Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Legalize Mary Jane!

lol, you're talking about a show on VH1 that is in place for ENTERTAINMENT.

anabolic steroids and marijuana aren't physically addicting, but can definitely be psychologically addicting to a person with weak self-control.

I believe if anyone becomes addicted to anything and can't go without it, they are weak.

There are some compounds which can hardwire the brain to become dependant on it. Other's cause a dependance out of habitual use. I guess you could look at either as a form of addiction.

However, breaking those addictions, or being able to recognize you have a problem and get help, is about being a strong enough person to do so.

Sometimes even the strongest willed need support from others, but if someone lets an inanimate object control and ruin their life, then yes I would say that is definitely a weakness.
 
It will definitely help w/your appetite! As far as contra-indications w/other supps, I couldn't say w/any certainty. I definitely wouldn't recommend you smoking BEFORE lifting. Oh and welcome!

I dont think marijuana would have an adverse effect combined with anything, although if you were on a lot of stims I could see it aggrevating anxiety in some cases. You also want to make sure you learn to fill the appetite with good foods, and not junk.
 
Nope, it was a propaganda piece from the 1920s talking about the harmful effects of marijuana.

The movie claimed that when a black man is under the influence of marijuana, he will go on a rampage raping and killing white women :wtf:

The government released it.
 
Here are some intertwined facts and citations from the book...

"The British government recently completed a study that showed marijuana using motorists are LESS LIKELY to get in car wrecks when they're high (source, "Reason" Nov. 2000). Why? The claming effects caused the drivers to drive more cautiously and less recklessly without causing a decrease in reaction times or judgement as seen with indentical studies using alcohol.

Second, there isn't an "astronomical" human toll from marijuana use. The real number of deaths that the government has linked directly to marijuana use? ZERO. That is not to say that marijuana can't cause deaths, just that it hasn't been shown that it does, in fact most researchers now agree that there is no way to overdose on marijuana.

Finally, "amotivational" syndrome is not causally linked with marijuana. This is a simple distortion of science to serve a poltical agenda: correlation does not equal causation and marijuana does not cause amotivational syndrome."

From Chapter 3, 'Marijuana and Addiction':

"Marijuana does not cause PHYSICAL [emphasis added] dependence." This is an important distinction: nictotine, caffeine, and alcohol ALL cause physical dependence.

What about psychological dependence? Physical dependence is the one that is the most dangerous. Anything can be "psychologically addictive." All that means is that people get "addicted" to the pleasure something brings. Sex is psychologically addictive, so are most things that make people feel pleasure in any amount. I once read about a man who got psychologically addicted to Advil tablets, yet in and of itself that's not a big deal, and he "quit" without any drug counselor's help. The real danger is from physical dependence: Drugs that cause it also have withdrawl symptoms because they change the make-up of neurotransmitters in the brain. Marijuana DOES NOT DO THAT."

"Tobacco smoke is much more harmful than marijuana smoke, but not for the reasons most people realize. Second, anyone who thinks there is nicotine in a joint needs their head examined, and finally all of this has been proven.

Tobacco smoke is bad, really bad. Everyone knows this. It's the smoke that kills, not the nicotine. But tobacco smoke kills only because smokers must inhale such a high amount to get a decent level of nicotine into their bloodstream. Marijuana "joints" deliver much more active ingredient per unit of smoke than tobacco by FAR. Most smokers smoke a pack a day or more, yet the average marijuana user may smoke a couple of joints a week. This is because nicotine causes physical addiction, marijuana does not. The tobacco user inhales an ever increasing level of smoke to get that nicotine fix that was formerly delivered with less, the marijuana user does not need to do this."

"Also, studies of heavy tobacco users who also use marijuana show no "superadditive" effect: if marijuana smoke was as bad as tobacco smoke than it should've been obvious in people who used both, because that way scientists would be able to get around the fact that many people don't need to smoke that much marijuana to get high. The studies showed that there was no superadditive effect and that marijuana does not obstruct the lung's small airways and cannot be linked to lung cancer or emphysema even in heavy chronic users.

