can weed kill you?

[Berzerker]

Pot has the following effects.

Perhaps.

Less fertility for males (the sperm expend all the energy initially, run out of steam long before fertilization. Honestly, I'm not making this up).

So why do many pot smokers have kids? Feel free to make up an answer.

Screwing up your brain. Problems with short-term memory and with initiative. Which is mabye why agricultural workers engaged in tedious, back-breaking labour used it?

Agricultural workers engaged in tedious, back breaking work because they lacked initiative? Um...kay... I never suffered short term memory loss from pot (but how would I know, I just forgot I forgot ) and the "motivation" argument ignores cause and effect. I've known highly motivated pot smokers and I've known unmotivated pot smokers, so I suspect motivation is driven by something else.

Inhaling the smoke from smoldering leaves. Increases the chance of cancer, period, I don't care what the leaf in question is.

Based on what evidence? People who inhale smoke and get cancer? How do we know they got the cancer from the smoke?

Add pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides and smolder them. Please note it is ILLEGAL to incinerate those substances at the temperatures found in a cigarette, pipe, or bong as the byproducts are often worse than the original substance.

Then maybe the politicians should stop spraying pot crops if they're so concerned with our health.

As tobacco is not a food or drug, there is no regulation on what it's sprayed with beside the EPA and environmental, versus health, problems.

Tobacco isn't a drug? Oh, you mean wrt what politicians claim.

Since pot is illegal, I'd like to see somebody try to purchase some that is certified organic :lod:.

Since it grows wild in many places, it's certainly possible. But I'm sure there are many people who grow it in homes and greenhouses that don't use pesticides, we grew it and fortunately didn't need any, just add water and sunshine...

[Berzerker]

Wha? You deny that cigarettes cause cancer, Berzerker?!

Yes, we have to explain why many people who smoke their entire lives don't get cancer. They are proof that cigarettes do not cause cancer. They are not proof cigarettes never cause cancer though, so what is the actual cause and effect?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So why do many pot smokers have kids?

How does less fertility = no fertility?

Agricultural workers engaged in tedious, back breaking work because they lacked initiative?

I think you misunderstand his statement. Agg workers who engaged in this work used marijuana to get through the day... short term memory loss and lack of initiative isn't detrimental to them in their line of work.

I've known highly motivated pot smokers and I've known unmotivated pot smokers, so I suspect motivation is driven by something else.

For the many pot smokers I've known I have noticed a decline in initiative far too often for me to conclude that it wasn't related.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, we have to explain why many people who smoke their entire lives don't get cancer. They are proof that cigarettes do not cause cancer.

Who ever said that cigarettes will ALWAYS lead to cancerous growth? Cigarettes has been shown in many studies to dramatically increase the chance of cancer, so they do cause cancer. Everyone doesn't get it though.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Yes, we have to explain why many people who smoke their entire lives don't get cancer. They are proof that cigarettes do not cause cancer. They are not proof cigarettes never cause cancer though, so what is the actual cause and effect?

Just like you'd have to explain why, even in the presence of a catalyst, not all of the chemicals present undergo the specified reaction?

What a ****ing ridiculous argument.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

How does less fertility = no fertility?

He said the sperm of pot smokers run out of steam before fertilisation - that means no fertilisation (I'm not making this up ).

I think you misunderstand his statement. Agg workers who engaged in this work used marijuana to get through the day...

And according to him this was proof they lacked initiative.

short term memory loss and lack of initiative isn't detrimental to them in their line of work.

It certainly is if you have to do tedious, backbreaking work and lack the initiative - the work doesn't get done.

For the many pot smokers I've known I have noticed a decline in initiative far too often for me to conclude that it wasn't related.

And I've known many pot smokers who were motivated. If pot really destroyed intiative, then we shouldn't see motivated pot smokers. Here is the "cause and effect" equation:

Joe is motivated
Joe smokes pot
Joe is no longer motivated
Pot destroyed Joe's motivation

Did Joe lose his motivation because of pot or for some other reason? Joe watches TV too, did he lose his motivation because of TV?

Explain why Jack is motivated and smokes pot.

It's certainly possible pot reduces motivation in some people, but that possibility not only remains unproven, it doesn't explain why?

Who ever said that cigarettes will ALWAYS lead to cancerous growth? Cigarettes has been shown in many studies to dramatically increase the chance of cancer, so they do cause cancer. Everyone doesn't get it though.

I'll quote you: "they do cause cancer".

If you say cigarettes cause cancer, you are not allowing for the reality that cigarettes don't cause cancer in many people. If I said driving a car will kill you, that would be quite scary...and false... And pointing to the people who died driving cars as proof of
claim ignores all the people who didn't die driving cars.
We need to understand cause and effect...

Many people get cancer and never smoke. What does that tell us? It tells us cancer afflicts some people and doesn't afflict other people. How many of the people who get cancer and smoke would have gotten cancer regardless of whether or not they smoked? We don't know, but using these people as proof that tobacco causes cancer is illogical.

