Cannabis linked to higher stroke risk in young adults

[Flying Purple People Eater]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ED1302/S00017/cannabis-linked-to-higher-stroke-risk-in-young-adults.htm

Cannabis Linked To Higher Stroke Risk In Young Adults

Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 9:08 am
Press Release: Auckland University
Smoking Cannabis Linked To Higher Stroke Risk In Young Adults

Cannabis use may double the stroke risk in young adults, according to a recent study by researchers in the Centre for Brain Research at The University of Auckland.

The study showed that ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients were 2.3 times more likely to have cannabis detected in urine tests as other age and sex matched patients.

“This is the first case-controlled study to show a possible link to the increased risk of stroke from cannabis,” said Professor Alan Barber, lead investigator for the study and Neurological Foundation professor of clinical neurology at the University. “Cannabis has been thought by the public to be a relatively safe, although illegal substance. This study shows this might not be the case; it may lead to stroke.”

Professor Barber this week presented the study findings to the American Stroke Association’s International Stroke Conference 2013 in Honolulu. The study included 160 ischemic stroke/TIA patients aged 18-55 years who had urine screens upon admission to the hospital.



Among the patients, 150 had ischemic stroke and 10 had TIAs. Sixteen percent of patients tested positive for cannabis, and were mostly male who also smoked tobacco, while only 8.1 percent of controls tested positive for cannabis in urine samples. Researchers found no differences in age, stroke mechanism or most vascular risk factors between cannabis users and non-users.

In previous case reports, ischemic stroke and TIAs developed hours after cannabis use, says Professor Barber. “These patients usually had no other vascular risk factors apart from tobacco, alcohol and other drug usage. It’s challenging to perform prospective studies involving illegal substances such as cannabis because “questioning stroke and control patients about cannabis use is likely to obtain unreliable responses,” he says.

The study provides the strongest evidence to date of an association between cannabis and stroke, says Professor Barber. But the association is confounded because all but one of the stroke patients who were cannabis users also used tobacco regularly.

“We believe it is the cannabis use and not tobacco,” says Professor Barber, who hopes to conduct another study to determine whether there’s an association between cannabis and stroke independent of tobacco use.

“This may prove difficult given the risks of bias and ethical strictures of studying the use of an illegal substance,” he says. “However, the high prevalence of cannabis use in this cohort of younger stroke patients makes this research imperative.”

Physicians should test young people who come in with stroke for cannabis use, says Professor Barber. “People need to think twice about using cannabis, because it can affect brain development and result in emphysema, heart attack and now stroke.”

The study was funded by the Auckland District Health Board’s A+ Trust. Co-authors were: Dr Neil E. Anderson (ADHB), Dr Heidi Pridmore, Dr Venkatesh Krishnamurthy, Dr Sally Roberts, Dr David A. Spriggs, and Dr Kristie Carter.

ENDS

I don't want to get a stroke! :crying:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

“We believe it is the cannabis use and not tobacco,” says Professor Barber, who hopes to conduct another study to determine whether there’s an association between cannabis and stroke independent of tobacco use.

“This may prove difficult given the risks of bias and ethical strictures of studying the use of an illegal substance,” he says. “However, the high prevalence of cannabis use in this cohort of younger stroke patients makes this research imperative.”

In other words, "I choose to believe this is cannabis, despite the presence of a drug that everybody knows causes the constriction of blood vessels, because, well, pot turns good kids into sex-crazed rock music fiends."

[ed miliband]

pot does tend to turn kids into really boring, self-obsessed dickheads though. for real.

[Comrade #138672]

pot does tend to turn kids into really boring, self-obsessed dickheads though. for real.Not necessarily.

[Luís Henrique]

Not necessarily.

That's already implied in the word "tend".

Luís Henrique

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The study showed that ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients were 2.3 times more likely to have cannabis detected in urine tests as other age and sex matched patients.

This only shows that stroke patients of a certain cohort are more likely to use cannabis than patients of other ailments. It's also the wrong way round, surely? A better designed study would look at a population of cannabis users and compare the rates of stroke in that population with rates of stroke in a similar population of non-cannabis users.

Sounds like someone with an agenda or a desperate need for funding.


pot does tend to turn kids into really boring, self-obsessed dickheads though. for real.

Does it really? Or are kids who are boring, self-obsessed dickheads more likely to use pot?

[Prisma]

In other words, "I choose to believe this is cannabis, despite the presence of a drug that everybody knows causes the constriction of blood vessels, because, well, pot turns good kids into sex-crazed rock music fiends."

Indeed, more political science! Such as the article heading, 'X linked with Y' certainly sounds more compelling to the reader than 'X possibly linked to Y' - because then, who would care?

There are literally dozens of similar 'Cannabis possibly maybe linked to' type studies, some sections of the community receive or apply for funding from the government et al. to 'address drug-use' in 'youth' - this is often the result.

Less fun, cannabis does actually have health implications, some are psycho-social, others seem benign but can become chronic~! Feeling dry-mouth? That's your mouth not producing saliva. Finished that bowl of cheeto's yet? Did you brush your teeth? No? Stoner! Well that's accelerated caries right there.

[Geiseric]

pot does tend to turn kids into really boring, self-obsessed dickheads though. for real.

Joe Strummer smoked weed you know. I smoke weed and I'm not a self obsessed dickhead :( It's usually something to do with isolation, people get bored before they smoke weed.

[Hit The North]

pot does tend to turn kids into really boring, self-obsessed dickheads though. for real.

Is that what happened to you?:lol:

[sixdollarchampagne]

Joe Strummer smoked weed you know. I smoke weed and I'm not a self obsessed dickhead :( It's usually something to do with isolation, people get bored before they smoke weed.

