Pot is not as safe as some people think!

Originally posted by soleran30
Man phew take a step back and read my post again, I stated there is a chance for short term difficulties I never said you absolutely get it. Just like smoking cigarettes doesn't ALWAYS give you cancer there is a chance.

Cancer doesn't rely on reactive parts inside you. It's a known, established negative outcome (possible) of smoking, regardless of your internal disposition.

Pot side-effects, to occur, need reactive parts. They aren't applicable to all, so therefore it's not the pot is it? It's the person. Because if it's not like that for everyone, you can't blame the pot.

Originally posted by soleran30
When have I mentioned deaths as a side effect of pot? Why would you even include that when I am talking about short term memory difficulties you are asking about death..............whatever stay on task.

I can't do anything BUT stay on task with you, because you misunderstand so much.

Originally posted by soleran30
Also I have never read anywhere that if you smoke pot you automatically get memory loss nor have I ever read that you cannot have memory problems later in life from pot.

Exactly, if you don't automatically get it and it's not a guarantee across the board, then it can't be the pot can it? Cancer from regular cigarettes can happen to absolutely anyone. Pot side-effects cannot.

Originally posted by soleran30
you have yet to prove anything other then your opinion and mincing words about subjective.................................WAHOO everyone thing is subjective. Once again a side effect is something that can be identified as a measurable result from a group of people using a specific drug.

YES! A GROUP of people. A GROUP of people might be allergic to M&M's, but it doesn't mean I will be. It's not the M&M's, or the pot, because if it was either, then they would have universal warnings. They don't, because it's not applicable to everyone.

People are allergic to peanuts right? Why aren't there warnings on peanuts? "Might make you die of an allergic reaction"? Because if you're not allergic, you know you're safe. Nobody is safe from cancer, short-term memory loss occurs if your body reacts badly to it and the capacity to do so from pot is NOT in every human.

Originally posted by soleran30
so go ahead and now use some scientific proof other then what you feel is subjective.

You post the same thing every time and I counter it every time. There's nothing you've said that has disproved what I'm saying, so there's no need for me to supply more. Your denial and inability to comprehend what I am saying isn't what I cater to.

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
you have answered me not.

Are you genuinely illiterate? Serious question.

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
Just myths I tell ya.

Myths? What are you talking about now? I've said no myths, you are the one adhering to them.

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
just your personal reaction to it. Whether you smoke it or not.

Exactly, the "bad" side of pot comes from personal reaction. It's not inherently within the pot. Well done, we're getting somewhere.

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
It's not the answers I'm looking for. It's not what I asked. Now unless you can answer my question the way I want, I will not accept anything you say,but if it's not what I think, it's completely incorrect, wrong, meaningless. Got it.

What are you jabbering about? You have the nerve to say "I answered you, just not in the way you want." only to come back and say "Now unless you can answer my question the way I want, I will not accept anything you say"? God, you're so stupid.

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
Now I answered you, it's your turn answer me. Now you keep dodging and you're saying you won't answer me if i ask you again. Too much pressure, just a simple question. But that's okay. I would 't be able to answer my question either.

You haven't answered me. You have never, not once, simply answered the question: "If we've established it's not inherantly harmful, why is it bad to do?" So until you do, I'll keep pasting it.

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
But just for the record.

Why isn't Marijuana Harmful? You don't know do you? Nope. Why?

Don't dodge now.

Of course, Like i said, you can always not answer, to save yourself the embarrassment. I would.

Why?

is it comprehensible.....

See my previous post and many before that. I gave you multiple points. You're ignoring them because you're done for and trying to keep in a game that you were never a player for.

Originally posted by powerfulone1987
and really people, do you need studies to tell you Marijuana is bad.

You obviously need no convincing, little sheep.

-AC

yup and because this isn't a hey lets find the beneficial side of pot I didn't highlight that point.

more specifically I asked and addressed a more specific piece and that wasn't the casual use of marijuana but excessive and long term use of the drug.

Since there aren't any 20 year clinical studies anyone and everyone just speculates and places thejr opinion rampantly on the piece.

That said I do believe marijuana can and should have a use for medical treatments but to reaffirm my first piece I am more interested in clinical long term studies on excessive pot use and possibel side effects.

"Cancer doesn't rely on reactive parts inside you. It's a known, established negative outcome (possible) of smoking, regardless of your internal disposition."

yes cancer does rely on reactive parts inside you and more specifically its the reactive parts that cause cancer to grow and spread. That said stop playing lets mince and interpret words here. Show me your evidence you haven't, you keep using your words and since you aren't an expert nor a scientist you have no credibility............garner some then share it here..............not your subjective ramblings.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
🤨 Fine then, how much?

I nickel-bag of course

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Cancer doesn't rely on reactive parts inside you. It's a known, established negative outcome (possible) of smoking, regardless of your internal disposition.

Pot side-effects, to occur, need reactive parts. They aren't applicable to all, so therefore it's not the pot is it? It's the person. Because if it's not like that for everyone, you can't blame the pot.

I can't do anything BUT stay on task with you, because you misunderstand so much.

