*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, August 24th, 2008 12:51pm PDT - promote requested by blankfist.

smoke 1500 lbs in 15 minutes?... ok i'll give it a try! For Science!

^I'm sure you'd induce death by inhaling 1,500 lbs of firewood in 15 minutes too.

Silly Fox News Commentary, try again....and again...

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
^I'm sure you'd induce death by inhaling 1,500 lbs of firewood in 15 minutes too.

"Are lumber lords establishing killer trees in YOUR backyard? Some may even be rigged to crush your house if a landscaper approaches too closely with a chainsaw."

*news

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by NetRunner.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

24 hours of light a day makes pot on steroids? Nope. It makes lots of leaves but no buds, little potency and little worth to anyone. Pot only flowers with about 12 hours of total darkness a night. Interrupt or cut it short and you screw the grow. They should have mentioned that somewhere too.

That was some of the most fantasy filled, fact free reporting I've seen on the subject in a while though I'll admit to not watching FOX, so maybe that explains it.

>> ^drattus:
24 hours of light a day makes pot on steroids? Nope. It makes lots of leaves but no buds, little potency and little worth to anyone. Pot only flowers with about 12 hours of total darkness a night. Interrupt or cut it short and you screw the grow. They should have mentioned that somewhere too.
That was some of the most fantasy filled, fact free reporting I've seen on the subject in a while though I'll admit to not watching FOX, so maybe that explains it.


there we go, Alright, someone did there homework, thats why you don't work for fox.


PS, I have grown some pretty damn good marijuana outdoors, its all about the genetics and what th plant prefers. Some weed (mostly sativa) hates 24 hours a day, it stresses the strain out causes it to stretch,and turn hermaphrodite

This stuff can kill you and we need you to risk your life in Iraq instead.

I hear it gives you the sweats, and the shakes!

I heard it...wait.


What were we talking about?

After years of attempting to determine marijuana's LD50 rating in test animals, scientists had to give up and declare bankruptcy. This just in! Fox news discovered that it was because they spent all their money on cheezies for the animals.

KILLER BOOBY TRAPPED CHEEZIES!

According to the FDA, 249 medical marijuana patients were killed between 1/1/97 - 6/30/05. Marijuana, cannibis, and other Cannabinoids are listed as the secondary cause of death. It is unclear in the study how many people were prescribed marijuana between those dates.


If it doesn't kill you, it will most certainly make you as dumb as a bag of nails.

From Wikipedia: "...a recent study by the Canadian government found cannabis contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke. It contained 20 times more ammonia, (a carcinogen), five times more hydrogen cyanide (which can cause heart disease) and nitrous oxides, (which can cause lung damage) than tobacco smoke.

Cannabis use has been linked to exacerbating the effects of psychosis, schizophrenia, bronchitis, and emphysema by several peer-reviewed studies for those who are vulnerable to such illnesses based on personal or family history.

n July 2007, British medical journal The Lancet published a study that indicates that cannabis users have, on average, a 41% greater risk of developing psychosis than non-users. The risk was most pronounced in cases with an existing risk of psychotic disorder, and was said to grow up to 200% for the most-frequent users.

While the long term and heavy use of cannabis is not linked to the severe or grossly debilitating cerebral effects associated with chronic heavy alcohol abuse, it has been LINKED to more subtle IMPAIRMENT associated with MEMORY, ATTENTION, AND COGNITIVE FUNCTION.

>> ^deedub81:
According to the FDA, 249 medical marijuana patients were killed between 1/1/97 - 6/30/05. Marijuana, cannibis, and other Cannabinoids are listed as the secondary cause of death. It is unclear in the study how many people were prescribed marijuana between those dates.

If it doesn't kill you, it will most certainly make you as dumb as a bag of nails.
From Wikipedia: "...a recent study by the Canadian government found cannabis contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke. It contained 20 times more ammonia, (a carcinogen), five times more hydrogen cyanide (which can cause heart disease) and nitrous oxides, (which can cause lung damage) than tobacco smoke.
Cannabis use has been linked to exacerbating the effects of psychosis, schizophrenia, bronchitis, and emphysema by several peer-reviewed studies for those who are vulnerable to such illnesses based on personal or family history.
n July 2007, British medical journal The Lancet published a study that indicates that cannabis users have, on average, a 41% greater risk of developing psychosis than non-users. The risk was most pronounced in cases with an existing risk of psychotic disorder, and was said to grow up to 200% for the most-frequent users.
While the long term and heavy use of cannabis is not linked to the severe or grossly debilitating cerebral effects associated with chronic heavy alcohol abuse, it has been LINKED to more subtle IMPAIRMENT associated with MEMORY, ATTENTION, AND COGNITIVE FUNCTION.


party pooper.

Toxicity is not an appropriate measure for legality. Are we to outlaw cheeseburgers now too? What about soda? Drinking one per day increases your risk of type 2 diabetes by 50%. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/archives/2004-releases/press08242004.html

Don't plants Grow 24 hours a day? That's all they do, its a fucking weed goddammit.

In some cases... WEASEL WORDS FAX FUCK NEWS.

I should have got back to this thread earlier but a couple of quick comments should be made I'd guess.

deedub81, small problem with the study you point to and others like it, and it's one that almost any scientist would grant as a problem if you asked them about it. Couple of problems actually.