Yeah, but there are people, with friends, who smoke weed and spend their days motionless in front of the television set. From what I've observed over some years now, using a lot of pot tends to reduce people to a near zombie-like state; in my experience, they are not interested in doing other things or being very active. Add to that the cost of the substance, and it seems like a no-win proposition to me, and it is addictive, though no user of the substance would ever admit that. I cannot imagine that leftists believe that a population anesthetized by pot, is going to accomplish anything of lasting value. And I think it is unlikely that anyone hooked on pot is going to worry too much about getting a stroke – such is the power of that drug. The culture just hands us the tools with which we can destroy ourselves – amazing.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm willing to listen about the risks of cannabis use, if the warnings come from reputable sources in the medical community (and are not just used as a pathetic front to keep marijuana illegal, as has happened in the past (http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20064743,00.html)) However, statements like this:


These patients usually had no other vascular risk factors apart from tobacco, alcohol and other drug usage.

make me question the usefulness of the study. Wow, only alcohol, tobacco, and "other drug usage", huh? :rolleyes:

[Kenco Smooth]

This only shows that stroke patients of a certain cohort are more likely to use cannabis than patients of other ailments. It's also the wrong way round, surely? A better designed study would look at a population of cannabis users and compare the rates of stroke in that population with rates of stroke in a similar population of non-cannabis users.

Sounds like someone with an agenda or a desperate need for funding.


In an ideal world that'd be the case. But that kind of longitudinal study is massively expensive and a real hassle to manage, quite often requiring administrative teams. No way it'd get organized for a one off issue like cannabis use (not to mention the drop out rate would probably be sky high if use was anything but highly persistent and it'd have to run for years before people get old enough for the rate of strokes to be useful). It's not an ideal study but it's not bad given the limitations.

That said the Dunedin cohorts do measure cannabis use, in a decade or two when strokes start kicking in at a decent rate that investigation could take place

[Decolonize The Left]

When I read the title I was worried. But then I read the article and I'm not worried anymore. Legalize it.

[Sasha]

so they found out that young people smoke more weed (because by the looks of it they found that young stroke victims are more often smoking weed than older stroke victims, not that smoking weed actually gives you an higher risk for giving you a stroke)... next; water is proven to be wet...

[Sasha]

Yeah, but there are people, with friends, who smoke weed and spend their days motionless in front of the television set. From what I've observed over some years now, using a lot of pot tends to reduce people to a near zombie-like state; in my experience, they are not interested in doing other things or being very active. Add to that the cost of the substance, and it seems like a no-win proposition to me, and it is addictive, though no user of the substance would ever admit that. I cannot imagine that leftists believe that a population anesthetized by pot, is going to accomplish anything of lasting value. And I think it is unlikely that anyone hooked on pot is going to worry too much about getting a stroke – such is the power of that drug. The culture just hands us the tools with which we can destroy ourselves – amazing.

i smoke, i smoke almost every day, i'm pretty active, in fact i can be active partly because of weed ( i dont only smoke recreatively).
ever considerd that weed might just be the drug of choice for some lazy bum dropouts, not that you become a lazy bum drop out by smoking weed, "playing basketball doesn't make you taller" you know..

[Ocean Seal]

Saying that pot makes kids into self-obsessed boring dickheads is bizarre being that most people are boring, and quite a few people smoke pot so the two categories and too expansive to really find an adequate correlation.

[Kenco Smooth]

so they found out that young people smoke more weed (because by the looks of it they found that young stroke victims are more often smoking weed than older stroke victims, not that smoking weed actually gives you an higher risk for giving you a stroke)... next; water is proven to be wet...


I'm seriously perplexed how you got that from " Researchers found no differences in age ... between cannabis users and non-users". So there's no difference in cannabis use by age (amongst the sample of stroke victims).

[Sasha]

I'm seriously perplexed how you got that from " Researchers found no differences in age ... between cannabis users and non-users". So there's no difference in cannabis use by age (amongst the sample of stroke victims).


sorry, i misunderstood this sentence;

The study showed that ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients were 2.3 times more likely to have cannabis detected in urine tests as other age and sex matched patients
i stand corrected, thanx

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, since we all basically agree that this study is bullshit (we know smoking tobacco is linked to strokes, and really, this only affirms that there is often overlap between tobacco users and pot smokers), there's another real issue coming to the forefront.


Does pot:

a) Turn the kids into TV-addicted consumer-zombies? :thumbdown:

or

b) Turn the kids into sex-crazed rock'n'roll terrorist-communist-botany-enthusiasts? :redstar2000:

My experience is that it is undeniably the latter. On the other hand, TV TURNS THE KIDS INTO TV-ADDICTED CONSUMER ZOMBIES and unfortunately OUR POWERFUL MEDICINE AND WEAPON OF PROLETARIAN PSYCHEDELIC REBELLION AND HOME GARDENING is not always enough to break TV's spell.

THEREFORE!

Before smoking reefer,
blow up your TV and kill your parents.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Huh. Editing my above post removed the hard-earned thanks. I guess I should further elaborate my thesis to regain that hard-earned credibility.

I think intersections between drug culture, illegalism, and radical politics are extremely complicated. On one hand, drugs as a commodity have had horrendous and corrosive effects on communities of struggle. As for drugs in-and-of-themselves as substances, it's varied wildly. Certainly, the Weather Underground's LSD-fueled orgies were a historical necessity. Coke, on the other hand, is a totally bad scene.

And ritalin? Certainly, big pharma is the enemy, and the use of drugs to modify the behaviour of youths to facilitate their integration needs to be fought tooth and nail. Mind you, ritalin also allowed me to read most of J. Sakai's Settlers in one sitting.

Anyway, rethank my post, thanks.

[Skyhilist]

This study is flawed because it fails to recognize that association does not equal causation.

[Klaatu]

This is not surprising.

Deep inhalation of concentrated doses of air particulates (smoke) can cause stroke, high blood pressure, blood clotting and heart attack.

The solution is to eat the leaves, as you would basil or oregano. Sprinkle MaryJane on your pizza and enjoy! :tt1:

[A Revolutionary Tool]

16 and 8.1 percent, is that considered a lot nowadays?

[La Guaneña]

Socialism is a government where smoking pot is tolerated, gay marriage is accepted and black people have rights.

Communism is a dictatorship where smoking pot is a law, straight marriage is a crime and black people whip white people.

Anti-pot positions are reactionary.

[La Guaneña]

This is not surprising.

Deep inhalation of concentrated doses of air particulates (smoke) can cause stroke, high blood pressure, blood clotting and heart attack.

The solution is to eat the leaves, as you would basil or oregano. Sprinkle MaryJane on your pizza and enjoy! :tt1:

Or make some delicious brownies, brigadeiros and cookies.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

What about vaping?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I mean this just seems ridiculous, test 160 people(a small number of people it seems), 25 of them test positive for cannabis, therefore consuming cannabis will make you have strokes :confused:

[Kenco Smooth]

This study is flawed because it fails to recognize that association does not equal causation.

