Research undermines medical marijuana claims

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,965
2,119
743
Where else but Stillwater
#2
The Oklahoman is a highly biased source against marijuana. Research has determined that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, yet, research has determined that smoking marijuana does NOT cause lung cancer. If you're so concerned about health matters, you'd be better off trying to get tobacco prohibited.
 
Last edited:

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,746
48,227
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#3
The Oklahoman is a highly biased source against marijuana. Research has determined that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, yet, research has determined that smoking marijuana does NOT cause lung cancer. If you're so concerned about health matters, you'd be better off trying to get tobacco prohibited.
No, it hasn't. The very best you can say based on the evidence is that an association has yet to be found.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,746
48,227
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#4
P.S. Given that burning marijuana produces the same carcinogens as burning tobacco, I highly suspect that there is a dose effect and that as marijuana use increases an association will eventually be found.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
7,504
8,206
1,743
#5
P.S. Given that burning marijuana produces the same carcinogens as burning tobacco, I highly suspect that there is a dose effect and that as marijuana use increases an association will eventually be found.
With the new CBD shops, rolled/smoked marijuana isn't even needed in the state of Oklahoma now! It covers ALL of the claims that "medical" marijuana states. Doctors could just suggest a patient try one of the CBD stores and not even have to deal with prescribing "medical" marijuana that has to be smoked.

Why do we need "medicinal CBD" and "medicinal marijuana" if they both do the same thing?!?! One of them even does it without being a potentially harmful carcinogen and/or intoxicant.

Oh wait... unless the "medical" marijuana is a sham, and the supporters REALLY just want rec marijuana and their selfish high fix. :derp:
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,965
2,119
743
Where else but Stillwater
#8
P.S. Given that burning marijuana produces the same carcinogens as burning tobacco, I highly suspect that there is a dose effect and that as marijuana use increases an association will eventually be found.
No, it is a matter of FACT that your tax dollars were spent in a research study done to prove smoking marijuana causes LUNG cancer. NO such proof could be found. The lung specialist who led the study no longer sees any reason why marijuana should be banned.

The government has been working hard with your tax dollars over the years to prove that marijuana does great harm to the human body with little luck found in the process. It helps to explain why people are voting yes in more and more states to legalize rec marijuana.
 
Last edited:

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
13,793
5,002
1,743
Katy, TX
#9
No, it is a matter of FACT that your tax dollars were spent in a research study done to prove smoking marijuana causes LUNG cancer. NO such proof could be found. The lung specialist who led the study no longer sees any reason why marijuana should be banned.

The government has been working hard with your tax dollars over the years to prove that marijuana does great harm to the human body with little luck found in the process. It helps to explain why people are voting yes in more and more states to legalize rec marijuana.
Have you read the editorial yet?
What the editorial says is that research has shown benefit to some specific diseases/conditions with treatment using CBD oil. Medical CBD oil, the only thing researched as a treatment alternative, is already legal in OK.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
7,504
8,206
1,743
#10
No, it is a matter of FACT that your tax dollars were spent in a research study done to prove smoking marijuana causes LUNG cancer. NO such proof could be found. The lung specialist who led the study no longer sees any reason why marijuana should be banned.

The government has been working hard with your tax dollars over the years to prove that marijuana does great harm to the human body with little luck found in the process. It helps to explain why people are voting yes in more and more states to legalize rec marijuana.
:lol::lol::lol:

LMAO... you are literally inhaling smoke in to your lungs. Don't care if it's tobacco, weed, burning trash, house fire, smoldering sheep carcass from a fire breathing dragon... do it long enough, especially concentrated inhaling right from the source, and it's going to do damage. It doesn't even take a scientist or a cardiopulmonary specialist to understand this simple concept.

But by all means, go ahead and tell someone that's forgotten more about the human body and interaction with foreign substances than you'll ever know in your entire lifetime... that he's wrong.

LOLOLLOLLOLLLOOLLL. Keep Calm and Townie On.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,691
2,265
1,743
So Cal
#11
No, it is a matter of FACT that your tax dollars were spent in a research study done to prove smoking marijuana causes LUNG cancer. NO such proof could be found. The lung specialist who led the study no longer sees any reason why marijuana should be banned.

The government has been working hard with your tax dollars over the years to prove that marijuana does great harm to the human body with little luck found in the process. It helps to explain why people are voting yes in more and more states to legalize rec marijuana.
where is that link, what was the scope of the study, and how long ago was it?

it's not that I don't believe you .... well, yeah, that might be it - you do smoke pot which wouldn't make you the most reliable source of credible information.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,119
31,272
1,743
oklahoma city
#13
No, it is a matter of FACT that your tax dollars were spent in a research study done to prove smoking marijuana causes LUNG cancer. NO such proof could be found. The lung specialist who led the study no longer sees any reason why marijuana should be banned.

The government has been working hard with your tax dollars over the years to prove that marijuana does great harm to the human body with little luck found in the process. It helps to explain why people are voting yes in more and more states to legalize rec marijuana.
Oh c'mon. Smoke from a wood burning fireplace has effects on the lungs. The concept that you can repeatedly burn any substance and suck it into your lungs over and over and not have a health effect from it is just stupid. As Rx said, just because the association has not been found yet, does not mean it isn't there.

