- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The "religious right" is a boogeyman blown out of proportion
Posted on 3/12/14 at 5:24 pm to HempHead
Posted on 3/12/14 at 5:24 pm to HempHead
quote:
None of the drugs that I partake in have an LD50 even close to possible consumption. It's not like I shoot up heroin or smoke crack. I get stoned and eat mushrooms, neither of which are particularly dangerous.
Not true. Pot can trigger schizophrenia. Now you may think it's not all that bad but I sure as hell don't. I've seen kids in their late teens so fricked up on pot that they sleep in the alley behind my building and I live in a very nice area.
Smoking pot can also lead to lung cancer and the second hand smoke can make others high (small room and lots of smoke as well as show up in drug tests of hair
quote:
One study demonstrated a doubling in lung cancer for male marijuana smokers who also used tobacco (i.e. for men who smoked the same amount, the risk of lung cancer was twice as high for men who also used marijuana.) Another study found that long-term use of marijuana increased the risk of lung cancer in young adults (55 and under), with the risk increasing in proportion to the amount of marijuana smoked.
Why the controversy?
Since marijuana is illegal, it is hard to do the controlled studies that have been done with tobacco. Because of this, it helps to look at what we do know about marijuana:.
Many of the carcinogens and co-carcinogens present in tobacco smoke are also present in smoke from marijuana.
Marijuana smoking does cause inflammation and cell damage, and it has been associated with pre-cancerous changes in lung tissue.
Marijuana has been shown to cause immune system dysfunction, possibly predisposing individuals to cancer.
Bottom line: Though marijuana most likely pales in cancer risk when compared to cigarette smoking, it's better to play it safe. There are reasons in addition to lung cancer risk (and the fact that it is illegal in most states) to avoid marijuana. Marijuana likely increases the risk of testicular cancer, prostate cancer, cervical cancer, a type of brain tumor, and the risk of leukemia in the offspring of women who use it during pregnancy
LINK
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 5:33 pm
2
Posted on 3/12/14 at 5:27 pm to los angeles tiger
quote:
Pot can trigger schizophrenia.
Luckily, I do not have a disposition towards mental illness. Those who do should probably not consume any psychotropics.
quote:
I've seen kids in their late teens so fricked up on pot that they sleep in the alley behind my building and I live in a very nice area.
I see drunk people passed out quite a bit as well. There are plenty of folks on legally prescribed medication who essentially function as zombies.
As long as someone can use responsibly (ie not commit crimes to support their habit, or commit crime while under the influence), there is little reason to prohibit personal use. Protecting people from themselves is a losing battle.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 5:28 pm to los angeles tiger
quote:
Not true. Pot can trigger schizophrenia. Now you may think it's not all that bad but I sure as hell don't. I've seen kids in their late teens so fricked up on pot that they sleep in the alley behind my building and I live in a very nice area.
latest research says that isn't true.
LINK
Pot doesn't have no risks. its an intoxicant and has negative social impact, as do all intoxicants. And its not as safe as pot smokers might suggest, but compared to most other intoxicants that people take, its relatively low risk.
The safest intoxicant from a physical and mental health perspective is LSD. There are risks that you have a really shitty time, but very very very low risk that anything else happens to you.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 5:32 pm to HempHead
I always cut it off about 1000 lbs. I find that's the optimal level.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 5:38 pm to Hawkeye95
We don't have the long term, wider studies with pot as we do with cigarettes, so I don't trust studies that try to make it "not so bad." The study in your link had only 282 people. That's a small, small number to research compared to what cigarettes have had.
I can't stand pot and if I do a hit, I'll be in the bathroom throwing my guts up and feeling like I've been on the teacups at Disneyland for an entire day.
I can't stand pot and if I do a hit, I'll be in the bathroom throwing my guts up and feeling like I've been on the teacups at Disneyland for an entire day.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 5:42 pm to los angeles tiger
quote:
We don't have the long term, wider studies with pot as we do with cigarettes, so I don't trust studies that try to make it "not so bad." The study in your link had only 282 people. That's a small, small number to research compared to what cigarettes have had.
