The Great Cannabis Debate

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

  1. The purpose of this particular thread was to be academic (correct me if im wrong OP) with evidence based claims.

    Im not opposed to opening it up to relation to bodybuilding but I wanna see numbers.
    By believing passionately in something that still does not exist, we create it. The nonexistent is whatever we have not sufficiently desired.
    Franz Kafka

  2. purebred
    purebred's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by OrganicShadow View Post
    The purpose of this particular thread was to be academic (correct me if im wrong OP) with evidence based claims.

    Im not opposed to opening it up to relation to bodybuilding but I wanna see numbers.
    This. All ideas and non-biased contributions are welcomed. It's easier to understand any topic when you view the many aspects that compose it.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by OrganicShadow View Post
    The purpose of this particular thread was to be academic (correct me if im wrong OP) with evidence based claims.

    Im not opposed to opening it up to relation to bodybuilding but I wanna see numbers.
    But the problem with that is that research studies on marijuana were illegal until JUST recently, and even then, only a very select few universities are able to get funding to do so. So between the 60's I think to about 5 years ago or so, there was a marijuana-research blackout, and lies and propaganda filled the void. So much so, that people FIRMLY believe the lies because there is no scientific truth to rebut the lies with. As such, creating a thread restricting information only to scientific research studies will restrict you to the propaganda in the 60's, but by opening it up, you will be allowing other viewpoints in. Just my opinion.
    P.S.
    Remember Superdrol was supposed to be liver friendly as far as science and research was concerned. WE know better. Had the OP limited THAT discussion to science only, he would have been misled. Sometimes anecdotal evidence goes a long way.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by diablosho View Post
    But the problem with that is that research studies on marijuana were illegal until JUST recently, and even then, only a very select few universities are able to get funding to do so. So between the 60's I think to about 5 years ago or so, there was a marijuana-research blackout, and lies and propaganda filled the void. So much so, that people FIRMLY believe the lies because there is no scientific truth to rebut the lies with. As such, creating a thread restricting information only to scientific research studies will restrict you to the propaganda in the 60's, but by opening it up, you will be allowing other viewpoints in. Just my opinion.
    P.S.
    Remember Superdrol was supposed to be liver friendly as far as science and research was concerned. WE know better. Had the OP limited THAT discussion to science only, he would have been misled. Sometimes anecdotal evidence goes a long way.
    There is a phenomenal amount of medical research on marijuana. America is only 300MM people out of 6.5B, research has been done millions of times over, regardless if it was performed here or not. There is no shortage of marijuana research to talk about.
    The Historic PES Legend

  5. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    There is a phenomenal amount of medical research on marijuana. America is only 300MM people out of 6.5B, research has been done millions of times over, regardless if it was performed here or not. There is no shortage of marijuana research to talk about.
    True. I'm just saying we are more likely to find research information presented from and in our country. Not to mention the fact that America has always been an EXTREMELY LARGE monetary fund for research studies, more so I believe than any other country. However, if you look here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...juana-research, not only were the grants restricted to very limited purposes for research, but they even denied people based on their intentions! One scientist in that link wrote a proposition to get funding to study the medical effects of marijuana and was denied. He then re-wrote the proposition claiming to study the negative effects of marijuana, and was approved. So again, accurate research is limited. I have never seen ANY research from other countries, positive or negative. However, if we open up to anecdotal evidence, there may be 10's of millions of people doing the studies as we speak! So why not ask them, so long as we keep it objective.
    P.S.
    Cannabis is a Schedule I drug according to the federal government of the United States. Other Schedule I drugs include Heroin, LSD, and Ecstasy. Schedule I states that the drug has no safe nor accepted medical use, and has a high abuse risk. Seems like our government has a bias against marijuana (as I'm sure everyone would believe that it does have at least SOME redeeming medicinal value, is relatively safe (safer than alcohol anyways), and has less of an addiction potential than Heroin). As such, I find it hard to believe they would be willing to fund research studies attempting to prove it's safety. Hell, they won't even fund research studies attempting to disprove global warming. But anecdotally, I'm fairly certain that many people suspect this global warming thing is a hoax, and it sure would be nice to have research funded to counteract the bias, and actually attempt to find the truth. Kinda the same principle.
    •   
       


  6. Ha, I just found that Schedule II drugs (which are "more accepted" than Schedule I) include: Cocaine, Morphine, Oxycodone, Ritalin, and Dexedrine (Dextroamphetamine). Schedule III: Valium, Xanax, Codeine, Hydrocodone, etc.