I support the right of a person to suck a harmful substance into his lungs if that is what he chooses to do in a way that does not bother anyone else. And, maybe if this lung specialist actually claimed that it should not be banned he was thinking the same thing. But, the MJ advocates need to get away from this idea that it is some mystical substance that does not follow the rules of physiology and just gives medicine and makes people high without a downside. It is just dumb.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,746
48,227
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#14
Oh c'mon. Smoke from a wood burning fireplace has effects on the lungs. The concept that you can repeatedly burn any substance and suck it into your lungs over and over and not have a health effect from it is just stupid. As Rx said, just because the association has not been found yet, does not mean it isn't there.

I support the right of a person to suck a harmful substance into his lungs if that is what he chooses to do in a way that does not bother anyone else. And, maybe if this lung specialist actually claimed that it should not be banned he was thinking the same thing. But, the MJ advocates need to get away from this idea that it is some mystical substance that does not follow the rules of physiology and just gives medicine and makes people high without a downside. It is just dumb.
There was, after all, a time before we knew the association between tobacco smoking and cancer. In fact, there was a time when it was thought tobacco had similarly mystical healing properties. But rather than face that reality the MJ advocates would prefer to just blow more smoke up our butts.

[did you see what I did there?]
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,965
2,119
743
Where else but Stillwater
#15
There was, after all, a time before we knew the association between tobacco smoking and cancer. In fact, there was a time when it was thought tobacco had similarly mystical healing properties. But rather than face that reality the MJ advocates would prefer to just blow more smoke up our butts.
If you and others on here are to conservative to accept the fact that it's true that a research study concluded that no connection could be made between smoking marijuana and lung cancer, then that's your problem. It sure as heck isn't my problem.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
13,793
5,002
1,743
Katy, TX
#16
Since Townie doesn't support his statements with links to the actual study

http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/reports/2017/health-effects-of-cannabis-and-cannabinoids.aspx

There is moderate evidence of no statistical association between cannabis use and: • Incidence of lung cancer (cannabis smoking) (5-1)• Incidence of head and neck cancers (5-2)

There is substantial evidence of a statistical association between cannabis smoking and:• Worse respiratory symptoms and more frequent chronic bronchitis episodes (long-term cannabis smoking) (7-3a) • There is moderate evidence of a statistical association between cannabis smoking and:• Improved airway dynamics with acute use, but not with chronic use (7-1a)• Higher forced vital capacity (FVC) (7-1b)
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,746
48,227
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#18
Since Townie doesn't support his statements with links to the actual study

http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/reports/2017/health-effects-of-cannabis-and-cannabinoids.aspx

There is moderate evidence of no statistical association between cannabis use and: • Incidence of lung cancer (cannabis smoking) (5-1)• Incidence of head and neck cancers (5-2)

There is substantial evidence of a statistical association between cannabis smoking and:• Worse respiratory symptoms and more frequent chronic bronchitis episodes (long-term cannabis smoking) (7-3a) • There is moderate evidence of a statistical association between cannabis smoking and:• Improved airway dynamics with acute use, but not with chronic use (7-1a)• Higher forced vital capacity (FVC) (7-1b)
The thing is, there is a dose effect with tobacco and cancer and heart disease. At doses of less than 1/2 ppd the association is no where near as strong as it is at 2 ppd. If MJ is legalized for recreational use and use because more widespread and socially acceptable we might see doses where there is an association.

And Townie, please don't give me that one guy who smoked 50 bongs a day without any ill effects. There are plenty of people who smoke tobacco a lot and live to ripe old ages, yet the association with cancer and heart disease is real. An anecdote only means that person dodged the bullet.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,746
48,227
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#20
@StillwaterTownie I'll buy you a bus ticket to Canada.

Canada Passes Historic Bill Legalizing Recreational Marijuana

BYJOSHUA ESPINOZA
Find him on Twitter.

JUN 19, 2018
  • SHARE
  • TWEET

Image via Getty/Lars Hagberg
Canada has become the first G7 nation to legalize recreational marijuana.
On Tuesday night, the Senate voted 52-29 to pass Bill C-45, also commonly known as the Cannabis Act. The measure was previously approved by the House of Commons, and now awaits Royal Assent for the final step in Canada’s legislative process.
According to NPR, the bill will allow anyone over the age of 18 to possess no more than 30 grams of marijuana. It also allows adults to sell cannabis as well as grow up to four plants in their home, making Canada the second country in the world after Uruguay to legalize recreational marijuana use.
Marijuana possession was officially outlawed in Canada during the 1920s.
Authors of the bill pointed to several benefits of legalization, including economic stimulation and protecting the youth from criminal operations.
It’s been too easy for our kids to get marijuana - and for criminals to reap the profits. Today, we change that. Our plan to legalize & regulate marijuana just passed the Senate. #PromiseKept
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) June 20, 2018
“We've just witnessed a historic vote for Canada. The end of 90 years of prohibition. Transformative social policy, I think. A brave move on the part of the government,” the bill’s sponsor Sen. Tony Dean told the CBC. “Now we can start to tackle some of the harms of cannabis. We can start to be proactive in public education. We'll see the end of criminalization and we can start addressing Canada’s $7 billion illegal market. These are good things for Canada.”
A fully legalized marijuana market is expected to roll out within the next eight to 12 weeks. That timeframe will allow provinces, municipalities, law enforcement, and other entities to prepare for the new law.