I can't stand pot and if I do a hit, I'll be in the bathroom throwing my guts up and feeling like I've been on the teacups at Disneyland for an entire day.
yes, we need more studies. Totally agree on that.
Too bad the FDA stops them for the most part.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 5:50 pm to goldennugget
quote:
The first amendment was written to prohibit the state from establishing a religion like the Church of England. But in today's modern times it has been warped and twisted to suppress people who want to express their religious views.
Give me one example of government suppressing someone's expression of religious views.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 5:50 pm to Hawkeye95
I actually prefer studies that are not government related/funded. Government funded studies (like Global Warming) are too often done to reach the outcome of the researcher/government and aren't reliable.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 5:52 pm to los angeles tiger
every study requires FDA approval. There is a queue about a mile long of proposals, FDA says no to every one.
None of them would get gov't funding, or very few.
The research that is happening is happening in the UK and Israel.
None of them would get gov't funding, or very few.
The research that is happening is happening in the UK and Israel.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 5:54 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
FDA says no to every one.
Interestingly enough, they are being more lenient on medical research with psychedelics than they are with cannabis. I'm not sure why.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 5:57 pm to HempHead
quote:
Interestingly enough, they are being more lenient on medical research with psychedelics than they are with cannabis. I'm not sure why.
I am a big supporter of MAPS. If you haven't checked it out, check it out. LINK
I asked them this question straight up, and their belief is the pharma industry is blocking them. They are worried about their very lucrative sales of antidepressants, anti anxiety, and pain medicines.
I did ask the MDMA researcher not the pot guy though.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 6:13 pm to Hawkeye95
There is research being done in the U.S. but it isn't FDA approved. They aren't funded by the government and I think those studies will be more truthful than something our government does. We'll have more complete studies done in a few years.
I've noticed that since "medical marijuana" was made legal that pot smoking breaks happen more frequently during the day now than they did initially and there are more people hanging out by parks, bus stations and alleyways.
One thing I will share from my own personal experience, others besides the user are affected by drug use. My mom was an alcholic and it wasn't fun for me when I had to care for her in her drunkeness. Fortunately for us she did seek help on Easter Sunday in my sophomore year of high school. What you may enjoy and think isn't harming you may not be the case for your loved ones so listen to them and don't put them through hell because you think otherwise. It's very selfish for a child to be forced to be the parent for their parents and siblings.
I've noticed that since "medical marijuana" was made legal that pot smoking breaks happen more frequently during the day now than they did initially and there are more people hanging out by parks, bus stations and alleyways.
One thing I will share from my own personal experience, others besides the user are affected by drug use. My mom was an alcholic and it wasn't fun for me when I had to care for her in her drunkeness. Fortunately for us she did seek help on Easter Sunday in my sophomore year of high school. What you may enjoy and think isn't harming you may not be the case for your loved ones so listen to them and don't put them through hell because you think otherwise. It's very selfish for a child to be forced to be the parent for their parents and siblings.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 6:15 pm to los angeles tiger
quote:
There is research being done in the U.S. but it isn't FDA approved. They aren't funded by the government and I think those studies will be more truthful than something our government does. We'll have more complete studies done in a few years.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty certain that you have to have some level of government approval to do any research with illicit substances. Without their go-ahead, one would essentially be breaking the law. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 6:17 pm to HempHead
I'm in California and know a couple of people doing some research. Pot isn't illicit in the states out here so...
Posted on 3/12/14 at 6:19 pm to HempHead
quote:
There is research being done in the U.S. but it isn't FDA approved. They aren't funded by the government and I think those studies will be more truthful than something our government does. We'll have more complete studies done in a few years.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty certain that you have to have some level of government approval to do any research with illicit substances. Without their go-ahead, one would essentially be breaking the law. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.
this is correct. You could do a study in CO if you wanted to, or WA but you would run the risk of getting licenses revoked, losing funding, etc.
and you couldn't really get it published.