Marijuana smokers inhale less over time than tobacco users, so they experience less lung damage. But let's be clear: any smoke burns when you inhale, thus that probably means it's not as good for you as not inhaling it. And marijuana smoke contains lung irritants, just like tobacco smoke does. The honest truth? Marijuana has not been linked to the problems that tobacoo has been, but that is not proof that it is safe to smoke it, it just may be safer than tobacco."



The above is all stated from a very unbiased approach. I'll post more later.
 
So you are saying that you know more about the subject than someone that has earned the right to be called a Doctor? Invalid Link Removed

I'm sure that he's more recognized for being an entertainer, than a doctor. He was on 'Loveline' for Christ's sake.

I'd believe psychologists, scientists, and real doctors, before trusting somebody who was on a staged sex talk show.
 
I'm sure that he's more recognized for being an entertainer, than a doctor. He was on 'Loveline' for Christ's sake.

I'd believe psychologists, scientists, and real doctors, before trusting somebody who was on a staged sex talk show.

While he is more recognized as a man who gave sex advice, he still does hold a medical degree and even teaches at USC, a very reputable medical school.
 
Doesn't automatically make him correct either. I am somewhat well versed in sexual psycology as well as sociological aspects of sexuality and I disagree very often with Dr Drew. To him, virtually every preference is the result of some childhood trauma or psychiatric problem.
 
You guys are amazing. That's not the point, Bio. No person can be right about everything. And being well-versed on a topic is a far cry from being a medical specialist. Who would you take the word of: a respected, board certified Addiction Specialist, a guy that claims to be "somewhat well-versed" on the subject or a 20 yr. old delinquent with a book? Anthony Connors or Swale?
Muscleguy, is there anywhere on your all-telling book that says, "From the guys at High Times" or "From the guys that brought you "Half-Baked."?
Screw it, you guys can believe what you want but to imply, suggest or otherwise infer to know better than a specialist, in his chosen discipline, is moronic and makes you sound dumb.
 
You guys are amazing. That's not the point, Bio. No person can be right about everything. And being well-versed on a topic is a far cry from being a medical specialist. Who would you take the word of: a respected, board certified Addiction Specialist, a guy that claims to be "somewhat well-versed" on the subject or a 20 yr. old kid (who's on probation) with a book?
Muscleguy, is there anywhere on your all-telling book that says, "From the guys at High Times" or "From the guys that brought you "Half-Baked."?
Screw it, you guys can believe what you want but to imply, suggest or otherwise infer to know better than a specialist, in his chosen discipline, is moronic.

My probation has nothing to do with this topic, so that should be none of your concern and there's no need to bring that up. It's completely irrelevant. Many people have been on probation. It doesn't make me a bad person. You certainly aren't better than me, just because you haven't been on probation. I'm sure that many, and I mean many, other guys would've handled my situation the same way that I did.

By the way, this book was actually written by Lynn Etta Zimmer, Ph.D., and John P. Morgan, Ph.D. It was written, following a $1 million dollar budget, which Congress had authorized for a national commission to study marijuana.
 
You, friend, are the one who brought it up. How would I have known about it, otherwise? It was relevant enough for you to put it out there but not relevant for me to point it out? You saw the point I was making, though, didn't you? And no, I don't think I'm better than you because you're on probation. That's absurd. I know I'm better than you because I'm older than you and experience has made me stronger and smarter. Plus I'm from the city and you're from rural NY. I have a book that's written by Dr's and scientists that says how city folk are superior to rural folk. Don't worry, though. Who you are at twenty is not who you're going to be.
 
You, friend, are the one who brought it up. How would I have known about it, otherwise? It was relevant enough for you to put it out there but not relevant for me to point it out? You saw the point I was making, though, didn't you? And no, I don't think I'm better than you because you're on probation. That's absurd. I know I'm better than you because I'm older than you and experience has made me stronger and smarter. Plus I'm from the city and you're from rural NY. I have a book that's written by Dr's and scientists that says how city folk are superior to rural folk. Don't worry, though. Who you are at twenty is not who you're going to be.

