On the recurrence of discussions

[The Good Reverend Roger]

dumbass,

I am now convinced that you can't be taken seriously, even in casual conversation.

Enjoy your butthurt and your religious zeal.

[AFK]

dumbass,

I am now convinced that you can't be taken seriously, even in casual conversation.

Enjoy your butthurt and your religious zeal.

Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot the game rules here, that I'm only able to be on the receiving end of name-calling.  How silly of me.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

They take positions on medical marijuana, smoked medical marijuana, and marijuana smoked illegally.

Why would they risk their reputation to publish articles in favor of all of the above?

I could only speculate without reading actual articles.

That's very interesting, as passages from the articles, their sources, and links to them were all posted more than once.

Odd that you felt it appropriate to comment on them in other threads without reading them....

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Tell me what you need to learn and I'll point you in the right direction.

I need to learn more about the following things:
• the privatized prison industry

I can't help you with that one.  We have county jails and state prisons in Maine.

• Why America has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, in spite of a 15 year trend of decreasing rates of violent crime

Take a statistics class.  Something can be going down but still be the highest per capita compared to others.  It just means others are going down faster or were a lot lower, per capita, to begin with.

Please don't tell me you are unaware of the incredible INCREASE in incarceration in our country since 1980. Incarceration rates have quadrupled. Your answer doesn't make any sense, and simply appears evasive.

[AFK]

They take positions on medical marijuana, smoked medical marijuana, and marijuana smoked illegally.

Why would they risk their reputation to publish articles in favor of all of the above?

I could only speculate without reading actual articles.

That's very interesting, as passages from the articles, their sources, and links to them were all posted more than once.

Odd that you felt it appropriate to comment on them in other threads without reading them....

Well Sherlock, lots of articles have been posted in lots of these threads, you'll pardon me if I don't instantly recall everything that's been posted in every drug thread.  So if you want to remind me of a specific article we can talk if you want to play silly games, we can do that too.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

They take positions on medical marijuana, smoked medical marijuana, and marijuana smoked illegally.

Why would they risk their reputation to publish articles in favor of all of the above?

I could only speculate without reading actual articles.

I am endlessly astounded by the sheer quantity of important published articles and books that are, at least seemingly, highly relevant to your field, but which you not only inexplicably have never heard of, but actually outright refuse to read. It's almost like you have an approved list of sources and you can't accept any information that isn't on the approved list.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

They take positions on medical marijuana, smoked medical marijuana, and marijuana smoked illegally.

Why would they risk their reputation to publish articles in favor of all of the above?

I could only speculate without reading actual articles.

I am endlessly astounded by the sheer quantity of important published articles and books that are, at least seemingly, highly relevant to your field, but which you not only inexplicably have never heard of, but actually outright refuse to read. It's almost like you have an approved list of sources and you can't accept any information that isn't on the approved list.

Almost?
He's got those two guys.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

They take positions on medical marijuana, smoked medical marijuana, and marijuana smoked illegally.

Why would they risk their reputation to publish articles in favor of all of the above?

I could only speculate without reading actual articles.

That's very interesting, as passages from the articles, their sources, and links to them were all posted more than once.

Odd that you felt it appropriate to comment on them in other threads without reading them....

Well Sherlock, lots of articles have been posted in lots of these threads, you'll pardon me if I don't instantly recall everything that's been posted in every drug thread.  So if you want to remind me of a specific article we can talk if you want to play silly games, we can do that too.

My dear Watson, here are relevant quotes and hyperlinks to the aforementioned data in question:

Occasional marijuana use does not appear to have long-term adverse effects on lung function, according to new research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Researchers from the University of Alabama at Birmingham and University of California at San Francisco analyzed marijuana and tobacco use among 5,000 black and white men from the national database, CARDIA (Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study), which was intended to determine heart disease risk factors over a 20-year period.

Measuring participants' lung function for air flow and lung volume five times throughout the study period, the researchers found that cigarette smokers saw lung function worsen throughout the 20-year period, but marijuana smokers did not. Only the heaviest pot smokers (more than 20 joints per month) showed decreased lung function throughout the study.

"The more typical amounts of marijuana use among Americans are occasional or low levels," said Dr. Stefan Kertesz, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and principle investigator of the study. "From the standpoint of being a scientist, these data suggest that low and moderate range use of marijuana do not do long-term harm."

