Jump to content

Heavy marijuana use not linked to lung cancer


Recommended Posts

in short, don't throw stones in a glass house.

 

 

Meaning? Is this an insult? Because I don't recall accusing you of anything. I asked a question.

 

That said, I am asking about the individual persons response to the idea that they may be funding organised crime. Am I not allowed to do that in this forum?

 

America holds personal liberty as a high priority. Does personal liberty not go hand-in-hand with personal responsibility?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 330
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well other than aaronlewis89's :filtered: comments I'd have to say this thread is going right well... :)

 

Proud of y'all... and no I ain't been smokin... :lol: v

Link to post
Share on other sites

I GOT IT THE FIRST TIME BRUCE!

 

That's why I used the word SEEM! I said it MAY SEEM! Get it?

 

How did that go over your head?

 

If you think I am a "know it from the manual" person then you really don't get me. Worse than that, you must think that is how doctors in general are. Guess what? We're not. This ain't metal shop or flower arranging. Why do you think the hours of practical clinical experience we get is by far greater than the hours of classroom?

 

I know you just want to jump on me, but if you read what I typed you will see that I understood you quite well. I typed what I typed the way that I typed it because I knew that there would be some people who would not get you. I in fact got an email about it that showed that at least one person did not get you.

EDIT: Since you mention the DSM...it is now DSM-IVR. In the past addiction was described as a physical dependency to a substance that resulted in withdrawal symptoms in its absence. The DSM-IV moves more toward a diagnosis that classifies such conditions as dependency rather than addiction. This reflects a broader movement in thinking within the field in general. You might also want to check out the American Society of Addiction Medicine patient placement criteria and the Addiction Severity Index if you are interested in diagnostics.

 

 

Not interested in reading the lousy manuals with 35 different definitions broke down into 58 different categories, which diverge into sub definitions........ :lol: Did that it in College and and hated every minute of it.

 

BTW my comment was not a dig at you, when I said what I said, it is just a simple fact that the great majority of people are clueless about the disease of addiction, they simply do not understand it, and yes that includes many, many doctors. Some understand it, but it has been my experience that the great majority do not.

Edited by Bruce
Link to post
Share on other sites

absolutely. but personal responsibility does not translate into government control.

 

 

No it doesn't.

 

I don't think I'm making myself clear. I'm not suggesting anyone should stop smoking cannabis. I'm not suggesting people campaign to legalise pot .I asked if people think about the possibility that their money goes to organised crime and how they feel about that. I'm not suggesting whether people should / should not feel guilty or do anything about it. I AM curious as to how it fits in to their view of pot-smoking. Or even if it does at all. I do realise this is off topic but the thread has gone off topic before. Also IF the money funds crime it may be said that, in the broadest sense smoking pot causes many more health risks than cancer (so maybe it's a little more on-topic than it seems).

 

I DO feel that saying "legalise it" whilst it makes sense (and I would support it as a realistic response) evades the question, becasue currently it IS illegal and purchasing it puts money into the hands of criminals. Very few people have answered that question. I'll stop pushing the issue after this, but the silence suggests that maybe people have not considered the consequences of paying criminals and what happens to that money. Is it too problematic? Are people finding it easier to avoid the moral question?

 

As an aside I also feel Chopdoc is getting hard done by for standing up and being counted regarding his views on the issue. Not by you personally badbinary.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As an aside I also feel Chopdoc is getting hard done by for standing up and being counted regarding his views on the issue. Not by you personally badbinary.....

 

Chop can take care of himself around here..hell I get on his case more than anyone at times..but he is always polite and I can't take that away from him even If I disagree with him a whole bunch... :lol: v

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you are talking to an addiction specialist or a psychiatrist, a doctor may or may not be up to date on these matters. Family docs should be up on it as well. Any recent graduate should be because it is part of the basic sciences and is included on the board exams. Ohter docs just don't need to know unless they are interested, often what they do know about it is old because they spend all their time keeping up in their own field.

 

 

 

BTW my comment was not a dig at you

Sorry, thought it was. It's a common type of thing that people toss around without care and I tend to be sensitive to it. ...the whole "book learning" thing...

