The Official "I'm High" Thread

MALEPRIVILEGEI'm literally always high. I am not exaggerating, I smoke 1 gram a day as if it were prescribed, it's why I'm so stupid.

DJtearegassee a rig post a rig

Thizzle.A gram? Lol

MALEPRIVILEGEWell that's what it averages out too. A gram a day for 2 years.
Doesn't mean I don't dome a 3gram Blunt on occasion. if you have to smoke more than a gram a day to get high you need to stop dabbing and start thinking about your future.

Thizzle.Very clean banger hanger. Who blew that? To lazy to find a pic of my rig already on the Internet lol but I am probably the biggest boro head on this site.

MALEPRIVILEGEWell that's what it averages out too. A gram a day for 2 years.
Doesn't mean I don't dome a 3gram Blunt on occasion. if you have to smoke more than a gram a day to get high you need to stop dabbing and start thinking about your future.

VinnieFalso the 5000 bucks you save could go towards cancer treatment for if you get throat/lung cancer from all the smoking.

MALEPRIVILEGE"I suspect that a day's breathing in any city with poor air quality poses more of a threat than inhaling a day's dose --"

"marijuana smoke also contains cannabinoids such as THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) and CBD (cannabidiol), which are non-carcinogenic and demonstrate anti-cancer properties in vivo and in vitro..."

http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/17621270/abstract/Delta_9__Tetrahydrocannabinol_inhibits_epithelial_growth_factor_induced_lung_cancer_cell_migration_in_vitro_as_well_as_its_growth_and_metastasis_in_vivo

I also don't drink alcohol. How much do you think people spend at bars every year?

You would never say this to someone who drop $100 on a Friday at a bar which is easily a months worth of nug.

I hate double standards.

I did grow plants this year so good call.

VinnieFIf you don't see smoking marijuana as the source of a serious risk of cancer then you must be high.... oh, wait.

But yea, pretty much everything causes cancer and I agree it's also pretty dumb to frequently binge drink, so no double standard here.

Good on you for growing your own. Everyone should if they have the means.

I guess I'll slowly back out of this thread since I don't smoke..

-MK-You're so fucking ignorant, you sound like my mom... Too lazy to find any true facts out about bud. If you think marijuana causes cancer in 2015 you're an official dumbass.

VinnieFIf you don't see smoking marijuana as the source of a serious risk of cancer then you must be high.... oh, wait.

But yea, pretty much everything causes cancer and I agree it's also pretty dumb to frequently binge drink, so no double standard here.

Good on you for growing your own. Everyone should if they have the means.

I guess I'll slowly back out of this thread since I don't smoke..

-MK-You're so fucking ignorant, you sound like my mom... Too lazy to find any true facts out about bud. If you think marijuana causes cancer in 2015 you're an official dumbass.

MALEPRIVILEGE.

WillgumSource on that cancer thing?

-MK-You're so fucking ignorant, you sound like my mom... Too lazy to find any true facts out about bud. If you think marijuana causes cancer in 2015 you're an official dumbass.

MALEPRIVILEGE.

WillgumSource on that cancer thing?

VinnieFand obviously since you won't lift a finger to do some research on this topic, I'll link you to some primary sources:


This study found a higher link of cannabis smoking to lung cancer than cigarette smoking:

http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/31/2/280.short

This study found that cannabis may be a risk factor for lung cancer:

http://journals.lww.com/jto/Abstract/2006/07000/Risk_of_Lung_Cancer_and_Past_Use_of_Cannabis_in.13.aspx

This study is sort of a meta-analysis and finds positive correlation between cannabis smoking and various cancers.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00003.x/abstract

This study finds that cannabis smoke is a risk factor for lung cancer:

http://journals.lww.com/jto/Abstract/2008/12000/Cannabis_Smoking_and_Risk_of_Lung_Cancer_in_Men__A.7.aspx

This study found that cannabis does not increase the risk of head and neck cancer. yay!

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0194599807019985




Anyways, you get the point. I'm totally OK with smoking, I'm just not in denial about its health risks like so many are.

VinnieFI know it's cool to deny that there are any harmful effects of cannabis smoke, but do just an ounce of research other than what stoners will tell you and you'll find a plethora of information on carcinogenic compounds you inhale while smoking pot.

If you smoke anything, ANYTHING, then you're inhaling carcinogens. Doesn't matter if it's pot, tabacco, smoke from a fire, a newspaper, candle smoke, you are breathing in carcinogens when you inhale it.

