The Culture War Is Over

[MSimon]

Aerosol use of an intoxicant is not benign;

You are unaware of the literature.

1. Donald Tashkin - once a noted prohibitionists - found that smoking cannabis had protective effects on the lungs. It surprised him. The only known effect medically is smokers cough. No emphysema (it opens airways - unlike tobacco) and no cancer. In fact it reduces tumor formation in the lungs.

2. Dose titration. Since the cannabis gets into the blood stream much faster through the lungs than through any other method, smokers - if they want - can adjust their dose while they go. This is well known and it is why stronger pot poses very little more risk than the weaker stuff. People can adjust on the spot. We do know that the edibles are a problem in this respect from what has gone on in Colorado this past year. So I would say that eating the stuff poses the most danger. This has also been noted in the government approved THC pill - Marinol.

But as with all "new" things we are on a learning curve. A few more years of experience will sort things out. Mostly.

Lol it makes me caugh up something bad. Don't see how it can be good for your lungs... But with all vices... its a risk I can take. Till I can't any more :mrgreen:

Form what I read some people swear by vaporizers. The literature is pretty definite that the only risk is smokers cough. But of course no two people are exactly alike and cannabis is not just one thing. The effects may depend on the cannabinoid mixture.

[mvanwink5]

MSimon,
You somehow missed the point, then glossed over it, then told me it was really good for me. Sounds like a true progressive at heart.

[MSimon]

MSimon,
You somehow missed the point, then glossed over it, then told me it was really good for me. Sounds like a true progressive at heart.

You said aerosol administration is bad. I provided evidence (I can provide links) that except for smokers cough it is good for you.

You can titrate. - Easily adjust the dose to what your body can handle. Not possible with edibles.
The smoke is protective against damage (except for the cough).

This video will explain how smoking has been found to protect against lung damage:

http://youtu.be/DttdDOqQMuY

Note Donald Tashkin in the middle of the video. He at one time was an avid Prohibitionists and set out to prove how bad cannabis smoking was. He came to the conclusion that not only wasn't it bad but also it seemed to do some good.

If you have some other point to make leave a link or make yourself clearer. It does no good to say I didn't get it because of progressive style argumentation.

Yes. I contradicted your point. I also have evidence to back up my position from a guy arguing against his former interest.

Now for cancer, cannabis oil high in THC and CBD is currently preferred by those doing cures. Although blendered buds (high in THC and CBD) are now suggested by one company as more effective and easier to produce. Unfortunately no trials will be done in the US because research along these lines is not allowed. So the evidence will merely be anecdotal. And yes - the dose is administered orally.

Then there is this. There is quite a wide swath of those using cannabis who claim that vaporizers eliminate the drawbacks of smoking for aerosol administration. Not being experienced with this I cannot verify the claim from experience. But maybe when Illinois legalizes I'll try it out.

[MSimon]

Something I just got in the mail.

Everything you need to know about marijuana edibles
http://boingboing.net/2014/11/18/everyt ... ow-ab.html

The tradition of consuming cannabis orally is ancient, perhaps ten thousand years old, while cannabis smoking is much more recent. There are scattered references to inhaling cannabis smoke in ancient times, but cannabis was not commonly smoked before the 16th century. When cannabis is smoked or vaporized, its delta-9-THC is absorbed through the lungs and reaches the brain quickly.

When cannabis edibles are swallowed, the delta-9-THC undergoes a transformation within the liver into 11-hydroxy-THC, a different drug twice as strong that lasts twice as long as inhaled delta-9-THC. Oral absorption and liver metabolism of cannabis take much, much longer than when it is smoked. Maureen Dowd didn’t feel the effects of the edible she ate for almost an hour, so she took more… a common and unfortunate error. There is wide variation among individuals in how quickly they will perceive the effects of oral cannabis, with some individuals taking over three hours to note effects.

It’s important for individuals to develop an idea of how they personally metabolize any oral cannabis preparation, starting with a very small dose and remaining patient until it’s thoroughly metabolized over six hours, before taking more. There will be some variation in cannabis absorption through the digestive tract depending on stomach contents and its composition.

[snip]

Ultra-high THC potency cannabis is relatively recent. For most of our twelve thousand year history with cannabis, cultivated cannabis drug varieties produced only two or three percent THC. The legendary Thai Stick variety contained around eight percent. Even cannabis resin, hashish, rarely topped twenty percent THC. But prohibition encourages potency and an aggressive drug war encouraged it more. Potent plants require less space, which aids their concealment.