Exactly, if you don't automatically get it and it's not a guarantee across the board, then it can't be the pot can it? Cancer from regular cigarettes can happen to absolutely anyone. Pot side-effects cannot.

YES! A GROUP of people. A GROUP of people might be allergic to M&M's, but it doesn't mean I will be. It's not the M&M's, or the pot, because if it was either, then they would have universal warnings. They don't, because it's not applicable to everyone.

People are allergic to peanuts right? Why aren't there warnings on peanuts? "Might make you die of an allergic reaction"? Because if you're not allergic, you know you're safe. Nobody is safe from cancer, short-term memory loss occurs if your body reacts badly to it and the capacity to do so from pot is NOT in every human.

You post the same thing every time and I counter it every time. There's nothing you've said that has disproved what I'm saying, so there's no need for me to supply more. Your denial and inability to comprehend what I am saying isn't what I cater to.

Are you genuinely illiterate? Serious question.

Myths? What are you talking about now? I've said no myths, you are the one adhering to them.

Exactly, the "bad" side of pot comes from personal reaction. It's not inherently within the pot. Well done, we're getting somewhere.

What are you jabbering about? You have the nerve to say "I answered you, just not in the way you want." only to come back and say "Now unless you can answer my question the way I want, I will not accept anything you say"? God, you're so stupid.

You haven't answered me. You have never, not once, simply answered the question: "If we've established it's not inherantly harmful, why is it bad to do?" So until you do, I'll keep pasting it.

See my previous post and many before that. I gave you multiple points. You're ignoring them because you're done for and trying to keep in a game that you were never a player for.

You obviously need no convincing, little sheep.

-AC

god you're stupid.

OH! YEAH! Why?

is it comprehensible.....

Originally posted by soleran30
yes cancer does rely on reactive parts inside you and more specifically its the reactive parts that cause cancer to grow and spread.

Thats a good point, homes; lighter-skinned people are more susceptible to melanoma than darker-skinned people.

Is that what you meant?

Personal question powerfulone1987. Have you even smoked weed before?

If it was so "bad" why has some doctors prescribe it for some people with special illnesses?

Originally posted by soleran30
yes cancer does rely on reactive parts inside you and more specifically its the reactive parts that cause cancer to grow and spread. That said stop playing lets mince and interpret words here. Show me your evidence you haven't, you keep using your words and since you aren't an expert nor a scientist you have no credibility............garner some then share it here..............not your subjective ramblings.

Well yes technically speaking there's obviously a reaction that needs to happen but cancer is a possible outcome the very SECOND you pick up that cigarette and smoke it. We ALL have the parts inside us that cancer needs to react and come forth.

My point about allergies and pot was that not everybody has the reactive materials inside them to cause a nut allergy reaction, just like not everyone has it inside of them to have negative reactions to pot.

"You keep using your words"

What exactly am I supposed to use? I prefer my words and what I know as opposed to Google links, thanks. You've taken that road and it's not brought you far in this debate has it?

You can pass off my "ramblings" all you want because that's the only thing you can do. You can't counter them and we both know that.

-AC

Orale! 😎

So have you ever puffed on funky green before, homes???????

Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
Personal question powerfulone1987. Have you even smoked weed before?

If it was so "bad" why has some doctors prescribe it for some people with special illnesses?

Not gonna get through to the boy, might as well leave it.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not gonna get through to the boy, might as well leave it.

-AC

✅

Notice how he's not answering........

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
✅

Notice how he's not answering........

😂

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well yes technically speaking there's obviously a reaction that needs to happen but cancer is a possible outcome the very SECOND you pick up that cigarette and smoke it. We ALL have the parts inside us that cancer needs to react and come forth.

My point about allergies and pot was that not everybody has the reactive materials inside them to cause a nut allergy reaction, just like not everyone has it inside of them to have negative reactions to pot.

"You keep using your words"

What exactly am I supposed to use? I prefer my words and what I know as opposed to Google links, thanks. You've taken that road and it's not brought you far in this debate has it?

You can pass off my "ramblings" all you want because that's the only thing you can do. You can't counter them and we both know that.

-AC

First off its not from the second you place it in there and smoke it.

Secondly we all have receptors for THC and we all have a POSSIBILITY of encountering none or a multiple of said side effects of pot.

Thirdly I am not speaking in absolutes now or in the past, I have said there is a possibility and there is proof that there can be side effects.

Fourth you are neither a scientist nor a physician and you carry no credibility to your statements..............hell I even brought proof that all the myths about pot aren't true and shown from outside sources certain side effects are more prevalent. So my links were there more as an objective piece from outside "professionals" where as you just say what you think and feel is true..............which oddly enough aren't all together true. Keep studying now AC and back up your statements with something other then your anecdotal ramblings.

Originally posted by soleran30
First off its not from the second you place it in there and smoke it.

The possibility for cancer, you're saying, is not there when you begin smoking?

Originally posted by soleran30
Secondly we all have receptors for THC and we all have a POSSIBILITY of encountering none or a multiple of said side effects of pot.