My probation is not drug-related, by any means. If you have nothing positive to say about it, then just leave it alone.

City folk are superior to rural folk, huh? Now, that sounds ridiculous. Incase you don't know, there is the Town of Plattsburgh and then there's the City of Plattsburgh, where I live. Must all cities be like LA, ATL, NYC, or wherever the hell you're from? Jesus. Again, me being 20 and on probation doesn't make me inferior to you. It doesn't make you more experienced and smarter in life. You must know about the course I'm taking, which probation put me in. My ex and I had some pretty nasty arguments once upon a time. I would point out the fact that she was younger than me. By a few years, but still, that gave me no right to belittle her. Just because I'm older, that doesn't mean that I know more than she does or am more experienced. I'm on probation. Big deal. I was obviously man enough to surrender to the police each time and accept responsibility for my actions. I know many men, whom would've ran off.
 
I've done community service :) Was actually a really cool experience and a wake up call :D

Believe it or not, I had fun doing community service as well. It was for my city's Public Works Department. It was during the summer and I was outside the whole time. I've since applied there and gonna try getting a job there.
 
I used the fact that you are 20 and on probation to illustrate the stark contrast between you and the doctor you were trying to discredit. Fvck it! Weed and teh 'roids are harmless! Toke/spike up!!!
 
Dude, you keep talking about your probation. No one implied that it was drug-related. I used the fact that you are 20 and on probation to illustrate the stark contrast between you and the doctor you were trying to discredit. You've also mentioned that you plan on being a pot smoking, steroid using cop. Awesome! Is any of this sinking in? And I was joking about city/rural people. Do you see how your own words are idiotic when used against you? The fact that I have to explain all of this to you tells me that I' m wasting my breath. Fvck it! Weed and teh 'roids are harmless! Toke/spike up!!!

We WILL toke/spike up and we will LOVE it! :)
 
My probation is not drug-related, by any means. If you have nothing positive to say about it, then just leave it alone.

So, I just want to let everyone know that despite our differences (on whether or not a trained professional's opinion holds more water than...just about anyone else that isn't a trained professional in the same area of expertise) I think MGINY is not only a good guy but also on his way to becoming a good man. I brought up his probation to illustrate a point, not to demean him or to say that he doesn't make valuable contributions to this board. I still won't (and you shouldn't either) take his opinion over a doctor's but he's a good dude and is trying to make something of his life. I'm sorry if this was lost in the process. Peace!
 
So, I just want to let everyone know that despite our differences (on whether or not a trained professional's opinion holds more water than...just about anyone else that isn't a trained professional in the same area of expertise) I think MGINY is not only a good guy but also on his way to becoming a good man. I brought up his probation to illustrate a point, not to demean him or to say that he doesn't make valuable contributions to this board. I still won't (and you shouldn't either) take his opinion over a doctor's but he's a good dude and is trying to make something of his life. I'm sorry if this was lost in the process. Peace!

I'm glad you brought this up ^ as IMO you were sounding a little

B to the I to the T to the C to the H to the Y

Just my opinion :)

Be happy, stay strong!
 
What better place for my 420th post....;)
 
lol

You guys are amazing. That's not the point, Bio. No person can be right about everything. And being well-versed on a topic is a far cry from being a medical specialist. Who would you take the word of: a respected, board certified Addiction Specialist, a guy that claims to be "somewhat well-versed" on the subject or a 20 yr. old delinquent with a book? Anthony Connors or Swale?
Muscleguy, is there anywhere on your all-telling book that says, "From the guys at High Times" or "From the guys that brought you "Half-Baked."?
Screw it, you guys can believe what you want but to imply, suggest or otherwise infer to know better than a specialist, in his chosen discipline, is moronic and makes you sound dumb.