Whilst the presentation is not yet published they clearly have recognised this by addressing the issue of tobacco as a confounder and the plans to carry out further research to try and partial out this effect. It's a preliminary finding which is far from conclusive but can we stop with the "gotcha" arguments?


I mean this just seems ridiculous, test 160 people(a small number of people it seems), 25 of them test positive for cannabis, therefore consuming cannabis will make you have strokes :confused:

It's not a great sample but 160 really isn't bad, big enough to have reasonable power and the samples probably quite representative. Given that there's a whole century's work into small sample appropriate statistics I don't think sample size can be considered an issue.

Looking at the abstract (http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?mID=2976&sKey=664c475b-19a2-43bf-aff3-007e2a1436b7&cKey=d5717b4f-bb87-46dd-a867-9a0c3df04c43&mKey={030226AD-6657-4113-8807-C262F3A561AA}) it reports that the odds of an individual with cannabis in their systems suffering from a stroke is are 2.3 times greater than an individual without cannabis in their system.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Looking at the abstract (http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?mID=2976&sKey=664c475b-19a2-43bf-aff3-007e2a1436b7&cKey=d5717b4f-bb87-46dd-a867-9a0c3df04c43&mKey={030226AD-6657-4113-8807-C262F3A561AA}) it reports that the odds of an individual with cannabis in their systems suffering from a stroke is are 2.3 times greater than an individual without cannabis in their system.

Looking at the abstract, it says odds are close to 90% that if you're a cannabis smoker, you're a tobacco smoker. Y'know, a drug that causes constriction of blood vessels and is known to cause strokes.
Post a study that tests people who exclusively smoke pot, and maybe I'll take it seriously.

[Ele'ill]

Huh. Editing my above post removed the hard-earned thanks. I guess I should further elaborate my thesis to regain that hard-earned credibility.



don't worry, when you edit your post the thanks vanish but they're actually still there. You probably got double the thanks now. If I were high right now I probably wouldn't have lost focus and derailed this thread too. *also, I don't care if it causes stroke I like being high

[Yuppie Grinder]

pot does tend to turn kids into really boring, self-obsessed dickheads though. for real.

There are dickheads who smoke and dickheads who don't. I don't see much of a correlation.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In an ideal world that'd be the case. But that kind of longitudinal study is massively expensive and a real hassle to manage, quite often requiring administrative teams. No way it'd get organized for a one off issue like cannabis use (not to mention the drop out rate would probably be sky high if use was anything but highly persistent and it'd have to run for years before people get old enough for the rate of strokes to be useful). It's not an ideal study but it's not bad given the limitations.

Actually no, I'm going to disagree with this assessment completely, because on reflection the abject failure to control for tobacco use is such a glaring omission that I'm surprised you're giving it that much credit.

Maybe people will stop with the "gotchas!" when researchers stop producing ideologically or financially driven studies with very basic methodological shortcomings.

It doesn't have to be a long-term longitudinal study, it just has to control for a habit known to be carcinogenic and which has been medically proven to constrict blood vessels. Perhaps even they could include orally consumed cannabis in order to determine whether the stroke risk comes from smoking itself or the THC.

[Klaatu]

Looking at the abstract, it says odds are close to 90% that if you're a cannabis smoker, you're a tobacco smoker. Y'know, a drug that causes constriction of blood vessels and is known to cause strokes.
Post a study that tests people who exclusively smoke pot, and maybe I'll take it seriously.

Stop and think about it: smoke is smoke. Whether it's pot smoke, tobacco smoke, or wood smoke, you are burning organic biomass (plants) and the since the composition of the fuel differs little, the composition of the burning effluent differs little.

It's kind of like saying that gin can make you drunk, but so can whiskey, because the basic common component is ethanol. Hence it is logically true that one can 'get drunk smelling booze' if one inhales a sufficient amount of the (ethanol) vapor.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Stop and think about it: smoke is smoke. Whether it's pot smoke, tobacco smoke, or wood smoke, you are burning organic biomass (plants) and the since the composition of the fuel differs little, the composition of the burning effluent differs little.

It's kind of like saying that gin can make you drunk, but so can whiskey, because the basic common component is ethanol. Hence it is logically true that one can 'get drunk smelling booze' if one inhales a sufficient amount of the (ethanol) vapor.

The link between marijuana smoke and, say, lung cancer is still being debated. For example:


Several longitudinal studies have established that even long-term use of marijuana (via smoking) in humans is not associated with elevated cancer risk, including tobacco-related cancers or with cancer of the following sites: colorectal, lung, melanoma, prostate, breast, cervix. A more recent (2009) population-based case-control study found that moderate marijuana smoking over a 20 year period was associated with reduced risk of head and neck cancer (See Liang et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19638490)). And a 5-year-long population-based case control study found even long-term heavy marijuana smoking was not associated with lung cancer or UAT (upper aerodigestive tract) cancers.[5 (http://www.drugpolicy.org/facts/drug-facts/marijuana/sources#cancer)]

http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/10-facts-about-marijuana

[black magick hustla]

i agree with my bud ed milliband

pot: its defendants and false critiques


personally, weed makes me really lethargic and antisocial. that's why i'm not a big fan. also weed culture as in white weed culture is really shitty and it consists of pizza, chips, pseudo hippies, tye dyes, shitty hats, and unfunny youtube vids. yah i rather shoot myself in the fucking head. thanks

[Total]

... and it is addictive, though no user of the substance would ever admit that.


Yep, it can be addictive, mentally.. Your body doesn't need pot to keep functioning like with coke or heroin. But i know plenty of examples of people who get irritated if they don't smoke. Weed changes your state of mind, that influence can be addictive.

I also know quit a number of people who function better on pot then they would on ritalin,. pot can be medicating.

On another note, although the above research is kinda bull, another one i've read in a dutch newspaper some time back. The risk of a collapsed lung is supposed to be higher among potheads (not hash) than smokers. The reason they thought up for this was that pot can contain little glass shards (grinded 't.l. buis' lightbulbs). This is done to increase the weight and give the buts this sparkling 'thc cristals' look.
propably bogus research as well, though i've had my hands on some pot that contained sparkly bits that wheren't thc cristals. personally i think smoking glass (or sand) with your pot can increase the risk of a collapsed lung, but you could also get some better shit elsewhere.