After a thirty-five year War on Drugs, cannabis can exceed twenty-five percent THC. Cannabis resin often exceeds fifty percent, and cannabis oils can top seventy percent THC. Increased potency is not really the issue that prohibitionists claim; but it does reduce the margin of error when consuming cannabis. Like beer vs. whiskey doses, only a fool would pour and consume a pint of whiskey, because most drinkers learn to dose alcohol. Similarly, cannabis users learn that higher-potency cannabis reduces the amount required. But individuals only having experience with the low-potency cannabis of the Seventies and Eighties can be unpleasantly overwhelmed when consuming today’s cannabis.

The chemical balance of cannabis has changed since the Sixties. Cannabis breeders for the past forty years have selected plants that produced the highest levels of THC. Unbeknownst to them, many of the early cannabis varieties contained significant levels of CBD as well as THC. CBD is a cannabinoid that is not psychoactive but medicinally valuable and CBD reduces many of the adverse effects produced by THC. Today’s cannabis produces THC, and rarely any CBD. Recently, varieties producing CBD have become more available thanks to the testing labs searching for CBD cannabis varieties and organizations such as Project CBD.

[MSimon]

More from the link:

Remember that the THC in orally consumed cannabis will be metabolized by the liver into 11-hydroxy-THC and this form is twice as strong and will last twice as long as regular THC.

The threshold of THC psychoactivity for most people when consumed orally beneath the tongue or swallowed is just below two milligrams of THC. A cannabis dose for pain begins at around two milligrams and for most new medical cannabis patients tops out at about ten milligrams per dose. In a study of smoked cannabis at University of California, San Diego, researchers noted a “sweet spot” of dose for smoked cannabis in treating pain. Too small a dose produced little relief, while too high a dose actually increased the pain levels in the study subjects. Cannabis dose for pain relief presents a “Goldilocks” conundrum to find a dose that is “just right.” Most individuals unused to the effects of THC in cannabis become uncomfortably high at doses of fifteen milligrams or more.

Another challenge of taking cannabis orally is that only 10 to 20 percent of the dose reaches systemic circulation after its liver transformation into 11-hydroxy-THC. On an empty stomach, the onset of effects is typically thirty to sixty minutes and the THC psychoactivity lasts four to eight hours. Medicinal effects such as appetite stimulation can persist for 24 hours or more after a dose of THC.

Seven grams of twelve percent THC high-quality indoor cannabis infused into fifty grams of butter in slow cooker at 200 degrees for three hours will extract around 600 milligrams of THC. (For geeks, there is some loss in converting raw acidic THC to bioactive THC when heated by cooking, vaporizing or smoking. The raw THCA gives up a carboxyl group and converts to its neutral THC form. Additionally, the butter extraction method is not perfectly efficient.) That butter infused into a batch of twenty cookies will result in a cookie containing thirty milligrams of THC, which would be considered three portions under Colorado’s cannabis edible regulations.

Here are some basic anecdotal rules of thumb concerning THC dose for occasional cannabis users. Again, these are anecdotal and should not be considered professional or medical advice. Remember that there are genetic differences among individuals, so doses and onset times vary.

[mvanwink5]

MSimon,
You have become the true Progressive, telling me that whether I want to inhale or not it won't be my choice, but you know what is good for me, so that is ok. I know all about medical studies... done on mice. The problem is that if mice were valid models for humans drug companies would be in the clear for making new drugs. The problem is that the cellular pathways may look the same, but the pathways are like computer code and computer operating systems, where mice would be widows and humans macs.

So, all your 'evidence' will be just great if only people were mice. The problem is worse, monkeys and great apes even have the same laboratory problems; animals are surprisingly and insidiously different.

However, that is not the point. The point is that MJ is a drug that I don't want myself subjected to. You are hell bent on forcing it on me as an aerosol, then telling me it is for my own good. My God man, listen to yourself.

You want to say, "legalize edible MJ only" then do so. However you have not said that. Or, "Legalize MJ for medicinal purposes only," then do so, but you aren't and it seems you won't as you are stuck on a broken record track to the point of telling me what significant mind altering drug is ***so*** good for me you don't care if I don't want it or not.

You have lost the plot.

[MSimon]

MSimon,
You have become the true Progressive, telling me that whether I want to inhale or not it won't be my choice, but you know what is good for me, so that is ok. :roll: :lol: I know all about medical studies... done on mice. The problem is that if mice were valid models for humans drug companies would be in the clear for making new drugs. The problem is that the cellular pathways may look the same, but the pathways are like computer code and computer operating systems, where mice would be widows and humans macs.

So, all your 'evidence' will be just great if only people were mice. The problem is worse, monkeys and great apes even have the same laboratory problems; animals are surprisingly and insidiously different.