    So now, to recap, according to our government:
    Marijuana has no medicinal value, and is more unsafe than: Cocaine, Morphine, Oxycodone, Ritalin, Dexedrine, Valium, Xanax, Codeine, Hydrocodone,

    and is as unsafe as: Heroin, LSD, and Ecstasy!

    Do we really need a research study to get marijuana scheduled differently? Probably not. As such, I believe this is pretty clear evidence of a federal bias against marijuana, for whatever reason, but to think that bias wouldn't carry over into it's decisions on what marijuana studies to fund is, I believe, kinda ludicrous.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by diablosho View Post
    True. I'm just saying we are more likely to find research information presented from and in our country. Not to mention the fact that America has always been an EXTREMELY LARGE monetary fund for research studies, more so I believe than any other country. However, if you look here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...juana-research, not only were the grants restricted to very limited purposes for research, but they even denied people based on their intentions! One scientist in that link wrote a proposition to get funding to study the medical effects of marijuana and was denied. He then re-wrote the proposition claiming to study the negative effects of marijuana, and was approved. So again, accurate research is limited. I have never seen ANY research from other countries, positive or negative. However, if we open up to anecdotal evidence, there may be 10's of millions of people doing the studies as we speak! So why not ask them, so long as we keep it objective.
    P.S.
    Cannabis is a Schedule I drug according to the federal government of the United States. Other Schedule I drugs include Heroin, LSD, and Ecstasy. Schedule I states that the drug has no safe nor accepted medical use, and has a high abuse risk. Seems like our government has a bias against marijuana (as I'm sure everyone would believe that it does have at least SOME redeeming medicinal value, is relatively safe (safer than alcohol anyways), and has less of an addiction potential than Heroin). As such, I find it hard to believe they would be willing to fund research studies attempting to prove it's safety. Hell, they won't even fund research studies attempting to disprove global warming. But anecdotally, I'm fairly certain that many people suspect this global warming thing is a hoax, and it sure would be nice to have research funded to counteract the bias, and actually attempt to find the truth. Kinda the same principle.
    I think you are missing much of the available research out there then. Pubmed alone has 16K studies under the title marijuana or cannabis, and many of them originate from other countries. In fact most of the research posted on this forum is from other countries. China and Japan seem to predominately lead the research categories, with Italy and India not far behind. JAMA if I remember correctly has published quite a bit of research in the past.

    I completely agree with you that the image has been warped in America, mostly by our fearful cotton industry. Everyone has the right to share their experience, but if we want to discuss facts, then we need to keep to the research and disregard Joe Smiths totally blazed evening on a thursday with so much focus in the gym it was laser like.
    The Historic PES Legend

  8. Quote Originally Posted by diablosho View Post
    Ha, I just found that Schedule II drugs (which are "more accepted" than Schedule I) include: Cocaine, Morphine, Oxycodone, Ritalin, and Dexedrine (Dextroamphetamine). Schedule III: Valium, Xanax, Codeine, Hydrocodone, etc.

    So now, to recap, according to our government:
    Marijuana has no medicinal value, and is more unsafe than: Cocaine, Morphine, Oxycodone, Ritalin, Dexedrine, Valium, Xanax, Codeine, Hydrocodone,

    and is as unsafe as: Heroin, LSD, and Ecstasy!

    Do we really need a research study to get marijuana scheduled differently? Probably not. As such, I believe this is pretty clear evidence of a federal bias against marijuana, for whatever reason, but to think that bias wouldn't carry over into it's decisions on what marijuana studies to fund is, I believe, kinda ludicrous.
    You can thank lobbyist from the cotton industry for the stance on cannabis in America today. It wasn't so much the government that had the bias, but pressure from their constituents to outlaw it when the fear campaign was launched. I refer you to reefer madness.
    The Historic PES Legend

  9. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    You can thank lobbyist from the cotton industry for the stance on cannabis in America today. It wasn't so much the government that had the bias, but pressure from their constituents to outlaw it when the fear campaign was launched. I refer you to reefer madness.
    Frustrating isn't it! I totally agree we need to keep out Joe Blow's Blazed Weekend! But as we find to be true even with our supplements, often times the research does not accurately reflect reality, and it would not be prudent to ignore people's individual studies. But I s'pose for now it would be prudent just to assist in wading through all the BS and stick to what facts we do have. How recently were these pubmed studies performed? I tried to look through EBSCO, but it seems to be down at the moment.
    P.S.
    I like debating you DAdams!!! It's not often people are well prepared for a debate, and I find a good debate challenges me to learn and either reinforce what I know or learn the correct information! Either way, this is fun!