Source:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/occasional-pot-smoking-harm-lung-function-time-study/story?id=15331989#.T9NT4K55USM

The following is from The National Cancer Institute:

One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors.[3] During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo .[4] In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.[5-8]

Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis and metastasis.[9-11] Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.[12]

The effects of delta-9-THC and a synthetic agonist of the CB2 receptor were investigated in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).[13] Both agents reduced the viability of hepatocellular carcinoma cells in vitro and demonstrated antitumor effects in hepatocellular carcinoma subcutaneous xenografts in nude mice. The investigations documented that the anti-HCC effects are mediated by way of the CB2 receptor. Similar to findings in glioma cells, the cannabinoids were shown to trigger cell death through stimulation of an endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway that activates autophagy and promotes apoptosis. Other investigations have confirmed that CB1 and CB2 receptors may be potential targets in non-small cell lung carcinoma[14] and breast cancer.[15]

In an in vivo model using severe combined immunodeficient mice, subcutaneous tumors were generated by inoculating the animals with cells from human non-small cell lung carcinoma cell lines.[16] Tumor growth was inhibited by 60% in THC-treated mice compared with vehicle-treated control mice. Tumor specimens revealed that THC had antiangiogenic and antiproliferative effects. However, research with immunocompetent murine tumor models has demonstrated immunosuppression and enhanced tumor growth in mice treated with THC.[17,18]

In addition, both plant-derived and endogenous cannabinoids have been studied for anti-inflammatory effects. A mouse study demonstrated that endogenous cannabinoid system signaling is likely to provide intrinsic protection against colonic inflammation.[19] As a result, a hypothesis that phytocannabinoids and endocannabinoids may be useful in the risk reduction and treatment of colorectal cancer has been developed.[20-23]

Adams IB, Martin BR: Cannabis: pharmacology and toxicology in animals and humans. Addiction 91 (11): 1585-614, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Grotenhermen F, Russo E, eds.: Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, 2002.

National Toxicology Program .: NTP toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of 1-trans-delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (CAS No. 1972-08-3) in F344 rats and B6C3F1 mice (gavage studies). Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser 446 (): 1-317, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Bifulco M, Laezza C, Pisanti S, et al.: Cannabinoids and cancer: pros and cons of an antitumour strategy. Br J Pharmacol 148 (2): 123-35, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Sánchez C, de Ceballos ML, Gomez del Pulgar T, et al.: Inhibition of glioma growth in vivo by selective activation of the CB(2) cannabinoid receptor. Cancer Res 61 (15): 5784-9, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]

McKallip RJ, Lombard C, Fisher M, et al.: Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease. Blood 100 (2): 627-34, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Casanova ML, Blázquez C, Martínez-Palacio J, et al.: Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors. J Clin Invest 111 (1): 43-50, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Blázquez C, González-Feria L, Alvarez L, et al.: Cannabinoids inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway in gliomas. Cancer Res 64 (16): 5617-23, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Guzmán M: Cannabinoids: potential anticancer agents. Nat Rev Cancer 3 (10): 745-55, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Blázquez C, Casanova ML, Planas A, et al.: Inhibition of tumor angiogenesis by cannabinoids. FASEB J 17 (3): 529-31, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Vaccani A, Massi P, Colombo A, et al.: Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through a cannabinoid receptor-independent mechanism. Br J Pharmacol 144 (: 1032-6, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Torres S, Lorente M, Rodríguez-Fornés F, et al.: A combined preclinical therapy of cannabinoids and temozolomide against glioma. Mol Cancer Ther 10 (1): 90-103, 2011.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Vara D, Salazar M, Olea-Herrero N, et al.: Anti-tumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma: role of AMPK-dependent activation of autophagy. Cell Death Differ 18 (7): 1099-111, 2011.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Preet A, Qamri Z, Nasser MW, et al.: Cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, as novel targets for inhibition of non-small cell lung cancer growth and metastasis. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 4 (1): 65-75, 2011.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Nasser MW, Qamri Z, Deol YS, et al.: Crosstalk between chemokine receptor CXCR4 and cannabinoid receptor CB2 in modulating breast cancer growth and invasion. PLoS One 6 (9): e23901, 2011.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Preet A, Ganju RK, Groopman JE: Delta9-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo. Oncogene 27 (3): 339-46, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Zhu LX, Sharma S, Stolina M, et al.: Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits antitumor immunity by a CB2 receptor-mediated, cytokine-dependent pathway. J Immunol 165 (1): 373-80, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]