You are really ignorant if you think that being a "doctor" makes it impossible for you to know less than a normal person. My doctor openly admits to me that he doesnt have a great understanding of steroids but guess what i do. You know why because I do reasearch and use first hand experience to base my opinions on. And generally real world examples and specifically trying something yourself is going to give you the best way of determining if something is true or not. So my point is yes being a doctor should give you credibility but as you should know many doctors believe completely opposite theories and ideas so guess what?..One side has to be wrong so that means Dr. Drew might be dead wrong and the people on here who disagree with him may be completley right. So try to use a better arguement for your point then "he is a doctor so he must know what he is talking about."
 
i've posted this before in another similar thread here so i thought it would be relavent here.....

Myth: Pot kills brain cells
Government experts now admit that pot doesn't kill brain cells.(8) This myth came from a handful of animal experiments in which structural changes (not actual cell death, as is often alleged) were observed in brain cells of animals exposed to high doses of pot. Many critics still cite the notorious monkey studies of Dr. Robert G. Heath, which purported to find brain damage in three monkeys that had been heavily dosed with cannabis.(9) This work was never replicated and has since been discredited by a pair of better controlled, much larger monkey studies, one by Dr. William Slikker of the National Center for Toxicological Research(10) and the other by Charles Rebert and Gordon Pryor of SRI International.(11) Neither found any evidence of physical alteration in the brains of monkeys exposed to daily doses of pot for up to a year. Human studies of heavy users in Jamaica and Costa Rica found no evidence of abnormalities in brain physiology.(12) Even though there is no evidence that pot causes permanent brain damage, users should be aware that persistent deficits in short-term memory have been noted in chronic, heavy marijuana smokers after 6 to 12 weeks of abstinence.(13) It is worth noting that other drugs, including alcohol, are known to cause brain damage.

Myth: Marijuana causes sterility and lowers testosterone
Government experts also concede that pot has no permanent effect on the male or female reproductive systems.(14) A few studies have suggested that heavy marijuana use may have a reversible, suppressive effect on male testicular function.(15) A recent study by Dr. Robert Block has refuted earlier research suggesting that pot lowers testosterone or other sex hormones in men or women.(16) In contrast, heavy alcohol drinking is known to lower testosterone levels and cause impotence. A couple of lab studies indicated that very heavy marijuana smoking might lower sperm counts. However, surveys of chronic smokers have turned up no indication of infertility or other abnormalities.

Less is known about the effects of cannabis on human females. Some animal studies suggest that pot might temporarily lower fertility or increase the risk of fetal loss, but this evidence is of dubious relevance to humans.(1) One human study suggested that pot may mildly disrupt ovulation. It is possible that adolescents are peculiarly vulnerable to hormonal disruptions from pot. However, not a single case of impaired fertility has ever been observed in humans of either sex.

Myth: One joint equals one pack of (or 16, or maybe just 4) cigarettes
Some critics exaggerate the dangers of marijuana smoking by fallaciously citing a study by Dr. Tashkin which found that daily pot smokers experienced a "mild but significant" increase in airflow resistance in the large airways greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day.(7) What they ignore is that the same study examined other, more important aspects of lung health, in which marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. Dr. Tashkin himself disavows the notion that one joint equals 16 cigarettes. A more widely accepted estimate is that marijuana smokers consume four times as much carcinogenic tar as cigarettes smokers per weight smoked. (8) This does not necessarily mean that one joint equals four cigarettes, since joints usually weigh less. In fact, the average joint has been estimated to contain 0.4 grams of pot, a bit less than one-half the weight of a cigarette, making one joint equal to two cigarettes (actually, joint sizes range from cigar-sized spliffs smoked by Rastas, to very fine sinsemilla joints weighing as little as 0.2 grams). It should be noted that there is no exact equivalency between tobacco and marijuana smoking, because they affect different parts of the respiratory tract differently: whereas tobacco tends to penetrate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, pot tends to concentrate on the larger, central passageways.(9) One consequence of this is that pot, unlike tobacco, does not appear to cause emphysema.