  10. Quote Originally Posted by diablosho View Post
    Frustrating isn't it! I totally agree we need to keep out Joe Blow's Blazed Weekend! But as we find to be true even with our supplements, often times the research does not accurately reflect reality, and it would not be prudent to ignore people's individual studies. But I s'pose for now it would be prudent just to assist in wading through all the BS and stick to what facts we do have. How recently were these pubmed studies performed? I tried to look through EBSCO, but it seems to be down at the moment.
    P.S.
    I like debating you DAdams!!! It's not often people are well prepared for a debate, and I find a good debate challenges me to learn and either reinforce what I know or learn the correct information! Either way, this is fun!
    My searches pulled all the way back into the 50s into 2011... ironically many of them seem to come from Germany! I personally really have no stance on it at the moment so am always open to others opinions on it. Albeit, I firmly stand by the ability for mature adults to make their own decisions on the use of cannabis, especially in a climate like this where everyone is partaking anyway and we could tax the hell outta some Marlboro greens and gain stepping stone to resolving our deficit.

    There are obviously medical benefits to MaryJane or otherwise pharma wouldn't have made Marinol, a synthetic THC.
    The Historic PES Legend

  11. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    My searches pulled all the way back into the 50s into 2011... ironically many of them seem to come from Germany! I personally really have no stance on it at the moment so am always open to others opinions on it. Albeit, I firmly stand by the ability for mature adults to make their own decisions on the use of cannabis, especially in a climate like this where everyone is partaking anyway and we could tax the hell outta some Marlboro greens and gain stepping stone to resolving our deficit.

    There are obviously medical benefits to MaryJane or otherwise pharma wouldn't have made Marinol, a synthetic THC.
    Very true. I'm also impartial, as I haven't smoked in a while, nor do I intend to. Just tired of being out of my right mind. But I am always willing to allow a responsible adult to do anything that only involves them. My problems arise when it begins to involve others (children, family members, friends, unsuspecting motorists, etc.)

  12. Quote Originally Posted by OrganicShadow View Post
    In response to anything from drugwarfacts.org

    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"
    -Mark Twain

    Find real evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by OrganicShadow View Post
    The purpose of this particular thread was to be academic (correct me if im wrong OP) with evidence based claims.

    Im not opposed to opening it up to relation to bodybuilding but I wanna see numbers.
    There isn't much else to the topic of long term effects in the scientific field. So far, the only documented bad long term effects of smoking marijuana have to do with your lungs getting filled with tar and carbon. Any short term cognitive effects tend to go away after a while of not ingesting marijuana.

    Strangely enough, marijuana can also cause anxiety during a come down from a high because of the anxiolytic effects of the high. The high relaxes you but as you come down you can experience anxiety that "rebounds" even stronger than it was before. But like the cognitive effects, this should return to normal if you don't blaze after a while.

    At my university (UCR), there is one professor who is allowed to work with marijuana. He is the only one and it's very strictly monitored. As more professors are allowed to study it, we should find out more info on it as time comes.

    This study shows just how complicated it all is:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...24320505006727

    "cannabinoids have other targets than CB receptors"

    Not even the signalling mechanisms of cannabinoids are understood. If we don't know what it's signalling and setting off in the brain how can we even know what the effects are?


    Anyways, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the academic portion of this thread is exhausted. We just don't know what it does! So, just keep to the vaporizers and edibles to save your lungs (can't workout if you can't breathe) and keep on toking! If you smoke everyday, try taking a day or two off every month to keep your tolerance down, save money, and give your brain a break.


    edit: if anyone else has some academic info please post it up--otherwise, on to personal experiences!