And here, you want studies? I know it's from California and they probably list your toothpaste as a potential carcinogen and dangerous for pregnant females, but it's a pretty decent compilation of many different peer-reviewed studies

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/hazard_ident/pdf_zip/FinalMJsmokeHID.pdf



Also here. Here's a list of 33 known carcinogens that are in marijuana smoke. Whether cannabis smoke is carcinogenic really isn't debatable.

acetaldehyde, acetamide, acrylonitrile, 4
-
aminobiphenyl, arsenic,
benz[
a
]anthracene, benzene, benzo[
a
]pyrene, benzo[
b
]fluoranthene, benzo[
j
]fluoranthene,
benzo[
k
]fluoranthene, benzofuran, 1,3
-
butadiene, cadmium, carbazole, catechol, chromium
(hexavalent compounds), chrysene, dibenz[
a,
h
]anthracene, dibenz[
a,i
]pyrene,
dibenzo[
a,e
]pyrene, diethylnitrosamine, dimethylnitrosa
mine, formaldehyde, indeno[
1,2,3,
-
c,d
]pyrene, isoprene, lead, mercury, 5
-
methylchrysene, naphthalen
e, nickel, pyridine, and
quinoline

VinnieFIf you don't see smoking marijuana as the source of a serious risk of cancer then you must be high.... oh, wait.

But yea, pretty much everything causes cancer and I agree it's also pretty dumb to frequently binge drink, so no double standard here.

Good on you for growing your own. Everyone should if they have the means.

I guess I'll slowly back out of this thread since I don't smoke..

MALEPRIVILEGEFrom one of your sources.

There is very little evidence that THC is mutagenic. Studies of animal cells suggest that THC can produce alterations to cell metabolism, DNA synthesis and cell division in the test tube (Nahas & Latour 1986). These changes, however, are more likely to delay or stop cell division rather than to produce cellular changes that may lead to cancer (MacPhee et al. 1999).
THC and other cannabinoids are not mutagenic in standard microbial assays, such as the Ames test (MacPhee et al. 1999; Marselos & Karamanakos 1999). There is inconsistent evidence on whether the cannabinoids are clastogenic (i.e. produce breaks in chromosomes) (Marselos & Karamanakos 1999) However, even if they are clastogenic they are unlikely to be mutagenic (MacPhee et al. 1999), because chromosomal abnormalities are more likely to kill the affected cell than to produce malignant transformation and proliferation (MacPhee et al. 1999). A recent study in rats and mice has also found no evidence that THC was carcinogenic (Chan et al. 1996).

did you actually read any of your sources? None of them have actually found anything. It's all speculation through carcinogenic similarities.

MALEPRIVILEGESince Cannabis smoke contains many of the same components as tobacco smoke, there are valid concerns about the adverse pulmonary effects of inhaled Cannabis. A longitudinal study in a noncancer population evaluated repeated measurements of pulmonary function over 20 years in 5,115 men and women whose smoking histories were known.[5] While tobacco exposure was associated with decreased pulmonary function, the investigators concluded that occasional and low-cumulative Cannabis use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration [FEV1] and forced vital capacity [FVC]).


Burnt toast has just as many carcinogens as tobacco smoke. Doctors wouldn't prescribe cancer patients weed if they thought it was going to give them cancer. You are starting to seem like a troll.

MALEPRIVILEGEHere's another one for you chump.

"As more and more Americans consider the pros and cons of cannabis legalization, many points are worth repeating, and chief among them: cannabis actually decreases the risk of lung cancer.
It's a counter-intuitive notion, since tobacco smoking causes cancer, marijuana smoking must as well. But as the LA Weekly highlights Monday, it's just not true. Decades of pulmonary research is in: pot decreases the risk of lung cancer and does not cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

LA Weekly managed to quote one of the nation's leading pulmonologists, Dr. Donald Tashkin. The professor emeritus of medicine at UCLA once sought to prove pot causes lung cancer, but the evidence forced him to conclude the opposite.

Cannabis tar has more carcinogens than tobacco, but, Tashkin states, "we failed to find any positive association [with cancer]." Instead, "the association would be negative, between lung cancer and the use of marijuana. The likelihood is, that despite the fact that marijuana smoke contains carcinogens, we don't see the same heightened risks of cancers that we see in tobacco."

For one, THC, CBD and other cannabinoids have been shown in cell and animal studies to kill cancer.

Tashkin also states that smoking marijuana does not cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) perhaps because "marijuana is a potent anti-inflammatory and suppressive," he says."



I grew up around 2nd hand smoke my entire life. For all we know my pot smoking is saving me from Lung Cancer

MALEPRIVILEGEFrom one of your sources.



did you actually read any of your sources? None of them have actually found anything. It's all speculation through carcinogenic similarities.

VinnieFI missed this. You do realize the next paragraph of that exact study you quoted goes on to say how cannabis smoke IS carcinogenic?


As to "It's all speculation through carcinogenic similarities.", you clearly did not read any of them.

MALEPRIVILEGEJUST BECAUSE SOMETHING HAS CARCINOGENS DOESNT MEAN IT GIVES YOU CANCER, ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT THING HAS ANTI CANCER AND ANTI INFLAMMATORY PROPERTIES

I CANT BELIEVE YOU CAN IGNORE ALL THE FACTS JUST TO HOLD ONTO AN OPINION THAT IS NO LONGER VALID.


I UNDERSTAND THAT EVERYTHING YOU HAVE EVER LEARNED FROM POT PROPAGANDA IS BEING CHALLENGED AND YOU DONT LIKE BEING WRONG.

VinnieFOne study does not disprove the findings of many others. Can you explain the findings of every other study that links pot smoke to an increased risk of lung cancer? Are they all wrong?

Also I would like a link to his study

VinnieFI actually can't believe I'm having this discussion of whether cannabis smoke is carcinogenic or not. To think it's not is to disregard dozens of peer-reviewed primary literature sources. How else does one explain their findings? This isn't some big conspiracy. This is fact based.

VinnieFI missed this. You do realize the next paragraph of that exact study you quoted goes on to say how cannabis smoke IS carcinogenic?


As to "It's all speculation through carcinogenic similarities.", you clearly did not read any of them.

VinnieFYou are ridiculous. Blow up about ignoring the facts
"In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that long-term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults."

or this:

"The fact that it is cannabis smoke that is carcinogenic (Bloch et al. 1983) suggests that any cancers caused by cannabis smoking are most likely to develop in organs that receive maximum long-term exposure to cannabis smoke or its constituents, namely, the lung and possibly the upper aerodigestive tract (mouth, tongue, oesophagus) and bladder (MacPhee et al. 1999)."

or this:

Our results suggest that cannabis smoking may be a risk factor for lung cancer.



How are you completely ignoring this? How to you explain these findings?

MALEPRIVILEGEYour information is a bit outdated bud...

MALEPRIVILEGEhttp://enewspf.com/2014/06/23/study-habitual-marijuana-smoking-not-associated-with-increased-risk-of-lung-cancer/

VinnieFnah, those were from recent studies.

I'm just going to push this on on you for maybe a 4th time in hopes you read it

http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/31/2/280.short

VinnieFYou read the article, did you read the study?

this is the study the article is basing it's information off:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.29036/abstract


Here's their summary of results from the abstract. Read this.

"Weak associations between cannabis smoking and lung cancer were observed in never tobacco smokers. Spline modeling indicated a weak positive monotonic association between cumulative cannabis use and lung cancer, but precision was low at high exposure levels. Results from our pooled analyses provide little evidence for an increased risk of lung cancer among habitual or long-term cannabis smokers, although the possibility of potential adverse effect for heavy consumption cannot be excluded."


Not so straight cut, is it.

MALEPRIVILEGEFar from definitive. Which means you had no grounds to say what you said and in the end, you are wrong.

MALEPRIVILEGE^^^DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00065707 Published 1 February 2008

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.29036/abstract
^^^Article first published online: 30 JUN 2014



i win

VinnieFAlthough there is one big flaw in all these studies. That being there is no distinction of type or quality of cannabis being used. So yes, there is evidence THC and CBD and other cannabinoids have certain anti-cancer properties. But we all know cannabinoid concentration changes significantly plant by plant or by how it's grown or even the time of day which it's harvested. So a study looking at data using your average run-of-the-mill weed might show very different results from a study using more medicinal grade pot that has very high content of cannabinoids like CBD which are known to have medical benefits which may counteract the ill-effects of the smoke. And the problem being almost all these studies are not controlled studies but rather using already existing data from those who smoke on their own where there really is no saying what quality of weed they have.

This could easily explain the variability in studies from those claiming "yes, there is absolutely correlation between smoking and cancer" to those that claim "no, it doesn't seem like there is much correlation".

no_steezeI was scrolling through this page just laughing at how invested you both are in this argument. It's like the embodiment of this

no_steezeI was scrolling through this page just laughing at how invested you both are in this argument. It's like the embodiment of this

MALEPRIVILEGEyeah like we are so silly for caring about things. It's way more chiller to not care and just stare at the stars and be chill with good vibes right bruh? Like who even cares just smoke right?

how is calling someone out on the internet any different than calling someone out in conversation. Why is it all of a sudden lesser of an argument because it's on the Internet.

you must be really bad ass to be cool enough to stand by while people spread false information


damn I wish I knew you So I could be as cool as you and laugh at other people for being true.

damn your cool.

-MK-Wow, you snapped. Biggest over reaction on NS this year?

MALEPRIVILEGEpussy

-MK-Nice comeback, pussy

MALEPRIVILEGEyeah like we are so silly for caring about things. It's way more chiller to not care and just stare at the stars and be chill with good vibes right bruh? Like who even cares just smoke right?

how is calling someone out on the internet any different than calling someone out in conversation. Why is it all of a sudden lesser of an argument because it's on the Internet.

you must be really bad ass to be cool enough to stand by while people spread false information


damn I wish I knew you So I could be as cool as you and laugh at other people for being true.

damn your cool.