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I would say this subject would probably be on the Internal Medicine boards as well, but I am not sure. I spent most of my adult life working toward being a surgeon...and I also have a special interest in psychiatry, especially addiction, sexuality, and gender identity issues.

Edited by Chopdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chop can take care of himself around here..hell I get on his case more than anyone at times..but he is always polite and I can't take that away from him even If I disagree with him a whole bunch... :lol: v

 

Oh I know he can, volt, I just wanted to stand shoulder-to-shoulder for a moment - just a moment, mind... it desn't mena we're married or anything.

 

 

 

Although we are.

 

 

 

But not to each other....

 

 

 

 

no I haven't been smoking either....just tired

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I know he can, volt, I just wanted to stand shoulder-to-shoulder for a moment .

 

Hey I agree with him too on some matters..and I say so..just don't happen to agree on this one..no biggie.. :) v

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeeze.

 

Finally somebody on this site believes I am married! :lol:

 

 

 

People hammer at me about that so regularly I was beginning to doubt it myself. :P

 

But then I just reach over and give the wife a squeeze and all is OK. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

well this thread can go on forever, but i have a question, if smoking pot for a pothead is what makes them happy, who has the right to take away someones pursuit of happiness.

 

if people are happy then thats what matters

 

1- Possession is illegal - therefore you DON'T have the legal right to pursue this form of "happiness". No one is taking away your legal right since you don't have any legal right in the first place.

 

2 - The moral right. What I am asking is, do you think you still have the moral right, IF what you do directly or indirectly funds criminal activities. Gun running for example ultimately leads to someone else's unhappiness. Prostitution likewise, pornography similarly.

 

Do you agree that your action (buying drugs from a dealer) has consequences (the money enters the criminal financial world and is then used in ways unknown to you) or do you see your pursuit of this form of happiness as an isolated financial interaction with no consequences?

Edited by paul77
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 - The moral right. What I am asking is, do you think you still have the moral right, IF what you do directly or indirectly funds criminal activities. Gun running for example ultimately leads to someone else's unhappiness. Prostitution likewise, pornography similarly.

 

You trynna start a riot or somethin? :huh:

 

Don't make me get my pitchfork and my torch. Don't be attackin my pr0n! :boxing:

 

:laughing:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul:

 

Lets not make this an ugly little argument about legal and "moral" issues of being a marijuana smoker.

 

Legal rights are sort of the central argument here- the preponderance of evidence seems too support the legalization of the substance when comparing it to other legal substances such as cigarettes and alcohol.

 

The money that goes to criminal organizations is a drop in the bucket compared to that which is lost to executive fraud in the corporate and political lobbyist field. Let's do some moral comparison there.

 

Saying that buying some weed from your dealer is supporting terrorists around the world is quite frankly- absurd. I can understand the link between dealers and certain street gangs, but by legalizing this substance there would be a nearly immediate reduction in income for these groups.

 

I've never once heard of street gangs doing business pushing cigarettes and alchohol, but selling "banned" firearms, drugs and classified substances has become a major source of income for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul:

Lets not make this an ugly little argument about legal and "moral" issues of being a marijuana smoker.[/b

 

If it is ugly isn't that becasue it funds illegal activity? Someone other than me brought in the rights argument; I was unsure of whether we were looking at legal or moral rights, so included both. Whetehr you like it or not pot buyers fund illegal activity to some extent.

 

Legal rights are sort of the central argument here- the preponderance of evidence seems too support the legalization of the substance when comparing it to other legal substances such as cigarettes and alcohol.

No argument from me on that point. I think it should be legalised.

The money that goes to criminal organizations is a drop in the bucket compared to that which is lost to executive fraud in the corporate and political lobbyist field

 

A drop in the bucket - sounds like an evasion to me.

 

. Let's do some moral comparison there.

 

 

OK , lets .Morally, if you give one dollar towards promoting child porn, for example, is that less appaling than giving 10? or 100? or 1000?

 

Saying that buying some weed from your dealer is supporting terrorists around the world is quite frankly- absurd.