But smoking weed means inhaling smoke..
Someone mentioned a vaporiser, this is proppably the safest bet. The vap heats up the buts enough to release the ths and keeps the 'bad'chemicals contained in the but. the best way to get clean thc into your system.

And to all those who claim pot turns people or themself into zombies, pot has different effects on different people, please keep that in mind. For me, i can do anything just fine if i've smoked, some things even better (creative or focussed stuff) and yes, i do stuff after smoking. Stating the 'pot-scene' is about hanging in front of the tv, having munchies and stuff.. That's like sayig the whole metal scene worships satan, the french only drink wine, the dutch live in windmills etc etc see where i'm getting at..?

[Art Vandelay]

i agree with my bud ed milliband

pot: its defendants and false critiques


personally, weed makes me really lethargic and antisocial. that's why i'm not a big fan. also weed culture as in white weed culture is really shitty and it consists of pizza, chips, pseudo hippies, tye dyes, shitty hats, and unfunny youtube vids. yah i rather shoot myself in the fucking head. thanks

I love when people completely characterize an entire group of people flippantly, it makes them look silly.

I mean I barely smoke dope anymore, but maybe you should find cooler people to smoke with. Just saying.

[MP5]

i agree with my bud ed milliband

pot: its defendants and false critiques


personally, weed makes me really lethargic and antisocial. that's why i'm not a big fan. also weed culture as in white weed culture is really shitty and it consists of pizza, chips, pseudo hippies, tye dyes, shitty hats, and unfunny youtube vids. yah i rather shoot myself in the fucking head. thanks

Okay i have in the past and still do from time to time go through a 1/8th in the run of a few days. I am not a hippie in any way, i am certainly not anti-social or lethargic (in fact i smoke it to help calm me down), i work out and everything instead of sitting around eating pizza (although i do like pizza too :)) and the only chips i like are what yanks call fries.

I love how some people judge a entire group of people by a few stereotypical granola hippies they see on TV.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Some of what he said has some basis in reality, like the unfunny youtube vids and fast food (chips, pizza etc) part. But I'm not sure where he got the pseudo hippy, tye dye & shitty hats part from. I've been affiliated with "white weed culture" for some time and haven't noticed any of those things with any sort of frequency.

Although I think white weed culture takes a more hillbilly-esque character up here...and probably quite a few other places in the USA, actually. The idiocy of rural life!

[black magick hustla]

theres like redneck white weed culture and college white weed culture and ofc they overlap but the tye dye and shitty hats is from the latter. also existentialism

[Flying Purple People Eater]

it consists of pizza, chips, pseudo hippies, tye dyes, shitty hats,

What's so bad about all of these things? :confused:

[Os Cangaceiros]

theres like redneck white weed culture and college white weed culture and ofc they overlap but the tye dye and shitty hats is from the latter. also existentialism

I definitely know what you're refering to, but I think that you'll find that, as you move outside of "academic circles" (ie college and high school) there's a lot of marijuana use among those who are in both the economic and sociological working class. I mean, they're not supposed to, drug testing and all, but a lot do it anyway...

Marijuana use as a cultural identity isn't as big with such people, though, I suppose.

[black magick hustla]

I definitely know what you're refering to, but I think that you'll find that, as you move outside of "academic circles" (ie college and high school) there's a lot of marijuana use among those who are in both the economic and sociological working class. I mean, they're not supposed to, drug testing and all, but a lot do it anyway...

Marijuana use as a cultural identity isn't as big with such people, though, I suppose.

haha i know this. most of the stuff i write in this thread is tongue in cheek anyway. of course not all weed smokers are the same. i do hate "weed cultural identity" tho, it is is a source of insufferable pricks. people who smoke a bowl after work cuz' it relaxes them or whatever are okay in my book. it's just cute to me that a bunch of people here suddenly turned all defensive about their shitty hobby or w/e. also it kinda annoys me that weed is a big thing in left wing circles cuz' i'm bothered when people become walking stereotypes of themselves.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm just bored, that's half the reason I reply to anything on this forum.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I do enjoy a good batch o' drugs, though, and I guess I get defensive about it because it cements my identity as a decadent middle class white person. :ohmy:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

haha i know this. most of the stuff i write in this thread is tongue in cheek anyway. of course not all weed smokers are the same. i do hate "weed cultural identity" tho, it is is a source of insufferable pricks.

Personally I find the anti-drug types to be so much more annoying. While I can appreciate that pro-drug types can be over-enthusiastic, that's still light-years ahead of any strain of puritanism.

I don't understand why being annoyed by certain drug-related fashions or whatever is deserving of mention, when people are having their lives ruined by drug prohibition.


people who smoke a bowl after work cuz' it relaxes them or whatever are okay in my book. it's just cute to me that a bunch of people here suddenly turned all defensive about their shitty hobby or w/e.

Maybe you if you actually paid attention to peoples' objections to this shitty study, instead of coming out with this "lol white guise" quasi-snobbery, you wouldn't find it so "cute".


also it kinda annoys me that weed is a big thing in left wing circles cuz' i'm bothered when people become walking stereotypes of themselves.

Since when is objecting to a shitty study a "stereotype"? Remember that you are the one who brought up the completely irrelevant subject of tie-dyed shirts and "weed culture".

[Ocean Seal]

i agree with my bud ed milliband

pot: its defendants and false critiques


personally, weed makes me really lethargic and antisocial.
That's why you smoke with a lot of people.


that's why i'm not a big fan. also weed culture as in white weed culture is really shitty and it consists of pizza, chips, pseudo hippies, tye dyes, shitty hats, and unfunny youtube vids. yah i rather shoot myself in the fucking head. thanks
You'd rather shoot yourself in the head than smoke weed and eat pizza? I actually think that's the first time I've heard those words used in a sentence that way.

[MP5]

haha i know this. most of the stuff i write in this thread is tongue in cheek anyway. of course not all weed smokers are the same. i do hate "weed cultural identity" tho, it is is a source of insufferable pricks. people who smoke a bowl after work cuz' it relaxes them or whatever are okay in my book. it's just cute to me that a bunch of people here suddenly turned all defensive about their shitty hobby or w/e. also it kinda annoys me that weed is a big thing in left wing circles cuz' i'm bothered when people become walking stereotypes of themselves.