First and biggest problem is that it doesn't refer in any way to a blind or controlled study but to a self selected group. Some never try pot at all and some try it and get bored, quit. Some stick with it. What is the difference between them? Is it possible or even likely that there was a difference between them to start with?

Problem with self selected groups is that it tells us nothing about the subject as it relates to the population as a whole. It just tells us about that group. Most people taking nitro have heart problems but the nitro didn't cause it, in the same vein it's possible or even likely that the higher incidence of problems among pot smokers is an indication of attempts to self medicate rather than an indication that it's the source of the problem. We need controlled studies rather than self selected groups to find out more about it.

Second problem is that it's badly overstated. The chance of psychotic disorders among the population as a whole is almost nothing. Almost nothing times 1.41 is still almost nothing. Almost nothing times 2 is still almost nothing. For the vast majority there would be little risk even if pot was a "cause" of problems and pot wouldn't be alone there. Alcohol also has the same effect on a small number of people. Treating equivalent risks in a legally equivalent manner seems reasonable to me but that's not what we're doing. We're treating the one we wonder about more harshly than the one we know is dangerous. Some rethinking of the laws concerned seems due even if the fears are right and it's as bad as alcohol is. I don't think it is though, studied heavily since the 60's and this uncontrolled self selected maybe is the best we've got so far.

On pot growing 24 hours a day, yes it does. So do humans, even when we sleep. Some plants need that sleep or rest period more than others and some in different ways. The Poinsettia we all see in the Christmas season is similar in a way, it won't develop the red color we associate with it if not given long nights. If that dark period is interrupted or cut short it stays green instead of red. With pot the difference is in if it flowers or how strongly it flowers. Nothing but long days and it won't flower at all or might produce a few stray small ones but no real "buds". With long nights but not long enough or occasionally interrupted nights it might flower weakly but not as well as it should and the chance of producing male flowers on a female plant goes up with confused lighting periods.

I agree that more accurate studies could be done. Catch 22; Marijuana must be legalized in order to conduct more accurate studies on the effects it has on the brain and on society as a whole. There is still the fact that marijuana use "...has been LINKED to ...subtle IMPAIRMENT associated with MEMORY, ATTENTION, AND COGNITIVE FUNCTION." This is not, however, my argument for why it should remain illegal (It's my argument for why marijuana users should not be allowed to debate the issue).

OH, SNAP!

Agreed on it needs to be legalized at least off of schedule 1 so we can regulate rather than pretend we can make it go away like we do now. Can't even do many types of research now since we can't "distribute" so can't do controlled studies.

On your second point, Snap right back at ya In "MEMORY, ATTENTION, AND COGNITIVE FUNCTION" as you put it there's a small catch involved. Similar to the way the risk of psychotic disorders is badly overstated (almost nothing to a hair over almost nothing) this is overstated and badly as well. The effects are mostly WHILE intoxicated, for casual use that doesn't extend much if at all past that. You wouldn't know that from the scare stories though. I'll offer you some sources for further research if you'd care to follow up on it and a decent source for a bunch more.

"The results of our meta-analytic study failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated. For six of the eight neurocognitive ability areas that were surveyed. the confidence intervals for the average effect sizes across studies overlapped zero in each instance, indicating that the effect size could not be distinguished from zero. The two exceptions were in the domains of learning and forgetting."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, p. 686.

"In conclusion, our meta-analysis of studies that have attempted to address the question of longer term neurocognitive disturbance in moderate and heavy cannabis users has failed to demonstrate a substantial, systematic, and detrimental effect of cannabis use on neuropsychological performance. It was surprising to find such few and small effects given that most of the potential biases inherent in our analyses actually increased the likelihood of finding a cannabis effect."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, p. 687.

"Nevertheless, when considering all 15 studies (i.e., those that met both strict and more relaxed criteria) we only noted that regular cannabis users performed worse on memory tests, but that the magnitude of the effect was very small. The small magnitude of effect sizes from observations of chronic users of cannabis suggests that cannabis compounds, if found to have therapeutic value, should have a good margin of safety from a neurocognitive standpoint under the more limited conditions of exposure that would likely obtain in a medical setting."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, pp. 687-8.

A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis." They also found "no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use." "These results ... seem to provide strong evidence of the absence of a long-term residual effect of cannabis use on cognition," they concluded.

Source: Constantine G. Lyketsos, Elizabeth Garrett, Kung-Yee Liang, and James C. Anthony. (1999). "Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons under 65 Years of Age," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 149, No. 9.

"Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained."

Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 887.

# "Although the heavy current users experienced a decrease in IQ score, their scores were still above average at the young adult assessment (mean 105.1). If we had not assessed preteen IQ, these subjects would have appeared to be functioning normally. Only with knowledge of the change in IQ score does the negative impact of current heavy use become apparent."

Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 890.

Source for those and more, lots of sourced detail which includes perspective rather than tossing bold claims out without that perspective, can be found at the following. Yes, it includes both the good and the bad and the root site for that page covers medical marijuana and other drugs as well.http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm

The problem in part is that people use pot (and other drugs) sometimes to hide from life or to make themselves feel better about their failures and we try to assume the pot caused the problem rather than the problem caused them to find a way to make themselves feel better, in this case with pot. Association doesn't automatically mean cause and effect. It's not brain food, but it's not all that dangerous in casual use either. Even with heavy use function tends to drift back to the baseline with time, you just have to quit abusing. Better to look for the reasons for abuse than to blame the substance which isn't all that dangerous or toxic in itself.