What about people who are merely prone to cancer as opposed to people who will get it regardless of behavior? Does smoking increase their risk of cancer? Perhaps, I suspect that is the case but I don't know. We can't analyse every aspect of their lives to determine the catalyst for their cancers. If we could really determine how many people got cancer from tobacco I'd bet the number would be much, much smaller.

[KrazyHorse]

I've got an experiment you can perform, Berz. Go tape a spot the size of a dime to a dartboard and throw darts at it while blindfolded. Count how many times you hit the spot. Now change the dime-sized spot for one the size of your palm, and repeat. I'm willing to bet that if you throw, say, a hundred darts for each case, then I know which one you'll hit more times.

With your attitude you're going to have to throw out most modern physics and chemistry in addition to biology, economics, psychology etc.

[Berzerker]

Just like you'd have to explain why, even in the presence of a catalyst, not all of the chemicals present undergo the specified reaction?

You're assuming tobacco is the catalyst, and if it is, why it serves as a catalyst in some people and not others if there are no other catalysts involved.

What a ****ing ridiculous argument.

Then you should be able to refute it quite easily.

[Mr. Harley]

Decreased Fertility - not no fertility. Given a bell curve effect, and a two standard deviations some sperm show minimal effect. 2% of several what - thousand, million - still leaves a chance . It's just less.

Of course both are drugs. I am talking legally, and sarcastically, about tobacco not being a food or drug. In the United States.

No, not that the laborers have no intiaitve (thanks Imran Siddiqui for making that point). The back-breaking labor, etc. pot smoking makes more tolerable. The workers don't lack initiative, per se (though of course some do, look at any human population), but ones caught in peonage system, pot probably is one of few small pleasures, and makes it more tolerable.

We are talking statistical trends when it comes to cancer. My family has a bad history of heart disease, so I have given some of my favorite foods, like sausages and cheese, except for occasional treats or as flavorings. If you have the right genetic profile, you can eat a diet high in saturated fats and still have less risk than me. It sucks, but life isn't fair. I have a friend who gloats all the time, while he limps when his gout flairs up (bast*rd).

Same thing for cancer. Genetics determine your predispostion, but environmental and other factors determine if you get it, generally (with certain less common genetic problems, like the BRCA genes and breast cancer it actually is primarily genetics). Conversely, long term exposure to certain chemicals can also produce a similar effect. Combine both and you are outa luck.

Berzerker, I'm a social libetarian. I suspect from your response I hit some hot buttons. I will never smoke pot, but as long as you do not drive or operate heavy machinery while under the influence, I could care less about what you do in the privacy of your own home. However, just because some of the Ashcroft types use the research to justify going after pot smokers, it doesn't necessarily mean that the research is bad. Ashcroft types will warp any study to fit there agenda. Pot has an affect on initiaive, but so does TV! Yes, at least on geriatric populations, they did some studies back in the 90's. I believe in the informed consumer, and I do believe you could smoke and see minimal affect (it all depends on where you fit on the bell curve, they gave me 100 mg demerol when I was bitten by a snake, and I could still argue with the doctor who mistreated me - go figure). It all depends on genetic, environment, and the context they take to where you life is (as we are talking psychoactive substances here). I personally believe pot smoking is a generally bad idea, but I will argue that you should have the right to smoke it. Being a true libertarian means you will argue in favor of other people's liberty to do things you think are wrong, or stupid, or simply disagree with, as long as it only affects consenting adults.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Berzerker


You're assuming tobacco is the catalyst, and if it is, why it serves as a catalyst in some people and not others if there are no other catalysts involved.

Reread what I wrote.

Let me take you through the analogy step by step.

People->Individual molecules
Carcinogen->Catalyst

Now, just as a catalyst makes it more likely for an individual molecule to undergo a specified reaction, but does by no means guarantee that a given molecule undergoes the reaction, a carcinogen will make it more likely for an individual to acquire cancer, but will not guarantee this acquisition.

Then you should be able to refute it quite easily.

I already did. Reductio ad absurdum.

[Berzerker]

I've got an experiment you can perform, Berz. Go tape a spot the size of a dime to a dartboard and throw darts at it while blindfolded. Count how many times you hit the spot. Now change the dime-sized spot for one the size of your palm, and repeat. I'm willing to bet that if you throw, say, a hundred darts for each case, then I know which one you'll hit more times.

I've got an experiment for you, after determining the genes involved with producing cancer, subject human cells free of those genes in a closed environment to only tobacco smoke in a manner consistent with how the body incorporates smoke into cells until cancer develops. At least this experiment would be evidence, not your dart board...

With your attitude you're going to have to throw out most modern physics and chemistry in addition to biology, economics, psychology etc.