However, that is not the point. The point is that MJ is a drug that I don't want myself subjected to. You are hell bent on forcing in on me as an aerosol, then telling me it is for my own good. My God man, listen to yourself. :oops:

You want to say, "legalize edible MJ only" then do so. However you have not said that. Or, "Legalize MJ for medicinal purposes only," then do so, but you aren't and it seems you won't as you are stuck on a broken record track to the point of telling me what significant mind altering drug is ***so*** good for me you don't care if I don't want it or not. :shock:

You have lost the plot. :roll:

Who said you couldn't do what you want? All I pointed out was the pros and cons of smoking the stuff.

And Donald Tashkin - had you checked - looked at people. You might want to watch the video. He explains te anti-cancer properties of cannabis. And he used to be a staunch Prohibitionist.

Well Vitamin C is good for you. If you don't want it that is your business. Keeping it from others who do is IMO a bad thing to do. A crime.

THC and CBD together cure cancer. We have lots of animal studies and more than an ample number of anecdotes. If you get cancer I have no intention nor desire to make you use the stuff. If "Death before THC" is your motto I'm content to let you die. However, keeping it from people who want to use it to live is a crime against humanity.

The discovery of the cannabinoid system of the body will be ranked with the discovery of Relativity. Too bad it is the "Jewish science" of this age. Funny enough Jews again are in the lead.

I"m going to post an article on cancer. You might want to read it. Or not.

Cannabinoids can save us Americans $1 trillion a year in medical expenses. If you don't want to take advantage of that - I wouldn't dream of stopping you. I'm going to use that fact however to speed the end of Prohibition.

[mvanwink5]

Who said you couldn't do what you want?

Breathing drug free air requires the air to be drug free. To help you a bit further, if an aerosolized drug is being introduced into the air, the air won't be drug free. Are you suggesting I can wear a gas mask if I want? Just so you can do as you want? And what about someones child?

Animal studies... again. Animal studies are complete garbage. The fact that you cite them shows you are completely ignorant of the reality of drugs as they relate to humans versus animals.

By the way, in addition, in vitro drug studies are garbage. Take a look at all the MJ so called research "proof," animal and in vitro studies. As I said, human studies are the only ones that might have some validity and then only the in vivo ones. Then another factor is the Microbiome of the study individuals. Look, drug companies spend billions, then fail because people aren't tall mice without tails and in vitro studies are crap, all drugs hit multiple receptors and the flow on effects are imponderable.

For instance I use a blood pressure drug, off label, to target a completely different receptor than the angiotensin receptor the drug is usually targeted for. On the other hand another drug in its class, nearly the same molecule, is an antagonist for the receptor I am targeting. So, Mike, your studies may fill an encyclopedia, but I am unimpressed, and for sound engineering reason.

But you are so religious about your belief that you have become just another Progressive, bobbing and weaving, and dodging the main point once again... I don't want someone else's mind altering drug in my air. Mike, MJ is a complex mind and body altering drug, being introduced into a system so complex that no one understands it. Studies are not gospel, you can't trust them, they are not evidence of what you think they are.

Next, we will get the MSimon broken record bob and weave treatment (I am starting to think it is because you don't understand what I have said).

[mvanwink5]

The problem with myopia is captured in the notion that "If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail." So, if all you have is MJ, then you see the world in those terms. Here, let me try to expand your repertoire:
http://www.bioinitiative.org

I used to see everything in terms of drugs until I used an EMF blanket on a plane and tortuous muscle knots, knots that weren't helped with getting inebriated or taking Valium (the brand name not the generic), and incredibly the muscle knots vanished, 'snap' like that. As an electrical engineer, I was mentally bewildered. How could an EMF blanket help?

Since then I have done research and tested various garments, and from what I can tell, things that one might think are chemically caused aren't, depression, muscle knots, sleeplessness, etc, or, at least can be countered by dealing with EMF. Further, the biologically active power levels are incredibly low, with unexpected twists, such as when i use an EMF blanket to sleep, that EMF blanket helps the sleep, but if I ground that blanket my mind will race all night until I take the ground off, then I sleep like a puppy. It makes no sense, but I am an engineer, not a tone deaf scientist or religious Progressive.

The point is that with such factors, studies claiming one thing or another are missing herds of elephants in the living room simply because "everyone knows" living rooms don't have elephants - I am speaking metaphorically here.

[MSimon]

OK. So you want Prohibition. Despite your disclaimer to the contrary. I have noticed a lot of that going around these days. Very amusing.

If I have anything to say about it you will not get it.

And it appears that I do have something to say. Because I'm prevailing and you are not.

You want drug free air? By a gas mask. Or get an oxygen bottle. Or go live some place where Prohibition is strictly enforced. You will still have choices in the world I'm making. Saudi Arabia and North Korea come to mind.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson

I'm a Jeffersonian. Prohibition will not stand.