Strangest logic. If pot of itself is not a drug that causes addiction (not psychological nor physiological), which alone is a major plus, then it quite clearly isn't so powerful as to cause brain problems in everyone.

Well all have a possibility IF our bodies are reactive (negatively) with the pot. If not, then it won't happen. I've used the analogy before as to why this is.

Originally posted by soleran30
Thirdly I am not speaking in absolutes now or in the past, I have said there is a possibility and there is proof that there can be side effects.

I've said my piece on the side-effects many times. My only argument was that the pot itself is not dangerous. It's not a dangerous drug. You can look into what's in cigarettes and find many contents that lead to various health problems. In pot, what is there? Something that leads to the numbing of pain? The POSSIBLE (depending) and even temporary loss of short-term memory? Real threat.

Originally posted by soleran30
Fourth you are neither a scientist nor a physician and you carry no credibility to your statements..............hell I even brought proof that all the myths about pot aren't true and shown from outside sources certain side effects are more prevalent. So my links were there more as an objective piece from outside "professionals" where as you just say what you think and feel is true..............which oddly enough aren't all together true. Keep studying now AC and back up your statements with something other then your anecdotal ramblings.

I'm not a music journalist either, but if someone comes up to me from the music section of the world's biggest music magazine and says "Hey, I do this writing and studying for a living, I say so and so." I can still go toe to toe with and quite possibly overcome them with what I know. It's not about doing it for a living, it's about what you know overall.

I'm not denying that you've provided a couple links that show side-effects to be more prominent, but the why is what you are missing. Why do these happen? You talk of short-term memory loss, which by all means CAN occur depending on the person, but that's exactly what it is.

Furthermore, it's not even been proven that heavy pot use gives a permanent state of reduction in learning ability, just that it can happen. So even if the short-term memory loss DOES occur, it's not permanent or irreversible.

-AC

I don't care what anyone says, weed is harmful. Whether it's illegal or not.

Humans lungs are made for, and are only suppose to, intake air only. Anything you inhale into your lungs other than air is unhealthy. Naturally the body isn't suppose to tolerate foreign objects because it can damage.

Why do you think people cough when they smoke sometimes? It's the body or lungs asking you "Wtf are you doing. Get this BS outta me. COUGH! COUGH! you stupid c*nt COOOooooUGH!!"

haha..

In all seriousness though, smoking practically.., anything, is unhealthy to be truthful.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
In all seriousness though, smoking practically.., anything, is unhealthy to be truthful.

Exactly, weed doesn't demand that it be smoked though.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Exactly, weed doesn't demand that it be smoked though.

-AC

🙂 It can be eaten as well

I've heard some oddly scientific ways of using the weed without smoking it. I'm actually kind of surprised by them.

Originally posted by K.Diddy
🙂 It can be eaten as well

Not to mention, brownies taste a lot better than weed-smoke.

Weed could probably be taken up the rectum for all anyone knows. As long as it gets into the bloodstream you're good, i guess.

Hell, i saw this thing on TV where some scientists put this guy in a bath tub full of beer and in a half hour came out with a higher blood alcohol level thatn when he went in, as the breathalyser test he took afterwards showed.

This talk radio show i listen to had a guy inhale liquor through some sort of alcohol fumigator that was just invented and it got him s***faced, lol.

The next thing you know, they'll have weed lotion that'll mess you up, haha.

It's all about getting into the bloodstream so it can finally hit the brain. There are creative methods but most ideas are simple. And unhealthy. That's probably how and why people get cancer nowadays. They put foreign chemicals in the body internally and exernally that affects in the worst physical way possible.

I don't think anyone is arguing that smoke is bad for you. But, you know, I would understand the argument if only smokers got lung cancer...of pot or otherwise. However, there are different kinds of lung cancer, and even the most typical found in those who smoke is not restricted to smokers only. Heart disease is the same. There are a lot of cases that are found in smokers, but it also appears in non-smokers.

It pays to have dated a doctor, sometimes. An ex of mine is a doctor in Boston, and we were just discussing this thread. He informs me that we're all right in that indulging in anything to excess is bad for your body. However, the studies he has read (and we used to get high together) indicate that occasional pot use, in the form of smoke, is not that bad for you. The lungs and body are designed to take care of themselves. So, when you smoke pot on occasion, the smoke is neatly packaged and removed by the bodies natural processes. And, in regards to the other chemicals found in marijuana, those are actually, in small doses, good for the body. He also informs me that most of the published negative side effects of THC are short-term, and that the body once again kicks in to take care of itself. But, he also points out that a person who smokes one or two joints everyday are, depending on the individuals body, just as likely to suffer the negative side effects as with any over indulgence, of smoking pot. He also states that doctors prescribe pot to people who are undergoing chemo as a method of curbing nausia; and to others due to its ability to increase appetite, in regards to a particular disease from which they may be suffering. He closed the conversation with the fact that pot is actually encouraged by many psychiatrists due to it's less than negative side effects on the body, and calming qualitites.

Not that I expect anyone to take an IM conversation I have with an ex to heart, but I'm satisfied.