 

Buying an illegal item means funding crime. That's the blunt truth. "Absurd" to you, not to me. If you are arguing that your "contribution" to crime is tiny compared to others that does not let you off the hook, it just means others are invlved in illegal activity to a greater extent. "But officer, the OTHER guy was doing 85 in a 25 mph zone, I was only doing 30".

 

I can understand the link between dealers and certain street gangs, but by legalizing this substance there would be a nearly immediate reduction in income for these groups.

 

Agreed. But currently it is illegal - therefore all the money people spend on their pot habit is already in the hands of criminals.

I've never once heard of street gangs doing business pushing cigarettes and alchohol, but selling "banned" firearms, drugs and classified substances has become a major source of income for them.

 

Same argument. Saying that others do it "more" or "worse" does not let you off the hook

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let off the hook- no certainly not. It just seems that there is a double standard between someone who chooses to recreate chemically and gets thrown in jail vs. someone who gets away with corruption and then is let off with what amounts to a slap on the wrist.

 

The health issues aside, there really is not a compelling reason for the drug to remain illegal, and although local constituencies are pushing for civic decriminalization the Feds keep quashing it.... BOO Feds!

Link to post
Share on other sites

well this thread can go on forever, but i have a question, if smoking pot for a pothead is what makes them happy, who has the right to take away someones pursuit of happiness.

 

if people are happy then thats what matters

 

 

There is the matter of public health to consider.

 

Nobody is an island.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let off the hook- no certainly not. It just seems that there is a double standard between someone who chooses to recreate chemically and gets thrown in jail vs. someone who gets away with corruption and then is let off with what amounts to a slap on the wrist.

 

The health issues aside, there really is not a compelling reason for the drug to remain illegal, and although local constituencies are pushing for civic decriminalization the Feds keep quashing it.... BOO Feds!

 

 

I agree it should be reclassified. That is the consensus of the medical community. But to "legalize" it? For recreational use? That would be a backward step for society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doc,

 

I guess you could say the same thing about the repeal of prohibition, but as we found out allowing people to drink was the lesser of the evils.

 

 

All things have their time. I believe that prohibition was right but in the context of the times was not workable. The ideal, to me, would be that eventually such things (alcohol and other drugs) would be no longer used recreationally...no longer even desired.

 

I believe that "legalizing" marijuana would be a backward step and not the lesser evil. Their are very valid arguments for medical research and medical application. I have yet to see what I believe are valid arguments for recreational use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not certain, but that looks like a reply to my post. I don;t believe I have said anything about the "underground" element.

 

I did comment on it when it was introduced by another. I don't see it as a primary point anyway, but it is an interesting one.

 

If you are interested in the public health aspects you might look at such things as presented by the WHO, the AMA, American Public Health Association, and the American Society of Addiction Medicine.

 

My views are in general in line with much of what you will find those organizations advance. One specific contention I hold to is that there is no valid medical use for the route of administration of smoked marijuana.

 

All of those organizations recognize the current and potential medicinal value of this drug(s), and also the real and potential hazards of the smoked form as well as the reality of dependency and other deleterious effects. They call for reclassifying and research. The current classification is not valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

okay, so basically you're not able to state what the 'general public health' concerns are.

 

 

Yes of course I can. I am trying to save some time for myself. I've been pretty busy and in a hurry when I get online.

 

After all it isn't any mystery or secret. Or are you simply challenging the notion that there is a public health concern? The notion of legalization itself is a public health matter whether one is for or against it. This entire topic is a matter of public health. Just check the web sites of the public health departments of various states for the topic.

 

 

 

I have already touched on several points in this thread and covered it more in others.

 

A short and disorganized list of public health points of interest for marijuana:

1) Reclassification of the drug in the US (it should be done)

2) Epidemiological studies involving MVAs

3) Dependence

4) Epidemiological studies of paranoia, hallucinations, impaired or reduced short-term memory, impaired or reduced comprehension, and altered motivation and cognition.

5) Legalization (it should not be IMHO)

6) Guidelines for prescribing, a consensus on regimen (it should not be prescribed by any licensed physician in smoked form IMHO)

7) Funding for biomedical research

8) Education

 

And of course many more points of interest in public health.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...