This is per my medical marijuana doctor, who does track benefits but he says its not rigorous science without peer review.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 6:51 pm to goldennugget
quote:
But I go to a Southern Baptist Church and no one at my Church fits that mold. We are all nice, caring people with families and kids, who help each other out and do things to contribute to the community. There isn't any hate that I see. If any of you atheists and those who hate social conservatives and conservative Christians came to my Sunday School class and sat in there you would find normal Americans of different backgrounds who are nice and caring people, not hate filled. Your perceptions would change
After reading about some of the stuff Southern Baptists have done lately there is no doubt they occupy just about the lowest rung on the Protestant denomination ladder. They withheld 7 million dollars from an orphanage in Kentucky because the head of the orphanage said they shouldn't ban gay people from working there. Yes, you heard that right. IN 2014, the Southern Baptists don't even want to hire a gay person.
FTR, I was raised Southern Baptist.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 6:58 pm to Toddy
Gay groups were outraged with a certain shoe designer that had donated shoes to Focus on the Family that were going to children in Africa. Please, Toddy, don't tell others about the "evils" of the Southern Baptists. BTW, provide a link to the story and one that is complete.
You said that churches wouldn't be forced and now you are complaining about them not hiring gays. You are a liar.
I'm sure you read the Slate article version of what took place.
It's a church denomination and they have sexual moral standards that you want them to deny.
LINK
You said that churches wouldn't be forced and now you are complaining about them not hiring gays. You are a liar.
I'm sure you read the Slate article version of what took place.
quote:
Some absolutely sickening news out of Kentucky this month: Sunrise Children’s Services, which shelters and feeds more than 2,000 abused and neglected children every year, is facing a $7 million budget shortfall—a shortfall entirely manufactured by the Kentucky Baptist Convention in order to prevent Sunrise from hiring gay people.
It's a church denomination and they have sexual moral standards that you want them to deny.
LINK
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 7:08 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 7:02 pm to goldennugget
quote:
You never hear stories about a Christian Minister suing a bakery because the gay baker refused to bake a cake for the Minister's Sunday School group. Or a priest suing a gay photographer for not photographing a communion.
Maybe it's because this never happens.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 7:07 pm to los angeles tiger
Here's the AP story. They withheld over 7 million dollars because they were actually discussing allowing gay workers. This is like something from the 1950's.
LINK
quote:
Uncertainty over a short-lived proposal to open employment to gays at Kentucky's largest private child care agency prompted many of its supportive churches to withhold giving last year, causing a multi-million dollar shortfall.
Sunrise Children's Services depends on giving from Baptist congregations in Kentucky, along with government funding. But Kentucky Baptist Convention executive director Paul Chitwood said those offerings dried up last year because donors were concerned that the proposal to allow gay workers might succeed.
The Sunrise board ultimately rejected the proposal introduced by Bill Smithwick, then CEO of Sunrise. But the flap left the agency that cares daily for about 600 children with a funding shortfall of about $7.5 million.
"Most of our churches decided not to take the annual offering for Sunrise because they feared that Smithwick was going to lead Sunrise away from" the Kentucky Baptist Convention, Chitwood said. The state convention, which is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention and has about 2,400 member churches in Kentucky, is conservative on social issues and opposes gay marriage.
LINK
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 7:09 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 7:11 pm to Toddy
That is not the Southern Baptists fault. That is Smithwick's fault for deciding he wanted to go against church teachings.
You are now directly attacking churches and you said such would not happen because of the constitution. You lied just like I said you would and your friends have lied just like I said they would.
If you are so damned concerned about the kids, why don't y'all give 7 million to the children instead of using those kind of funds to sue florists, bakers, photographers, etc.
You are now directly attacking churches and you said such would not happen because of the constitution. You lied just like I said you would and your friends have lied just like I said they would.
If you are so damned concerned about the kids, why don't y'all give 7 million to the children instead of using those kind of funds to sue florists, bakers, photographers, etc.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News