Mary Jane And Your Balls

wow, that is a lot on paper, eh?

Cigarettes and liqour are fairly easy to drop a buck or two on... It'd cost you around $2,000 to smoke a pack a day for a year...

Josiah... lol... All he's saying is that he wouldn't understand if people didn't want to know the risks involved lol... This is a potentioal risk... wouldn't you want to know the risks before you did it? It may not stop you in the end but at least you were able to make an informed decision...

Yes and we know they cause them harm because we have researched into the side-effects. Therefore that particular consumer can make an informed decision whether or not to purchase that particular product.

This isn't about deterring or supporting marijuana. This about helping people make more educated decisions before they use a product based on pre-existing health conditions.

E.g.
SURE you want to eat a cheeseburger and have had 3 heart-attacks in the past. That's your choice. However, there are those of us based on the health information of cheeseburgers would not make that same choice.

@Josiah- no worries.

to be serious though, I bet it's 90 bucks a week for those two things. if I added that up, I bet I wouldn't like it.

I did the math. over 5k. yeah that sucks. if I quit smoking, I could get 5 times as drunk!

lol...

I was talking about both. High risk factor can sometimes be caused pre-existing medical condition. I should have clarified that too.

One usually is categorized as a high risk factor(for something) based on personal patient history, family medical history and pre-existing or chronic medical conditions.

But this all boils down to making more informed decisions. Whatever you want to decide thats up to you.

EDIT: But informed decisions doesn't need only apply to people with already health risk factors. Just like some people want to make those decisions before any issues arise.

On one hand, this study may help uninformed people(those with no grasp on statistics) make uninformed decisions.

On the other hand, it's results show less of a pattern than most placebos and have a much smaller sample size. Despite this, it'll be brought up at every marijuana legislation committee.

If you don't understand why the study is more of a negative to marijuana users than a positive, I don't know what to tell you.

Blah blah blah now let's do alcohol and tobacco.

No i don't understand how this is negative to marijuana users. (sarcasm).

I DO understand how this helps physicians provide better information to their patients. And I'm all for providing physicians and their patients more information.

Also if you have a pre-existing health condition I should hope you consult your primary care dr. Knowledge of statistics or not- your doctor knows a lot more about your health than you do. A huge problem is for RNs and MD's is when patients take 15 minutes to look at WebMD and google then stroll into the DR's office and claim to know more than the MD.

What about the resident MDs here?

yes please, that's the only opinion I'd be interested in.

I should hope an MD wouldn't make an informal diagnosis via a videogame chat forum without access to patient records and health history. There are laws regarding patient diagnoses and treatment stipulated by the state medical boards.

I can't tell you how many times I've sat there and listened to a doctor in a hospital or primary care practice that was so incredibly biologically/biochemically inaccurate I was practically terrified that they were allowed to perform any sort of procedure on my body.

Medicine is so far from a science that it's practically an art. The only differences in diagnostic ability between anyone with logical deductive ability and access to information and someone with a medical degree is that the MD is supposed to have all the information memorized and can prescribe tests to rule out things.

You should find a another physician if you feel that way. Considering pharmacology is part of the MD curriculum. Medicine is a science. Pharmacology isnt not covered extensively in any undergrad curriculum. A Pharmacist, MD, RN/PA and VDM DVM are going to have a lot more extensive background in pharmacology.

non sequitur...

you have far too much faith in western medicine

To be fair be comment was made in an attempt to uncover some irony. ;p

I call bullsh*t!
Even if you spent $200 daily on whiskey and weed, but only on Mondays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, you'd be spending over $30,000 per year on whiskey and weed.

If you're spending $30,000 on whiskey and weed annually, while some children go hungry and and some people have to sell magazines door-to-door to make ends meet, then you need to donate most of your fortune to charity and find yourself a nice private remote beach spot somewhere far away, grow your own little marijuana garden, and puff-puff-puff away your sad existence!

Even if it is or it isn't *** who are you to tell someone what to do with their money?

For what it's worth (and you may not like this!), I'm probably as close as you'll get to a MD on a MMORPG forum. There *might* be a couple of MD lurkers around ... I don't know!

I'm a Master's Degree level healthcare professional. When people f*ck-up their lives, I'm one of the people that helps them recover and rehabilitate. People do a lot of amazingly stupid sh*t ... believe me, I've seen it all. It bothers me when pot users delude themselves into believing that smoking weed is somehow ok, because "it isn't as bad as (insert other more addictive/dangerous substance here)".

F that. While it's true that cannabis abusers aren't as harmful to society as meth/coke/smack/oxy users and alcoholics ... *none* of that makes marijuana use safe, harmless, or (lol) "good" for anyone (save perhaps the terminally-ill).
The study highlighted in the OP is just one in a long list of studies that suggest seriously harmful side effects from exposure to THC. There will *never* be a massive-scale large sample-size double-blind placebo-controlled study on the effects of THC. Why? Well, in case it isn't obvious, marijuana is harmful (not to mention illegal) and not available for research purposes in large quantities. So, we're left with research methods that are, by necessity, less compelling.

That doesn't mean you should ignore the warnings. Sure, the prevalence of testicular cancer isn't alarming ... but it DOES exist. And if smoking weed doubles the risk (even if that risk is still small despite being doubled) ... well ... if you find out that nasty persistent cough you've been experiencing is actually testicular cancer that's metastasized to your lungs, and you now have a month or two left to live ... don't you think you might regret (just a little bit?) that you doubled your risk by getting high?

People who are cheap and poor?

we adressed that already, it was exaggeration




huh? why would that bother me? I was legitimately asking a medical professional.

I'm not championing the weed war brother. there's other yahoos on here doing that. I'm just joking arounds.

Ok, brother. Joke on then!

I formally readdress my last post to the yahoos, and not specifically to Mosin!

Marijuana use, or Marijuana smoking? there's a difference that should be noted, smoking will of course have side effects to one's health regardless of the substance.

edit: and obviously this isn't concrete evidence, so lol.

edit2: both articles are a joke, really correlating that because less people with testicular cancer reported use of cocaine (not to mention self reports are nowhere near accurate) as proof that people who have the cancer aren't more willing to share is a joke, didn't they consider that some people smoked pot once in awhile, instead of trying to ruin their lives with some coke? /facepalm

I'm almost as baffled as there's a 7 page thread about this poor "science"

it becomes legit at 9, keep pushing.

no as usual you're just an internet troll who pretends you're better than other people.

Marijuana is less harmful than other drugs, smoking weed should be more "OK" than smoking tobacco ever was.

You've given no actual proof to that account, your studies are garbage, and I can't believe I took the time to read them.

Marijuana is on the ballot for the first time this year in oregon yay :D