Myth: Marijuana causes chromosome and cell damage
According to the NAS,(14) "Studies suggesting that marijuana probably does not break chromosomes are fairly conclusive." Cannabinoids in themselves are neither mutagenic nor carcinogenic, though the tars produced by marijuana combustion are. Some laboratory studies have suggested that high dosages of THC might interfere with cell replication and produce abnormal numbers of chromosomes; however, there is no evidence of such damage in realistic situations.

Myth: Marijuana damages the immune system
A variety of studies indicate that THC and other cannabinoids may exercise mild, reversible immuno-suppressive effects by inhibiting the activity of immune system cells know as lymphocytes (T- and B-cells) and macrophages. It is dubious whether these effects are of import to human health, since they are based mainly on theoretical laboratory and animal studies. According to a review by Dr. Leo Hollister(8) "The evidence [on immune suppression] has been contradictory and is more supportive of some degree of immunosuppression only when one considers in vitro studies. These have been seriously flawed by the very high concentrations of drug used to produce immunosuppression. The closer that experimental studies have been to actual clinical situations, the less compelling has been the evidence."

The immune suppression issue was first raised in research by the notorious cannabophobe Dr. Gabriel Nahas, but a flurry of research by the Reagan administration failed to find anything alarming. The recent discovery of a cannabinoid receptor inside rat spleens, where immune cells reside, raises the likelihood that cannabinoids do exert some sort of influence on the immune system.(9) It has even been suggested that these effects might be beneficial for patients with auto-immune diseases such as multiple sclerosis. Nevertheless, not a single case of marijuana-induced immune deficiency has ever been clinically or epidemiologically detected in humans.

One exception is the lungs, where chronic pots smokers have been shown to suffer damage to the immune cells known as alveolar macrophages and other defense mechanisms.(10) It is unclear how much of this damage is due to THC, as opposed to all of the other toxins that occur in smoke, many of which can be filtered out by waterpipes and other devices(11).

There is no reason to think marijuana is dangerous to AIDS patients. On the contrary, many AIDS patients report that marijuana helps avert the deadly "wasting syndrome" by stimulating appetite and reducing nausea. Cannabinoids do not actually damage the T-cells, which are depleted in HIV patients: one study even found that marijuana exposure increased T-cell counts in subjects (not AIDS patients) whose T-cell counts had been low.(12) Epidemiological studies have found no relation between use of marijuana or other drugs and development of AIDS.(13)
 
You are really ignorant if you think that being a "doctor" makes it impossible for you to know less than a normal person. My doctor openly admits to me that he doesnt have a great understanding of steroids but guess what i do. You know why because I do reasearch and use first hand experience to base my opinions on. And generally real world examples and specifically trying something yourself is going to give you the best way of determining if something is true or not. So my point is yes being a doctor should give you credibility but as you should know many doctors believe completely opposite theories and ideas so guess what?..One side has to be wrong so that means Dr. Drew might be dead wrong and the people on here who disagree with him may be completley right. So try to use a better arguement for your point then "he is a doctor so he must know what he is talking about."

Ugh! This thread again! Not really among my greatest moments here on AM. Your insults aren't really necessary.
I understand what you're saying but Dr. Drew is not a GP. He is an ADDICTION SPECIALIST so I would be comfortable in assuming that he knows a bit more about it than the "bros" on the board. That's all I'm saying. I wouldn't go to a chiropractor and expect quality medical advice about cancer.
 
The bottom line is that the United States government should not have the right to dictate what we put into our bodies, whether we want to take steroids, or smoke marijuana, etc.

In a "free" country your freedom includes the right to do anything that you want on your own property as long as you are not hurting someone else.

One could make great arguments against the legalization of alcohol: domestic violence, public disturbances, DWI, etc. But alcohol is not illegal, even though it is definately addictive and even deadly.

