So the Surgeon General is just making things up out of the blue then? So is the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Journal of the National Cancer Institute?
The links you provided showed no statistical evidence. They didn't even referance specific studies. They made broad based accusations about "drugs", and occasionally threw the word marijuana in there to make it relevant. That is not evidence, it's propoganda. Big difference.
Alright, since you keep discrediting my sources, I'll just up and say all of yours are crap. That norml site is biased and unprofessional.
Really? Crap? When you click on the links, they take you to the actual papers, written by scientists, with referances to OTHER studies done. They list the theories to be tested, the methodology, the test subject history, and all relevant information, than discuss the course of the testing and the results.
Of course, you would have actually had to click on and read through the links to know this.
Someone else shared a very informative page with a HUGE variety of links to scientific documents that showed the effects of marijuana on the body. I guess you didn't read those links either. As I recall, you were given 3 very professional, very scientific, and very well documented resources from which to choose. I guess propoganda wins over data, in your world...
I've already told you what the negative side effects from prolonged usage of marijuana is, and , since you don't seem to listen, here is the link to the STUDY on how it causes cancer again.
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9808/18/marijuana.cancer/
Right...cancer. Of course. Smoking anything will give you cancer. This is because it is the smoke that is carcinogenic, not the pot. Since you don't seem to be able to read, I will say it again...
There are a multitude of ways in which to introduce marijuana into the body without burning it. These manners of use do not cause cancer. period.
Heavy use, a.k.a abuse is defined on that link. The test subjects used had to smoke 10 or more joints a week to be included in the study. If you actually read that article, you'd know that.
I read the article. It discussed smoking. And for the umpteenth time, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SMOKE IT!! IF YOU DON'T SMOKE IT< IT IS NOT CARCINOGENIC!!
NOW who's ignoring the facts? I've given you several sources telling you that it can cause cancer, heart problems, impaired lung function, birth defects, a low sperm count, and an impaired immune response, yet you STILL tell me it's harmless!
You have not shown me a single documented research paper of any kind. You have shown me no statistical data. You have not shown me any hypothesis nor method of findings, and you have not shown me any results. What you have shown me are interpretations of results. As we all know, data can show whatever we want. It's easy to say "smoking pot causes cancer" while ignoring the ways that using marijuana does NOT cause cancer. It's easy to say you can be addicted when you ignore the clinical definition of addiction.
In other words, it's easy to interpret data to fit your opinions, and write a synopsis of your opinions, rather than to read an actual study and see what the conculsion themselves are.
You are clearly refusing to acknowledge that it CAN BE HARMFUL. Why can't you admit that? I'm admitting that it can be useful and even great! But only when used in MODERATION and for a REASON.
Because you haven't shown me any documentation of the harm caused by marijuana by itself. You say cancer. I say don't smoke. You say paranoia. I say only for the wrong person or in the wrong place. You say depression. I say happy-happy-joy-joy. You say addiction, I say baloney.
If mariuana is "extremely harmful", as you have claimed over and over again in this topic, I want to see the empirical data that shows this. I want a link to the actual study, not some reporter's or politician's interpretation of the data. Show me what the researchers discovered, not what the politicians want you to think they discovered...
"There is no permanent psychosis, depression, or violent tendencies from marijuana."
^ This implies that there IS TEMPORARY psychosis, depression, and violent tendencies from marijuana. If that's not what you meant to imply, you should have been more clear.
It's not for everyone. Some people don't like it, and like just about every substance on this planet, some people will have a bad reaction to it. If you smoke too much, too often, there is a possibility that you will have a negative reaction. This reaction is almost always temporary, and never life threatening. So what's the big deal?
People have fatal and permanent reactions and side effects to
countless approved medicines. People can die after eating their first peanut. Having a minor and temporary negative reaction to a substance in a very small percentage of the population is not grounds to make it an illegal and controlled substance. Otherwise peanuts, shellfish, coffee, many types of flowering plants, certain types of syrups, and milk would all be controlled substances...