I don't know where this "weed culture identity" exists but it's not where i live that's for sure. Some people do think Cannabis is the cure for everything but those people are just morons and hardly reflective of the tons of people who smoke it everyday. Here it's a big thing in left wing, centrist and right wing circles. It's certainly not a thing that is just enjoyed by liberals or Socialists here and it is not a class thing either. I have known people from the most impoverished working class ghettos smoke it and people who are upper middle class smoke it. This is not the 60's anymore were Cannabis along with psychedelics where drugs most associated with the hippie middle class white counter culture Everyone smokes the stuff.

Also who are you to judge if someone hobby is shitty even though smoking weed and hash are not exactly hobbies anymore then drinking or doing coke are. Cannabis is simply a drug used for both medical and recreational purposes which is more or less what every other drug that is abused would fall under as well. Alcohol being the possible exception as the only medical use there is for it is as a disinfectant. But i am hardly going to stop enjoying my stout and ales just because of that. And please feel free to shoot yourself in the foot and to give me all your Cannabis and pizza :D

[Raúl Duke]

I like weed, that is all.

Whether or not this study is true, who cares? So far as I gathered, a lot of things we experience or come in contact with in life has its risks. I'm tired of the health aspect coming into it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to end up being some meth-head and do something that would elicit a "Florida man..." headline, everything within reason, but I'm kinda tired of society's fixation of remaining healthy and especially long-lived (there's really nothing great about being old, I rather be dead than get senile/dementia).

Plus, to the real matter, the reasons why leftists are against drug war/prohibition in general has less to do with health reasons and more to do with the negative effects this drug war/prohibition has to the working class. Although I do agree that some stoners are just too much...lol.

[Jimmie Higgins]

pot does tend to turn kids into really boring, self-obsessed dickheads though. for real.Then why are most stright-edgers boring self-obsessed dickheads?

IMO pot itself doesn't do that, but in the US, some of the culture around pot-use is absolutely boring and idiotic... then again so are people who like wine or beer-culture or are way too into bike-riding lifestylism. Hearing anyone go on about this niche wine they like and how the grapes are grown; droning about this or that microbrew; or vegan recipies is just as boring as a pot-head who talks endlessly about weed.

If you mean some people are boring when actually smoking weed... well that can happen because it sometimes has a tranquilizing effect, then again sometimes it also makes people giddy and hyper and talkative.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Look at all the Socialists suddenly becoming expert scientists when their beloved pot comes into question :laugh:

I mean, I like weed. And i'm a Socialist. And this study is far from conclusive, and says nothing about causation, and the correlation evidence is shaky because of collinearity with alcohol and tobacco. But it's a preliminary study whose hypothesis has probably proved non-rejectable, pending further research.

So let's stop with the hysterical defensiveness, yeah?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Look at all the Socialists suddenly becoming expert scientists when their beloved pot comes into question :laugh:

Who's claiming to be an expert?


I mean, I like weed. And i'm a Socialist. And this study is far from conclusive, and says nothing about causation, and the correlation evidence is shaky because of collinearity with alcohol and tobacco. But it's a preliminary study whose hypothesis has probably proved non-rejectable, pending further research.

So you've just listed the shortcomings of this study. You got anything positive to say about it? "Might not be wrong" is insufficient to make a judgement either way. Maybe a better-designed study would actually shed light on the question.


So let's stop with the hysterical defensiveness, yeah?

How about we first stop with the generalised remarks which address no specific statements and are thus able to impute such things as "hysterical defensiveness" when there is in fact no such thing?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Who's claiming to be an expert?


Well, this is clearly a study that has taken a fair amount of time to design, plan and implement. Perhaps i've spent too much time in the academic sphere, but it seems a tad outrageous to rubbish such a study in one or two sentences.



So you've just listed the shortcomings of this study. You got anything positive to say about it? "Might not be wrong" is insufficient to make a judgement either way. Maybe a better-designed study would actually shed light on the question.

The study may be correct, but it's a preliminary study, and that should be listened to. Most clear-cut findings come off the back of preliminary findings that don't make the front pages of the important journals. Look, I LIKE weed, I think it's fun to do, but that doesn't mean we should put on the rose tinted glasses if some research comes along and tells us it may have negative health externalities.

[Klaatu]

The link between marijuana smoke and, say, lung cancer is still being debated. For example:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/10-facts-about-marijuana


Yes they have found that the active ingredient in cannabis (THC) has a cancer-suppressing effect on the lungs. But that does not mean that this works (A) for the rest of the body, (in other words, carcinogens get into the bloodstream) and (B) there is still the potential for blood clotting, stroke, and heart attack, in addition to other ill effects of inhalation of particulate matter. For example, acrylic aldehyde, a component of biomass combustion, has been linked to multiple sclerosis and weakened immune response. Pot smoke is also rich in carbon monoxide, as is tobacco smoke.

[RadioRaheem84]

Personally I find the anti-drug types to be so much more annoying. While I can appreciate that pro-drug types can be over-enthusiastic, that's still light-years ahead of any strain of puritanism.

I don't understand why being annoyed by certain drug-related fashions or whatever is deserving of mention, when people are having their lives ruined by drug prohibition.

I guess I hate contemporary annoying over enthusiastic pro-legalize it crowd.

I think of Seth Rogan or James Franco and their insufferable little movie Pineapple Express or the annoying Family Guy "we get it, you like pot" episodes.

I just tend to think of good ol' classics like Cheech and Chong who just did their thing hustling and eeking out a life based on the fact that they were two poor dudes from the ghettos of LA during a heavy recession. These new potheads are idiot loveable slobs who stay within the cleaner R version of cussing, pot use and occasional nudity in their movies. It's Cheech and Chong sanitized for a commercial audience of recreational burn outs. What made Cheech and Chong so great is that they didn't sugarcoat. They did acid and coke sometimes, they were on the welfare line, they hustled, stole, siphoned gas during an oil crisis, told cops to fuck off, etc. Harold and Kumar were amateurs and instead was just focused on two middle class slackers who got lost in the woods.

I am sorry to rant but the drug culture is just a sell out culture. It's a shadow of what it was during the 70s and 80s.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I guess I hate contemporary annoying over enthusiastic pro-legalize it crowd.