[mvanwink5]

OK. So you want Prohibition

That is a leap. No. Smoke in your home, smoke in a dome, just leave my air clean. Eat it as a brownie, or in an MJ Clownie, just don't slip it to me.

And don't sell freedom by justifying it based on animal studies!

[ohiovr]

OK. So you want Prohibition

That is a leap. No. Smoke in your home, smoke in a dome, just leave my air clean. Eat it as a brownie, or in an MJ Clownie, just don't slip it to me.

And don't sell freedom by justifying it based on animal studies!

haha

[MSimon]

OK. So you want Prohibition

That is a leap. No. Smoke in your home, smoke in a dome, just leave my air clean. Eat it as a brownie, or in an MJ Clownie, just don't slip it to me. :lol:

And don't sell freedom by justifying it based on animal studies! :roll: :shock:

Well the Government - because of Prohibition - will not allow human studies. So you will have to be satisfied with anecdotes and animals for now. Thus retarding the realization of that $1 trillion a year. And if you knew much about the endocannabinoid system you would realize that my $1 trillion a year estimate is conservative.

But instead of study you prefer to dismiss. OK. You can do what you want. But I intend to reach those willing to study. And I am. Too bad they are mostly leftists.

At my synagogue the people are very knowledgeable about all this and nothing I'm saying here would be controversial there. Sadly they are mostly leftist. It is a wonder that the right would leave this field to them. They will use it to gain credibility for their hare brained schemes. Ah. Well.

And they are just crazy enough to mandate that you consume. And you are leaving the field to them. Ah. Well.

You ought to read the Haldeman quote I put up. The modern Republican Party (Nixon) was born in racism and hate (specifically hippies, Blacks, and the poor). And it hasn't changed enough in the intervening 40 years to erase that. It is crippling. You will note Nixon ramped up Prohibition - not because of the dangers of the drugs but because he could use Prohibition against his enemies. And if you look at the history of Prohibition, that was its genesis back in 1914 and 1937. It was never about the drugs. It was always a covert race war.

Now with a white America that didn't much use those drugs you could get away with that especially if enforcement was focused on as Harry Anslinger put it "the inferior races". That is no longer the case. And the left is making the case. Which will inflict socialism on us a while longer. Bummer.

[mvanwink5]

And if you knew much about the endocannabinoid system you would realize that my $1 trillion a year estimate is conservative.

You are mixing conjecture and hypothesis with knowledge. Further you are missing the point. Freedom is not about saving the government money or individuals money. Freedom is freedom, it is about not treating people as subjects of the state, it is about recognizing that people own themselves and their bodies. It is also about respecting the rights of others, to not force some drug into their lungs... yes, it is natural to breath and if you put it into their air you are forcing it into their lungs.

You do bring up a right more important than MJ, and that is the right to chose your doctor and medical protocol. That right has been usurped by the state and medical guild. It is one of the rights that nearly made it into the bill of rights originally, but no group is perfect or prescient. So, in a sense, the problem with MJ prohibition is the missing right in the bill of rights, the right to chose your medical treatment.

[MSimon]

And if you knew much about the endocannabinoid system you would realize that my $1 trillion a year estimate is conservative.

You are mixing conjecture and hypothesis with knowledge. Further you are missing the point. Freedom is not about saving the government money or individuals money. Freedom is freedom, it is about not treating people as subjects of the state, it is about recognizing that people own themselves and their bodies. It is also about respecting the rights of others, to not force some drug into their lungs... yes, it is natural to breath and if you put it into their air you are forcing it into their lungs.

You do bring up a right more important than MJ, and that is the right to chose your doctor and medical protocol. That right has been usurped by the state and medical guild. It is one of the rights that nearly made it into the bill of rights originally, but no group is perfect or prescient. So, in a sense, the problem with MJ prohibition is the missing right in the bill of rights, the right to chose your medical treatment.

Ah. Yes. Freedom is Freedom. I couldn't disagree.

But then reality intrudes and you have to recognize that the government is very involved in medical care.

So I have a jujitsu plan. Make most medical care plant based and insist that people be allowed to grow their own.

I am far more multidimensional than you can imagine.

There is copious animal research and more than enough anecdotal evidence. And so far the anecdotes correlate well with the animal research.

You are correct about the missing part of the Bill of Rights. And one fellow was agitating for medical inclusion. Dr. Benjamin Rush. Look him up. Very interesting fellow. He is supposed to have said this, although that is disputed. But the sentiment is right.

"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of Men and deny equal privileges to others; the Constitution of the Republic should make a Special privilege for medical freedoms as well as religious freedom."

http://www.naturalnews.com/034892_benja ... z3JYwte9Qm