies have found that pot smokers suffer similar kinds of respiratory damage as tobacco smokers, putting them at greater risk of bronchitis, sore throat, respiratory inflammation and infections[02]
Fortunately, the hazards of marijuana smoking can be reduced by various strategies: (1) use of higher-potency cannabis, which can be smoked in smaller quantities, (2) use of vaporizers and other smoke reduction technologies[06] and (3) ingesting pot orally instead of smoking it.
Myth: One Joint Equals One Pack (or 16, or maybe just 4) Cigarettes
Some critics exaggerate the dangers of marijuana smoking by fallaciously citing a study by Dr. Tashkin which found that daily pot smokers experienced a "mild but significant" increase in airflow resistance in the large airways greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day[07] What they ignore is that the same study examined other, more important aspects of lung health, in which marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. Dr. Tashkin himself disavows the notion that one joint equals 16 cigarettes.
A more widely accepted estimate is that marijuana smokers consume four times as much carcinogenic tar as cigarettes smokers per weight smoked This does not necessarily mean that one joint equals four cigarettes, since joints usually weigh less. In fact, the average joint has been estimated to contain 0.4 grams of pot, a bit less than one-half the weight of a cigarette, making one joint equal to two cigarettes (actually, joint sizes range from cigar-sized spliffs smoked by Rastas, to very fine sinsemilla joints weighing as little as 0.2 grams). It should be noted that there is no exact equivalency between tobacco and marijuana smoking, because they affect different parts of the respiratory tract differently:
whereas tobacco tends to penetrate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, pot tends to concentrate on the larger, central passageways One consequence of this is that pot, unlike tobacco, does not appear to cause emphysema.
Cheers (and by the way I am enjoying this debate...)
Andy