McKallip RJ, Nagarkatti M, Nagarkatti PS: Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol enhances breast cancer growth and metastasis by suppression of the antitumor immune response. J Immunol 174 (6): 3281-9, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Massa F, Marsicano G, Hermann H, et al.: The endogenous cannabinoid system protects against colonic inflammation. J Clin Invest 113 (: 1202-9, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Patsos HA, Hicks DJ, Greenhough A, et al.: Cannabinoids and cancer: potential for colorectal cancer therapy. Biochem Soc Trans 33 (Pt 4): 712-4, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Liu WM, Fowler DW, Dalgleish AG: Cannabis-derived substances in cancer therapy--an emerging anti-inflammatory role for the cannabinoids. Curr Clin Pharmacol 5 (4): 281-7, 2010.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Malfitano AM, Ciaglia E, Gangemi G, et al.: Update on the endocannabinoid system as an anticancer target. Expert Opin Ther Targets 15 (3): 297-308, 2011.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Sarfaraz S, Adhami VM, Syed DN, et al.: Cannabinoids for cancer treatment: progress and promise. Cancer Res 68 (2): 339-42, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Mechoulam R, Berry EM, Avraham Y, et al.: Endocannabinoids, feeding and suckling--from our perspective. Int J Obes (Lond) 30 (Suppl 1): S24-8, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Fride E, Bregman T, Kirkham TC: Endocannabinoids and food intake: newborn suckling and appetite regulation in adulthood. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 230 (4): 225-34, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Walker JM, Hohmann AG, Martin WJ, et al.: The neurobiology of cannabinoid analgesia. Life Sci 65 (6-7): 665-73, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Meng ID, Manning BH, Martin WJ, et al.: An analgesia circuit activated by cannabinoids. Nature 395 (6700): 381-3, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Walker JM, Huang SM, Strangman NM, et al.: Pain modulation by release of the endogenous cannabinoid anandamide. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96 (21): 12198-203, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Facci L, Dal Toso R, Romanello S, et al.: Mast cells express a peripheral cannabinoid receptor with differential sensitivity to anandamide and palmitoylethanolamide. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92 (: 3376-80, 1995.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Ibrahim MM, Porreca F, Lai J, et al.: CB2 cannabinoid receptor activation produces antinociception by stimulating peripheral release of endogenous opioids. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102 (: 3093-8, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Richardson JD, Kilo S, Hargreaves KM: Cannabinoids reduce hyperalgesia and inflammation via interaction with peripheral CB1 receptors. Pain 75 (1): 111-9, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]

[The Johnny]

By the way, mapping out a debate requires a truckload of resources invested, and by that i mean, someone slaving over all the drug threads interpreting each sentence into a category of an argument, then grouping together all the pro/con sentences/paragraphs to that particular argument, and EVEN THEN you cant be sure your interpretation of any given paragraph is the ultimate word or correct.

That's in part why i suggested that people that are seriously interested in debating this topic, that havent taken part in (or read) all of the shitfests should reread them threads, thats as close as a solution one can get for the newly involved.

Maybe if those newly involved saw the background of the discussion, could possibly see the dead ends in the discussion, the latest one to me seems to be "prohibition can be good", although i think it has been adressed before.

[AFK]

I addressed both of those Net.


One talks about occassional use, and I provided a separate link that had more excerpts where they noted the findings weren't applicable to regular, habitual use.  But, it is a scientific finding which is why a scientific journal published the findings.  OH MY GOSH!


The other one is about FORCE FEEDING mice marijuana.  The mice didn't smoke the marijuana.  And I've said several times that there are likely appropriate vehicles for medical marijuana, but that the popular smoked form isn't one of them.  It is crude, introduces a chemical laden smoke to the lungs, and is highly prone to diversion.  There should be more research to study medical benefits and figure out a better way to administer the drug.

[East Coast Hustle]

I like how this attempt to dissect the mechanisms of debate regarding threads that always devolve into a shitshow has, itself, turned into one of those threads.



Christ, sometimes you guys are a steaming pack of assholes. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I like how this attempt to dissect the mechanisms of debate regarding threads that always devolve into a shitshow has, itself, turned into one of those threads.



Christ, sometimes you guys are a steaming pack of assholes. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

Well, I can say that if my asshole had vocal chords, I could probably more clearly state my position.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I addressed both of those Net.


One talks about occassional use, and I provided a separate link that had more excerpts where they noted the findings weren't applicable to regular, habitual use.  But, it is a scientific finding which is why a scientific journal published the findings.  OH MY GOSH!


The other one is about FORCE FEEDING mice marijuana.  The mice didn't smoke the marijuana.  And I've said several times that there are likely appropriate vehicles for medical marijuana, but that the popular smoked form isn't one of them.  It is crude, introduces a chemical laden smoke to the lungs, and is highly prone to diversion.  There should be more research to study medical benefits and figure out a better way to administer the drug.

The first talks about typical use which is applicable to prohibition as it is TYPICAL of how the drug is used. What you're talking about is abuse and not only is atypical, but is less prevalent.

You asked to see these articles in order to comment on why an organizations would publish articles favorable to typical marijuana use. I'm not surprised to see that you resorted to the same sort of distorting rhetoric that you've been blasted for in the recent past. So you don't dispute the scientific validity of any of the studies above?

The second article involves MANY MANY more studies than ones involving force feeding mice marijuana. Did you just happen to miss the list of studies that support the National Cancer Institute's position? Or did you stop reading after the mouse part?

[AFK]

So you should easily be able to tell me exactly how many of those studies, and which ones, involved the smoked form of marijuana. 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

So you should easily be able to tell me exactly how many of those studies, and which ones, involved the smoked form of marijuana. 

You asked me to present you the studies, you tell me, Watson.

Not that smoked marijuana has much relevance to it's medicinal use, but have at it.