The reason that marijuana is illegal has nothing to do with how safe or dangerous it is, but it has everything to do with how much money certain industries would lose.
 
why the fvkk cant it be legal then..its not necesiraly a free country anyways.. just how pot doesnt necisarily kill brain cells..congress are fuxxcking idiot hypocrits..its ridicilious it would actually help out get rid of our national debt..so what if they tax marijuana its still worth it the focus of everybody is so against it. I just wish they were more for the recreational use of the drug. . Geenie...can you just grant me one wish...???:mad:
 
I smoked from 13-20.I loved it!!!I just quit for legal reasons,it seemed odd combined with bb,and i just had enough of revolving my life around it.I was very functional,responsible,hard working,dedicated,driven.and stoned :lol: It truly never negatively affected my life,except for when i got caught with it.It caused so many problems with my family and i told them it was so pointless,but they beleived the lies(mainly mom)and understandibly didn't want their 13 yr old son smoking.My point is,in my experience,my problems with pot came with others problems with pot due to a lack of education on the matter.Now that I think of it,lots of problems are caused because of others having a problem.....hmmmm
I asked an old man about his tattoos when i had my first one and we were talking about them,and he says"you know,I don't have a problem with them,but others do"
 
i hate smoking, nor would care if marijuana is ever legalized, but here's an interesting fact:
Amsterdam has one of the lowest crimes rates in the world.
just throwing that out there
 
I don't know whether or not that's true but it would make sense. Take mj and hoe'in out of the hands of organized crime, tax it and give mandatory STD testing to sex workers...BANG...everybody wins. Just imagine being able to roll up to 1 spot and get some weed, booze and 'tang. Guess what kinda business I'd open?
 
I don't know whether or not that's true but it would make sense. Take mj and hoe'in out of the hands of organized crime, tax it and give mandatory STD testing to sex workers...BANG...everybody wins. Just imagine being able to roll up to 1 spot and get some weed, booze and 'tang. Guess what kinda business I'd open?

It is true.I read about all the time in my stoner hight time reading days.They(amsterdam)also have less teens that try it,and other good things like that.
 
i didnt read the thread but a big part of why they dont legalize it imo is because they simply cant control it. If they could control it then it would be legal most likely imo but since you can grow it in your backyard and it is so easy to dry and prepare that they wont legalize it. People will be selling it and smoking their own and the government wont get anything out of it.
 
i didnt read the thread but a big part of why they dont legalize it imo is because they simply cant control it. If they could control it then it would be legal most likely imo but since you can grow it in your backyard and it is so easy to dry and prepare that they wont legalize it. People will be selling it and smoking their own and the government wont get anything out of it.

If you read about it and research it,it's very easy to grow some good pot too.Well certain strains are.
 
If you read about it and research it,it's very easy to grow some good pot too.Well certain strains are.
yeah. itll be even easier if they legalize. Itll probably start overtaking other plants....be growing wild and ****. that would be awesome, i for one love the smell of cannabis even if you dont smoke it its got good aroma. If it were legal imagine what it would be like at expensive restaurants where they cook with it! what a day that would be.
 
yeah. itll be even easier if they legalize. Itll probably start overtaking other plants....be growing wild and ****. that would be awesome, i for one love the smell of cannabis even if you dont smoke it its got good aroma. If it were legal imagine what it would be like at expensive restaurants where they cook with it! what a day that would be.

I've read about places that have wild pot that has stalks like efing trees!And yes,pot smells so good!A good joint burning or some good pot before it's smoked smells amazing.In Tx theirs lots of pot from Mx that smells like that wood stuff in hamster cages......that sucks.Made it easier for me to quit though.
 
i know in parts of asia it grows wild....as in a whole mountain side of cannabis.

I don't remember where this was at.But they did say it was like a forest of pot.They got so big cause people weren't cutting them down like usual.I wonder if you could just cut the buds off and then let the plant get bigger and bigger and reproduce every year?This might be what they did.I don't see why not.Just like a fruit tree.I never read to do that though.
 
Back
Top