  13. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post

    There are obviously medical benefits to MaryJane or otherwise pharma wouldn't have made Marinol, a synthetic THC.
    They're trying to figure out a way to copy it's pain relieving effects. Marinol sucks because it's only THC and weed contains "at least 66 other cannabinoids (cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN) and tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), etc.) which can result in different effects from those of THC alone. "
    http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/66/1/95

    A pain drug that's not (physically) addictive and can't cause an overdose is the holy grail of the pharmaceutical industry.

    This is another interesting effect of thc... I wrote a bio paper on the topic.

    "THC initiates brain cells to destroy themselves"
    http://www.worldhealth.net/news/thc_...cells_to_dest/

  14. Quote Originally Posted by raptor20561 View Post
    They're trying to figure out a way to copy it's pain relieving effects. Marinol sucks because it's only THC and weed contains "at least 66 other cannabinoids (cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN) and tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), etc.) which can result in different effects from those of THC alone. "
    http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/66/1/95

    A pain drug that's not (physically) addictive and can't cause an overdose is the holy grail of the pharmaceutical industry.

    This is another interesting effect of thc... I wrote a bio paper on the topic.

    "THC initiates brain cells to destroy themselves"
    http://www.worldhealth.net/news/thc_...cells_to_dest/
    This is incorrect a bit. Marinol is not a pain medication, but instead is intended for nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy. Also loss of appetite, as to hopefully avoid chronic weight loss in both cancer and aids patients.

    I am sure there are some using off label use of it.
    The Historic PES Legend

  15. Quote Originally Posted by raptor20561 View Post
    They're trying to figure out a way to copy it's pain relieving effects. Marinol sucks because it's only THC and weed contains "at least 66 other cannabinoids (cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN) and tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), etc.) which can result in different effects from those of THC alone. "
    http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/66/1/95

    A pain drug that's not (physically) addictive and can't cause an overdose is the holy grail of the pharmaceutical industry.

    This is another interesting effect of thc... I wrote a bio paper on the topic.

    "THC initiates brain cells to destroy themselves"
    http://www.worldhealth.net/news/thc_...cells_to_dest/
    wow anti-cancerous benefits! ive never heard of that one, great news!
    BJJ = life

  16. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    This is incorrect a bit. Marinol is not a pain medication, but instead is intended for nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy. Also loss of appetite, as to hopefully avoid chronic weight loss in both cancer and aids patients.

    I am sure there are some using off label use of it.
    Probably because its pain relieving properties sucked so they had to figure out how else to market it in order to make money. Most of marijuana's pain properties come from the CBDs as opposed to the THC.

    I doubt they sat down in the lab and decided to create a medication for nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite... but who knows maybe that was their intention. I think they were trying to make a pain med that ended up not testing well for pain management (or anything for that matter).

  17. Quote Originally Posted by AntonG42O View Post
    wow anti-cancerous benefits! ive never heard of that one, great news!
    Yup, in vitro at least. But don't go smoking marijuana thinking it's going to prevent cancer. If you're not vaping or baking, you're GREATLY increasing chances of lung disease.


    "Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers"
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0123104017.htm


    On top of that, unless you're growing your own **** the stuff you're smoking is full of pesticides, moldicides, and god knows what else. Never realized this until I started meeting a few growers and visiting their operations. They blast the plants early in order to prevent mold, mildew and pests (pests are more of a worry outdoors). Usually, growers stop a week or two before harvesting so that you're not smoking as much of the stuff; however, most growers continue spraying up until harvest as protection against anything that can ruin their 8+ weeks of hard work. Would you rather spray the weed you're growing up until harvest or risk loosing thousands of dollars of marijuana to mold or mildew? Most growers will spray...

  18. I'm not so if its true that smoking cannabis can cause lung failure or lung cancer as previously mentioned. I think the lungs are resiliant ( think of all the pullutants we take in everyday ) and a little of bit added to that isn't going to cause issue. The native americans would smoke certain plants TO HELP THE LUNGS.... its a great way to get medicine directly to the area.

    There were studies done with chronic cannabis smokers after 20 years showed no signs of lung disease. Compare this with the group that smoked cigarettes where a large protion did. I think cigs seem to be used as the comparison for any plant matter smoked in the minds of a lot of people and researchers, and that, if true is certainly unfair. Most smoked plant material does not have xxx hundreds of bad chemicals added to them. And its not like we are talking about people putting them mouths over a tailpipe or standing over a camp fire intentionally breathing in large quantities of smoke.... and yet back to the native population again, did they not often ( nightly ) sit around campfires?