I think of Seth Rogan or James Franco and their insufferable little movie Pineapple Express or the annoying Family Guy "we get it, you like pot" episodes.

I just tend to think of good ol' classics like Cheech and Chong who just did their thing hustling and eeking out a life based on the fact that they were two poor dudes from the ghettos of LA during a heavy recession. These new potheads are idiot loveable slobs who stay within the cleaner R version of cussing, pot use and occasional nudity in their movies. It's Cheech and Chong sanitized for a commercial audience of recreational burn outs. What made Cheech and Chong so great is that they didn't sugarcoat. They did acid and coke sometimes, they were on the welfare line, they hustled, stole, siphoned gas during an oil crisis, told cops to fuck off, etc. Harold and Kumar were amateurs and instead was just focused on two middle class slackers who got lost in the woods.

I am sorry to rant but the drug culture is just a sell out culture. It's a shadow of what it was during the 70s and 80s.

I don't know about this. The 1970s were the time when Pot became relaitivly mainstream and became a fad among professionals whereas before it had been a subcultural thing among some workers and some professionals and bohemians. In fact part of the tolerance of it was because cops couldn't bash the heads of young lawyers like they could drop-out hippies, activists, vets, and workers and draconian drug laws directed at poor people couldn't be fully enfoced on middle class people without further discrediting themselves.

The Regan era "war on crime" dampened this a bit and turned the trend back around, but part of that was by increasing penalties on "hard drugs" which are taken by the rich as much as the poor, but interfere with the lives of workers more because it's harder to get treatment and the financial cost causes people to loose control faster if they become addicted to a substance. This trend continiued in the 1990s when Clinton increased penalties even as pot specifically became de-emphasized for policing.

So I'd argue that the pot-legalization movement is pretty similar to the one in the 1970s aside from some cultural differences: it's not the head-shops but the dispensararies in California who now make up the petty-bourgoise base of pot-legalization efforts. They have a desire to mainstream pot as a new luxury like cigars or wine, and so the major difference between now and the 1970s IMO, is just the lack of a strong connection to a rebel/bohemian counter-culture.

I'd like to see a legalization effort that focuses on decriminalization and brings up the toll the "drug war" has taken, but the pro-pot forces at this point are very consiously trying to stay away from the larger implications and focus on legitimizing one drug as a potential market, rather than coming from a place of countering the negative effects of criminalization. In fact the California legalization proposition that lost tied pot-taxation to more funding for police and prisons.

[Os Cangaceiros]

words

Yeah, "marijuana culture" is really grating, I think...I pretty much dislike all of it. As a marijuana consumer I guess I'm part of the target audience, but...it's just annoying, most of the time.

I agree in regards to Cheech and Chong. Cheech and Chong's Next Movie is probably my favorite film of theirs, and yeah, it really does have absolutely no point...that's part of what I love about it. It's just basically a day in the lives of two petty criminals who recreationally use drugs and drift in between menial labor & unemployment, lol. I don't know, it just feels a lot more genuine than self-conscious "stoner movies", like you said. Some of the scenes like the welfare office scene, or them stealing gas, or the detergent-as-coke scene are classic.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, this is clearly a study that has taken a fair amount of time to design, plan and implement. Perhaps i've spent too much time in the academic sphere, but it seems a tad outrageous to rubbish such a study in one or two sentences.

Depends on what the sentence involves, don't you think? I mean seriously, not controlling for tobacco when looking for whether a substance has an effect upon stroke rates?

As a tobacco smoker, I have it more or less constantly drummed into my head via warning labels and so on that smoking tobacco increases the risk of stroke.

Are you telling me now that those warnings are incorrect?


The study may be correct, but it's a preliminary study, and that should be listened to. Most clear-cut findings come off the back of preliminary findings that don't make the front pages of the important journals. Look, I LIKE weed, I think it's fun to do, but that doesn't mean we should put on the rose tinted glasses if some research comes along and tells us it may have negative health externalities.

If they come up with similar results after controlling for tobacco use, then I'll seriously consider it. A preliminary study looking at stroke rates which doesn't control for tobacco use is fucking useless.

[bcbm]

Personally I find the anti-drug types to be so much more annoying. While I can appreciate that pro-drug types can be over-enthusiastic, that's still light-years ahead of any strain of puritanism.


i dunno man my roommates boyfriend works at a headshop and he brought home a trade magazine one day and it pretty much made me want to go hardline

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i dunno man my roommates boyfriend works at a headshop and he brought home a trade magazine one day and it pretty much made me want to go hardline

Why? What was it about the contents that was so utterly terrible that it made the sour-faced neo-Puritan assholes look good?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Depends on what the sentence involves, don't you think? I mean seriously, not controlling for tobacco when looking for whether a substance has an effect upon stroke rates?

As a tobacco smoker, I have it more or less constantly drummed into my head via warning labels and so on that smoking tobacco increases the risk of stroke.

Are you telling me now that those warnings are incorrect?



If they come up with similar results after controlling for tobacco use, then I'll seriously consider it. A preliminary study looking at stroke rates which doesn't control for tobacco use is fucking useless.

They can control for collinearity if the difference between 'tobacco only' stroke risks and 'tobacco and cannabis' stroke risks are so great to be statistically significant.

Seriously man, not every research scientist is some weed hating propagandist. If their paper was that crap it wouldn't get published.

[bcbm]

Why? What was it about the contents that was so utterly terrible that it made the sour-faced neo-Puritan assholes look good?

its hard to explain i dont remember most of the stuff that was gross. just headshop culture in general is blah. obviously i am pro-legalization, etc though

[MP5]

I also like hydromorphone and cocaine speedballs so i doubt it will be Cannabis that kills me :thumbup1: . So i could care less really. I haven't had a stroke yet tonight so all is good :grin:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

They can control for collinearity if the difference between 'tobacco only' stroke risks and 'tobacco and cannabis' stroke risks are so great to be statistically significant.

If cannabis presents a stroke risk, then surely that will show up in a group that consumes cannabis but not tobacco, versus a control group that consumes neither?


Seriously man, not every research scientist is some weed hating propagandist.

The war on straw continues, I see.