Gee, not astronomy? What is my "attitude"?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Berzerker


I've got an experiment for you, after determining the genes involved with producing cancer, subject human cells free of those genes in a closed environment to only tobacco smoke in a manner consistent with how the body incorporates smoke into cells until cancer develops. At least this experiment would be evidence, not your dart board...

Do me a favour, and never attempt to take a statistical mechanics class. Is it possible that all libertarians simply have a blind spot when it comes to understanding inherently statistical processes?

Gee, not astronomy? What is my "attitude"?

Astronomy is a subdiscipline of physics, which is why most universities combine the two.

And yes, you can throw out astronomy too. "What's this blackbody radiation thing you're talking about? Not all of the radiation is emitted at the peak wavelength, so the peak wavelength has no significance. And as for Hubble's law, how come all of the data points don't line up exactly? There must be no connection between distance and redshift"

[Snotty]

From http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi...s_basics.shtml

Poisoning:
There are no confirmed, published deaths from cannabis-only poisoning. There are a small number of people who report serious cannabis allergies which cause unexpectedly intense reactions, throat & lung irritation, etc.

[KrazyHorse]

I would think that you could OD on THC if injected with a massive quantity of it, but it's certainly a lot harder to kill yourself with weed than it is to do so with alcohol.

[Berzerker]

Krazyhorse -

Reread what I wrote.

I did.

Let me take you through the analogy step by step.

People->Individual molecules
Carcinogen->Catalyst

Aren't you assuming this "carcinogen" is a carcinogen and the catalyst? How do scientists determine a given chemical is a carcinogen (even if we assume a carcinogen is by definition a/the catalyst)? I believe they force feed amounts of the chemical no human would consume to rats genetically bred to easily get cancer. Is it then logical to conclude that chemical is a carcinogen for humans based on what happens to rats given the method involved for defining carcinogens?

Now, just as a catalyst makes it more likely for an individual molecule to undergo a specified reaction, but does by no means guarantee that a given molecule undergoes the reaction, a carcinogen will make it more likely for an individual to acquire cancer, but will not guarantee this acquisition.

And my question is: why? Doesn't this suggest a second "catalyst"? Doesn't science tell us that all things being equal, the reaction will occur over and over?

Shawn -

Decreased Fertility - not no fertility. Given a bell curve effect, and a two standard deviations some sperm show minimal effect. 2% of several what - thousand, million - still leaves a chance . It's just less.

I was poking fun at how you followed your first comment which may indeed be true with a comment that isn't true and illogical on it's face.

No, not that the laborers have no intiaitve (thanks Imran Siddiqui for making that point). The back-breaking labor, etc. pot smoking makes more tolerable. The workers don't lack initiative, per se (though of course some do, look at any human population), but ones caught in peonage system, pot probably is one of few small pleasures, and makes it more tolerable.

Then why did you offer that commentary on pot smoking, agricultural workers in a statement about pot and a loss of initiative when you say it isn't proof? It just seems you would have followed your assertion with evidence...

We are talking statistical trends when it comes to cancer. My family has a bad history of heart disease, so I have given some of my favorite foods, like sausages and cheese, except for occasional treats or as flavorings. If you have the right genetic profile, you can eat a diet high in saturated fats and still have less risk than me. It sucks, but life isn't fair. I have a friend who gloats all the time, while he limps when his gout flairs up (bast*rd).

Which is not only wise, but goes to the heart (no pun intended) of this issue. If I am genetically prone to (or worse, virtually guaranteed of getting) cancer and I smoke, how do we know the cancer I got was caused by the tobacco? When tobacco related deaths (from cancer) are tabulated, these questions of cause and effect are ignored thereby inflating the numbers and danger.

Genetics determine your predispostion, but environmental and other factors determine if you get it, generally (with certain less common genetic problems, like the BRCA genes and breast cancer it actually is primarily genetics).

And I wonder if this predisposition can be a determinant by itself. After all, if a lifetime of smoking doesn't result in cancer for some people, were they the beneficiaries of genes merely predisposed to resist cancer or are their genes actually immune to cancer? And if that's the case, tobacco doesn't cause cancer, it is just one of at least two catalysts that combine to cause cancer. I suppose my query is more academic, but if the other catalyst is removed, the tobacco couldn't cause cancer.

Berzerker, I'm a social libetarian. I suspect from your response I hit some hot buttons. I will never smoke pot, but as long as you do not drive or operate heavy machinery while under the influence, I could care less about what you do in the privacy of your own home.

The only drug I use is tobacco. But if someone offers me a hit of pot...well...to refuse the offer would insult them... But yes, the government runs these anti-drug ads and while they usually ascribe all sorts of evils to drugs and the people who use them, a recent pot ad had the audacity to accuse pot smokers of not doing anything, i.e., lacking motivation. So if they aren't out robbing the local mini-mart or causing general mahem, they aren't doing anything and that's bad too...