    That being said I probably think vapin is the way to go still. But I wouldn't worry too much about smoking it, there has been no correlation or scientific study that show cannabis causes lung failure/disease even with CHRONIC users over 20 years.
  19. purebred
    purebred's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by protoculture View Post
    I'm not so if its true that smoking cannabis can cause lung failure or lung cancer as previously mentioned. I think the lungs are resiliant ( think of all the pullutants we take in everyday ) and a little of bit added to that isn't going to cause issue. The native americans would smoke certain plants TO HELP THE LUNGS.... its a great way to get medicine directly to the area.

    There were studies done with chronic cannabis smokers after 20 years showed no signs of lung disease. Compare this with the group that smoked cigarettes where a large protion did. I think cigs seem to be used as the comparison for any plant matter smoked in the minds of a lot of people and researchers, and that, if true is certainly unfair. Most smoked plant material does not have xxx hundreds of bad chemicals added to them. And its not like we are talking about people putting them mouths over a tailpipe or standing over a camp fire intentionally breathing in large quantities of smoke.... and yet back to the native population again, did they not often ( nightly ) sit around campfires?

    That being said I probably think vapin is the way to go still. But I wouldn't worry too much about smoking it, there has been no correlation or scientific study that show cannabis causes lung failure/disease even with CHRONIC users over 20 years.
    Isn't all the talk about respiratory damage concerning combustion of the herbal matter? Smoke will always be smoke and it will never be beneficial to the human body. There's a reason why people run out of burning buildings aside from the fear of being burned alive. Smoke inhalation is what kills people during fires--not so much the actual fires. Know what I mean?

  20. Quote Originally Posted by purebred View Post
    Isn't all the talk about respiratory damage concerning combustion of the herbal matter? Smoke will always be smoke and it will never be beneficial to the human body. There's a reason why people run out of burning buildings aside from the fear of being burned alive. Smoke inhalation is what kills people during fires--not so much the actual fires. Know what I mean?
    This is correct. Regardless of how many burning chemicals, inhaling carcinogens are a detriment to lung tissue. Not to mention there is a reason peoples smoking utensils become clogged with "Resin".
    The Historic PES Legend
  21. purebred
    purebred's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    This is correct. Regardless of how many burning chemicals, inhaling carcinogens are a detriment to lung tissue. Not to mention there is a reason peoples smoking utensils become clogged with "Resin".
    Regarding to your post which I responded to then, doesn't this contradict the first part/paragraph of that post? Regardless of what you're smoking, if you're "smoking" it (i.e. by means of combustion) then the detrimental effects on the lungs will present themselves, no?

  22. Quote Originally Posted by purebred View Post
    Regarding to your post which I responded to then, doesn't this contradict the first part/paragraph of that post? Regardless of what you're smoking, if you're "smoking" it (i.e. by means of combustion) then the detrimental effects on the lungs will present themselves, no?
    I believe you got me confused with Protoculture.
    The Historic PES Legend
  23. purebred
    purebred's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    I believe you got me confused with Protoculture.
    You're absolutely right. I'm highly sleep-deprived and stressed out about my exam tomorrow LOL Sorry about that brother!!

  24. Quote Originally Posted by purebred View Post
    The title should be self-explanatory and fairly suggestive. With so much controversy surrounding the pot issue, I wanted to get a feel for what you folks here at AM believe and think. I want this thread to remain as factual, scientific and non-bias as possible. None of that "I think weed is bad because my friend does it and he's a loser" or "Well, I don't believe in smoking weed because it's bad for you..my mommy told me so!"

    #1: You don't have to believe in something for it to exist. Your approval never has been/will be/is required for the world to keep turning
    #2: Let's get some originality going in this thread. Most threads like this turn to crap because some knucklehead gets all emotional about the way someone "typed" something that appeared to be disrespectful. It's the internet, folks. Leave your problems at the door.

    None of us our scientists but it doesn't mean we have to judge anyone for a personal choice they make. There should be no low-blows, name-calling and any foul play on here. I want all participants in this thread to do their utmost in presenting the FACTS with references. No "facts" w/o references. That's called opinion.

    Now that we have that little disclaimer out of the way: What is the big deal with pot? Anyone seen "The Union: The Business Behind Getting High"? Great eye-opener for the topic of cannabis/hemp.