I think that regardless of the intentions of the original authors, studies like this provide fodder for the prohibitionists, even while science exposes the rank hypocrisy of banning certain substances for health reasons, via findings that legally-available alcohol and tobacco are more physiologically harmful than the vast majority of other recreational substances.

I think scientists have a responsibility to think about the social and political implications of their work, although I will grant that doing so is going to be hard when available scientific resources are scarce or come with strings attached.


If their paper was that crap it wouldn't get published.

Oh wow, that's actually funny! And people here have accused me of having too much faith in "bourgeois science".

Unless you're trying to argue that crap papers never get published, you know that your last sentence just isn't true.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=ÑóẊîöʼn;2588357]If cannabis presents a stroke risk, then surely that will show up in a group that consumes cannabis but not tobacco, versus a control group that consumes neither?

Agree, I was just pointing out that the study is potentially legitimate.


I think that regardless of the intentions of the original authors, studies like this provide fodder for the prohibitionists, even while science exposes the rank hypocrisy of banning certain substances for health reasons, via findings that legally-available alcohol and tobacco are more physiologically harmful than the vast majority of other recreational substances.

It's important to see both sides of the coin. Cannabis undoubtedly provides a great deal of health benefits in moderation, but if there are downsides, healthwise, to its consumption, then these should be highlighted too. It's not a political issue, weed, it's just an issue of healthcare and scientific research.


I think scientists have a responsibility to think about the social and political implications of their work, although I will grant that doing so is going to be hard when available scientific resources are scarce or come with strings attached.

As you say, a lot of work is geared towards confirming a certain hypothesis. In this respect, i'd argue that science should be free of the reins of political/capital's control. Of course this is not possible in a capitalist society.


Oh wow, that's actually funny! And people here have accused me of having too much faith in "bourgeois science".

Unless you're trying to argue that crap papers never get published, you know that your last sentence just isn't true.

You're right. It was a mistake of me to say that. I rescind it. It depends what journal it got published in. Some have better reputations than others.

[melvin]

Saying that pot makes kids into self-obsessed boring dickheads is bizarre being that most people are boring, and quite a few people smoke pot so the two categories and too expansive to really find an adequate correlation.I've noticed that young people who don't smoke pot are usually more likely to be creative in finding ways to have fun whereas people who regularly smoke are more likely to just want to get high and do nothing aside from that.

(And I say that as someone who smokes a lot.)

[Arakir]

There are some confounding variables that go into this. One is the type of people who smoke weed in the first place. It is possible that people who start smoking weed are also more likely to engage in other activities that cause a higher stroke risk. There is significant propaganda to make marijuana seem harmful. Ergo, health nuts may avoid using weed.

Another confounding variable is that the reliability of this source is suspect. There are several groups, such as pharmaceutical companies and police unions that benefit from cannabis being illegal. Because of this, these scientists could have an incentive to lie about the effects of cannabis.

[MarxSchmarx]

so for all these supposed corrolations, where are their mechanistic evidence? Do they have a pathology pathway showing how THC causes strokes? Do they have even a theory or a systems model for how this happens and any evidence outside of their observational study that suggests the veracity of the model?

In fairness the same could be said about a lot of modern epidemiological studies, but I think those are based on understandings of how certain substances can be pathological at least in theory. For instance, we know alcohol can cause cirrhosis of the liver not merely because a lot of people with cirrhosis also have a history of heavy drinking, but because scientists have also shown how processing it damages liver cells and scars liver tissue and over time this can lead to serious damage. Here, I see no such mechanism explained.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The claim that marijuana is a health hazard (aside from, e.g., the secondary risks of impaired judgment) much less a stroke risk requires more than a simple observational story. Sure it's interesting, there might be some evidence that there is potentially something there, but absent a mechanistic explanation, much less tests for it, we should regard this as bascially still an unverified hypothesis.

[No_Leaders]

This is simply another study to try to scare people away from smoking marijuana. They've been trying to link the effects of marijuana use to insert x, y, or z for such a long time now. It's an obvious ploy really. I mean the original test to 'prove' marijuana kills brain cells was conducted on monkey's in a lab who would be forced to wear a gas mask and smoke pumped in for 5 min a day. After awhile the monkeys started having brain damage, they attributed the death of brain cells and brain damage to the effects of marijuana. What they really did was suffocate the monkeys by denying oxygen to them. After 5 min of no oxygen your brain cells begin to die.

I smoke regularly, almost every day in fact. I stay active, i exercise regularly I take care of myself. I'm not glued to my TV set, I'm not sitting around playing video games all day. I really think people need to lay off the generalizations that all regular users are lazy, denied of all energy and drive to be productive or active. There's a lot more things in the world more dangerous than smoking marijuana, yet plenty of those things are legal, or considered okay. Not to mention all the uses that can come from hemp, it can be used as a fabric for clothes, rope, concrete, thermal insulation, paper, oil etc etc.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not to mention all the uses that can come from hemp, it can be used as a fabric for clothes, rope, concrete, thermal insulation, paper, oil etc etc.

I've never understood why people keep mentioning this. The kind of hemp used to make ropes, clothes and so on is a far cry from the stuff that is smoked for its psychoactive effects. Smoking a hemp plant will probably just give you a headache.

[MP5]

so for all these supposed corrolations, where are their mechanistic evidence? Do they have a pathology pathway showing how THC causes strokes? Do they have even a theory or a systems model for how this happens and any evidence outside of their observational study that suggests the veracity of the model?

In fairness the same could be said about a lot of modern epidemiological studies, but I think those are based on understandings of how certain substances can be pathological at least in theory. For instance, we know alcohol can cause cirrhosis of the liver not merely because a lot of people with cirrhosis also have a history of heavy drinking, but because scientists have also shown how processing it damages liver cells and scars liver tissue and over time this can lead to serious damage. Here, I see no such mechanism explained.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The claim that marijuana is a health hazard (aside from, e.g., the secondary risks of impaired judgment) much less a stroke risk requires more than a simple observational story. Sure it's interesting, there might be some evidence that there is potentially something there, but absent a mechanistic explanation, much less tests for it, we should regard this as bascially still an unverified hypothesis.

Exactly. Scientists have not shown one shred of evidence as to the mechanism in which THC or other cannabinoids cause cancer. Unlike alcohol and it's correlation to both liver damage and brain damage and as another example the link of various Amphetamines such as Methamphetamine to brain damage via the dopamine pathways in the brain there is no smoking gun when it comes to THC's supposed link to cancer. As for a stroke well smoking anything could cause that really and unless they ruled out Tobacco use as a possible cause.