    What are the documented negative effects of occasional use of marijuana?
    (We're not talking about someone who smokes 10 grams every day, alone BTW)
    I have watched this. VERY good watch
    LG Sciences Board Rep
    These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA, do not constitute medical advice, and are not official or authorized comments by LG Sciences, LLC.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by purebred View Post
    Isn't all the talk about respiratory damage concerning combustion of the herbal matter? Smoke will always be smoke and it will never be beneficial to the human body. There's a reason why people run out of burning buildings aside from the fear of being burned alive. Smoke inhalation is what kills people during fires--not so much the actual fires. Know what I mean?
    its not the same when it comes to Cannabis. there are alot od chemicals that are good for you in there. yes the smoek is bad but its mor egood then bad over all. for eg for the sake of an example:
    smoke form smoking it is 4 out of 10 bad.
    the chemicals in it are 5 out of 10 good
    leavign you with +1 which means your still in the positive health wise.


    now i knwo thats a waird exmple.

    but i have read studys on SMOKERS of cannabis and smokers of cannabise + tobacco and smokers of just tobacco.

    results: even the ones smoking tobacco AND cannabis where healther then smokers of tobacco alone......
    here is a vide on it:
    YouTube - ‪Dr. Donald Tashkin Marijuana Lung Cancer Study Pt 1 of 2‬‏
    <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GJmQ16cGBHU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    there are a BUNCH out there mostly in europe and other parts of the world , nto as many in USA or Canada.

    I do beleave smoke is bad for you (liek you do) as it always will be but i beleve the positives far outweigh the negitives health wise.
    so smokign weed IS good for you is my op (to an extent ass too much of anyhtign will be bad for you , even water,im talking a couple grams a day not a couple ounces)
    I beleave its good for fighting cancers (some) and i beleave it shoudl be legal.

    herer are a few random vids i remember on hand:
    http://www.youtube.com/embed/0tghUh4ubbg
    EVOLUTION OF cannabanoid receptores:
    YouTube - &#x202a;Science - Humans Wired For THC From Sea Squirt. Via Evolution&#x202c;&rlm;
    LG Sciences Board Rep
    These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA, do not constitute medical advice, and are not official or authorized comments by LG Sciences, LLC.

  26. ANOTHER GREAT VIDEO:
    RUN FROM THE CURE - The Rick Simpson Story
    YouTube - &#x202a;RUN FROM THE CURE - The Rick Simpson Story (Part 1 of 7)&#x202c;&rlm;
    LG Sciences Board Rep
    These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA, do not constitute medical advice, and are not official or authorized comments by LG Sciences, LLC.

  27. I like to smoke at night.
    help me sleep and i beleave it make me healther.
    it will make me lazy wich is my only complaint, but then again i use it at night to help me sleep and dull the back pain from my car accident which also helps me sleep, so lazyness it not as much of an issue. it is if i smoke during day and have alot to do..
    LG Sciences Board Rep
    These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA, do not constitute medical advice, and are not official or authorized comments by LG Sciences, LLC.

  28. Quote Originally Posted by Blergs View Post
    I like to smoke at night.
    help me sleep and i beleave it make me healther.
    it will make me lazy wich is my only complaint, but then again i use it at night to help me sleep and dull the back pain from my car accident which also helps me sleep, so lazyness it not as much of an issue. it is if i smoke during day and have alot to do..
    Were you high when you typed this beautiful post?
    The Historic PES Legend

  29. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Were you high when you typed this beautiful post?
    HAHAHAHAHA! I seriously said the SAME EXACT THING! Dude needs to concentrate on ONE task at hand!
  30. purebred
    purebred's Avatar

    Honestly, I have too much going on to have time to be high LOL. I've stopped smoking. It definitely doesn't enhance my studying since my memory is affected. I don't have time for it. I'm not one of those "functional pot users". I'd probably function better on a glass of wine.l
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. 2 great stories; one great impact
    By sweet-physique in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-15-2007, 11:48 AM
  2. Great deals from Great Companies!
    By stryder in forum Nutraplanet
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-26-2006, 01:38 PM
  3. Great Debate: Glutamine worth the money??
    By YellowJacket in forum Supplements
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-25-2004, 07:22 PM
Log in
Log in