[MarxSchmarx]

Exactly. Scientists have not shown one shred of evidence as to the mechanism in which THC or other cannabinoi
ds cause cancer. Unlike alcohol and it's correlation to both liver damage and brain damage and as another example the link of various Amphetamines such as Methamphetamine to brain damage via the dopamine pathways in the brain there is no smoking gun when it comes to THC's supposed link to cancer. As for a stroke well smoking anything could cause that really and unless they ruled out Tobacco use as a possible cause.

I just want to add to this an implicit critique of this kind of research.

Take something like "cellphones cause brain cancer." OK, maybe they do, maybe they don't. But people who (more or less) advance this claim can point to the fact that cell phones emit radiation and radiation is carcinogenic. Even if the causal mechanism is a "just-so" story that seems incredulous, at least there is a hypothesis for how cellphones can be linked to cancer.

If cellphones actually have a strong correlation to brain tumors, that's interesting, but it's in itself insufficient to establish a scientific claim. If experiments are done and these confirm that indeed the radiation emitted by cellphones cause cancer even in mice or show some other mechanism, then we have something going on. But in the case of the alleged harms of THC, there is a lot of research on correlations and hardly anything that supports or purports to rigorously assess proposed mechanisms.

Why is this? I suspect a lot of it is political and not scientific. Just look at the "we don't know why, but women who have abortions are x % likelier to experience deppression." Yeah whatever. To be sure, the other side - i.e., the legalization crowd - does this kind of thing too (e.g., citing ambiguous studies showing the medical benefits of marijuana), but who should have the burden of proof here? In fact, by refusing to pin down a mechanism, researchers who want to advance the ruling class's agenda can repackage similar epidemiological studies and argue for "caution" that keeps in place the authoritarian prohobitionism.

I certainly don't intend to denigrate epidemiology. For instance, the centrality of epidemiology in identifying sources of cholera outbreaks in the 19th century, and in understanding the emergence of hospital-borne infections in the 21st deserves the highest praise as a powerful medical tool. But THC research has been around for decades, and has yet to come up with not merely a reasonable mechanistic explanation, but even a plausible hypothesis. for instance, very little is known about a the exact pathology of whooping cough. But at least people have some hypotheses (e.g., cytokine mediated shock). To the best of my knowledge, the same people that routinely fund and cite studies on how "THC is linked to XYZ bad result" routinely fail to fund followup studies on how "THC is linked to XYZ bad result BECAUSE OF ABC".

Ever wonder why that is?

[garrus]

Despite the flaws of the results, I don't understand the sentimentality in favor of cannabis.

I smoke tobacco and i drink, but welcome the reports of the damage i do to myself.

[MP5]

I just want to add to this an implicit critique of this kind of research.

Take something like "cellphones cause brain cancer." OK, maybe they do, maybe they don't. But people who (more or less) advance this claim can point to the fact that cell phones emit radiation and radiation is carcinogenic. Even if the causal mechanism is a "just-so" story that seems incredulous, at least there is a hypothesis for how cellphones can be linked to cancer.

If cellphones actually have a strong correlation to brain tumors, that's interesting, but it's in itself insufficient to establish a scientific claim. If experiments are done and these confirm that indeed the radiation emitted by cellphones cause cancer even in mice or show some other mechanism, then we have something going on. But in the case of the alleged harms of THC, there is a lot of research on correlations and hardly anything that supports or purports to rigorously assess proposed mechanisms.

Why is this? I suspect a lot of it is political and not scientific. Just look at the "we don't know why, but women who have abortions are x % likelier to experience deppression." Yeah whatever. To be sure, the other side - i.e., the legalization crowd - does this kind of thing too (e.g., citing ambiguous studies showing the medical benefits of marijuana), but who should have the burden of proof here? In fact, by refusing to pin down a mechanism, researchers who want to advance the ruling class's agenda can repackage similar epidemiological studies and argue for "caution" that keeps in place the authoritarian prohobitionism.

I certainly don't intend to denigrate epidemiology. For instance, the centrality of epidemiology in identifying sources of cholera outbreaks in the 19th century, and in understanding the emergence of hospital-borne infections in the 21st deserves the highest praise as a powerful medical tool. But THC research has been around for decades, and has yet to come up with not merely a reasonable mechanistic explanation, but even a plausible hypothesis. for instance, very little is known about a the exact pathology of whooping cough. But at least people have some hypotheses (e.g., cytokine mediated shock). To the best of my knowledge, the same people that routinely fund and cite studies on how "THC is linked to XYZ bad result" routinely fail to fund followup studies on how "THC is linked to XYZ bad result BECAUSE OF ABC".

Ever wonder why that is?

Spot on pretty much. I mean i can link phencyclidine aka PCP as a easy example to brain damage through dual mechanisms of the dopamine pathways and the glutamate receptors in the brain so there is a smoking gun. Actually alcohol is thought to cause neurological damage (i just don't like using the term brain damage as it's not a exact term) in much the same way. Brain damage (again for lack of a better word) resulting from stroke is caused by hypoxia. But we have no smoking gun at all in the case of THC and it's been studied to death.

[No_Leaders]

I've never understood why people keep mentioning this. The kind of hemp used to make ropes, clothes and so on is a far cry from the stuff that is smoked for its psychoactive effects. Smoking a hemp plant will probably just give you a headache.
Although that is true, the reason i bring it up is all this stuff is connected. The reasons of marijuana becoming illegal (due to blatant racism against Mexicans in the south east and African Americans) Hemp then being thrown into the the illegalization process due to the fact it was a threat to the paper industry and all these grand ventures of these wealthy business owners.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Although that is true, the reason i bring it up is all this stuff is connected. The reasons of marijuana becoming illegal (due to blatant racism against Mexicans in the south east and African Americans) Hemp then being thrown into the the illegalization process due to the fact it was a threat to the paper industry and all these grand ventures of these wealthy business owners.

I know that. It's just I don't see how it is relevant to today's situation, which has gone far beyond racially-motivated legislation and wood-pulp businesses protecting their profits.

[TheYoungCommie]

Well life's been good so far:grin: