I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

[epepke]

And this subject is particularly bad because everyone is baised right out of the gate; you've either done the drug in question or you haven't and that biases people.

See my point #3.

Personally, I've tried marijuana, including a trip to Amsterdam, during which I tried as many varieties as I could obtain, in the hopes that I'd like one of them. I didn't.

Also, during that trip, I tried some hallucinogenic mushrooms. Those didn't have much of an effect on me, other than that I wanted to pee a lot, but some of them were very tasty. One of them I think would go great in pesto. It had a delicate, sort of nutty flavor. A couple of others I think would make great omelettes.

I've also tried crack cocaine. Boring, athough the people I was with thought it was Da Bomb. I've never tried powdered cocaine, but I don't think I'd like it. I can get manic enough just as it is.

I like most mild opiates. I had to get morphine for a hospital stay, and I didn't like that at all. Some day, if I could get some pure and fresh, I'd like to try heroin, just to see what it would do.

 

[desertheathen]

Chani, from your above comments, I am guessing that you are a smoker. Especially with your suggestion that some smokers don't die from smoke-related illness, even though they smoked.

Wake up. Smoking rots you out, causes shortness of breath, and ruins your insides as well as your skin. You might SAY that someone died of a heart attack, stroke or cancer, but you can be d*mn sure that the smoking was connected somehow.

Give it up, Chani. Smokers stink. And anyone who would smoke in this day and time is either suicidal or just plain stupid.

I know she's not a smoker, cause when I was at her house, I had to go outside for a cigarette

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Of course, I don't buy all the 2nd hand smoke BS either.

What do you think is the process that removes the harmful chemicals as the smoke moves across the room?

 

[geni]

Sure: Looks good. Got a second source?

They're all from different sources. The first three are from various Insitutes in the Us and the fourth is from france. If you don't like pub med as a source try going back to the orginal journals but I doubt that they are online.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

Well, you prove the above bit first, then I'll prove my response to your bit.

Ok searching the pubmed database

Marijuana (clinical trials only) 493 papers
Homeopathy (clinical trials only) 130 papers

Marijuana (all mentions) 9089
Homeopathy (all mentions) 2754

Feel free to repeat my searches here

Homeopathy is one of the better reasurched forms of alt med

Anyways, I don't have a side, since I know that there will be no end to prohibition; since the prohibitionists entire argument boils down "Won't someone please think about the children?!", I don't think any amount of rational arguments are of any use. Especially since they're in the majority.

Well I'm more optomistic but then things may be different in the UK

On the other hand, rational arguments are of good use against creationists only because they are not in the majority, and can be used to sway those in the middle. If they ever became the majority, then no amount of rational argument would prevent them from kissing 'seperate church and state' good-bye.

It depends who you present your ratyional arguments.

 

[MLynn]

AAaargghhh. Threads like this really make me dispair of being a skeptic.

Some otherwise rational ppl post "drugs are bad m'kay" posts with absolutely no rational perspective. As a rational, skeptical person who has taken various mind altering drugs/substances I get quite offended at this moralising, holier than thou attitude some ppl come out with in these topics here.

For some it's the environment, for some it's politics, for others is smoking... Where on earth are the always rational people? I've honestly never met a "skeptic" or "athiest" or rational person that is imune in all areas of their life to some irrational thinking (me included of course). Are we just funamentally flawed?

[/fit of pique]

Hey, Heath - I found your post interesting. Although I've never used drugs - not because of "moral" reasons, but just because I've had no interest in them - I like to talk with people who have "experimented" with substances and had "no ill affects."

I don't think we can be rational all the time, but I don't know if we are flawed because of it - It's our ability to immediately react to a situation as a self-preservation mechanism that keeps us alive.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What do you think is the process that removes the harmful chemicals as the smoke moves across the room?

Dissipation.

 

[WildCat]

Care to comment?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12412830&dopt=Abstract

One link at a time:

In general, acute effects are better studied than those of chronic use, and more studies are needed that focus on disentangling effects of marijuana from those of other drugs and adverse environmental conditions.

All this link describes is the effect it has while smoking it (acute effects). In other words, it gets you high! Well, no $hit! And then ends w/ an appeal for more research (meaning more $$) to see if there's any long-term (chronic) effects.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12412843&dopt=Abstract

[

The carcinogenicity of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is not clear...

Several case studies were suggestive of an association of marijuana smoking with head and neck cancers and oral lesions. However, in a cohort study with 8 years of follow-up, marijuana use was not associated with increased risks of all cancers or smoking-related cancers. Further epidemiological studies are necessary to confirm the association of marijuana smoking with head and neck cancers and to examine marijuana smoking as a risk factor for lung cancer. It will also be of interest to examine potential field cancerization of the upper aerodigestive tract by marijuana and to explore marijuana as a risk factor for oral premalignant lesions.

"Suggestive", contradictory studies, an appeal for more studies. Not the stuff of rock-solid scientific proof, is it?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12412839&dopt=Abstract

Habitual smoking of marijuana has a number of effects on the respiratory and immune systems that may be clinically relevant.

The potential for marijuana smoking to predispose to the development of respiratory malignancy is suggested by several lines of evidence, including the presence of potent carcinogens in marijuana smoke and their resulting deposition in the lung, the occurrence of premalignant changes in bronchial biopsies obtained from smokers of marijuana in the absence of tobacco

"Suggested" again, and a "may be". And the "suggested" evidence is because there are carcinogens in marijuana smoke, not of any evidence that there have ever been actual cancers caused by such smoke.
And it ends, of course, w/ an appeal for more research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11084527&dopt=Abstract

Several publications have recently suggested a relationship between cannabis use and certain types of cancer. We gathered information on the latest findings on the subject. A manual and computerized bibliographic search on cannabis and cancer was conducted. In users under 40 years of age, cannabis is suspected to increase the risk ...

There's that "suggested" word again! And a "suspected".
Followed by the inevitable appeal for more research.

Marijuana has been studied for 80+ years, and this is the best they've got? Where are the bodies?

Still awaiting proof.

 

[geni]

We are dealing with epedeamelogy. By defintion proof can't exist. If you want to see some bodies though try road traffic acidents.

 

[WildCat]

What do you think is the process that removes the harmful chemicals as the smoke moves across the room?

thaiboxerken already answered this, but since it was directed at me I'll expand on his answer.

Smoke does dissipate. And any carcinogen has a certain amount of exposure needed to actually cause cancer. Do you think that one molecule causes cancer? 2? 100,000? 100,000,000? It's all about the threshold needed and the exposure.

It's well known that the amount of cigarettes you smoke is directly proportional to the risk of cancer. It strains credibility that a dose as minimal as environmental tobacco (or marijuana) smoke, or the amount of marijuana smoked by the typical user daily (far less than the amount of tobacco contained in a single cigarette), is a cause of cancer. Where are the bodies of cancer-ridden pot smokers? The lung cancer deaths of smokers was the primary reason it first became linked to cancer. One would expect similar findings among pot smokers. Where are they?

 

[WildCat]

We are dealing with epedeamelogy. By defintion proof can't exist. If you want to see some bodies though try road traffic acidents.

Nobody's suggesting that you should drive while stoned. And for that to be a reason for banning it, you would also have to ban alcohol to be consistent.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

thaiboxerken already answered this, but since it was directed at me I'll expand on his answer.

Smoke does dissipate. And any carcinogen has a certain amount of exposure needed to actually cause cancer. Do you think that one molecule causes cancer? 2? 100,000? 100,000,000? It's all about the threshold needed and the exposure.

So what's the threshold? And if you work in a pub (as my mother and father do) and are exposed to these low levels every day? How many cigarettes would that be equivalent to?

"Don't work in a pub then", some would say. What about waitresses? Come to think of it, exactly how much smoke would be inhaled during a lifetime of simply eating out in restaurants?

I don't know, but I know that ANY amount can not be good.

 

[scribble]

This is true of what they personally said. It isn't true of the soundbites they presented, though.

Which soundbite are you thinking of? I must have missed it, but I'll be glad to review the show after you point it out to me, and come back here, and admit I was wrong.

Of course, it's not fair if you have to take the soundbite in a vacuum to get your desired spin; there is context in ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ and dropping it to make your point would not be Right.

...at other times it was stated that nobody had ever died from marijuana. Hey, guys! It's smoke, and it's particularly irritating smoke as well.

That's not death from marijuana. At best, it's death from prolonged smoke inhlation.

What's the difference, you ask?

Simple. I can destroy that point in one sentence: YOU DON'T HAVE TO SMOKE IT. You can eat it, you can vaporize it, you can boil it into a tea and drink it. I wouldn't be surprised if it were possible to extract the good bits and inject it (although I wouldn't want to try it).

 

[geni]

Nobody's suggesting that you should drive while stoned. And for that to be a reason for banning it, you would also have to ban alcohol to be consistent.

I never said it was a reason for banning it (I would argue that it is a reason for legalisation but that is another issue).

 

[scribble]

So what's the threshold? And if you work in a pub (as my mother and father do) and are exposed to these low levels every day? How many cigarettes would that be equivalent to?

That's a good question. Why don't we find some numbers instead of panicmongering?

 

[thaiboxerken]

So what's the threshold? And if you work in a pub (as my mother and father do) and are exposed to these low levels every day? How many cigarettes would that be equivalent to?

I dunno, maybe you should look it up yourself. It's not the skeptic's burden to do your math for you.


I don't know, but I know that ANY amount can not be good.

Do you have any scientific evidence to support this statement?

 

[TheBoyPaj]

You know of a situation where inhaling carginogens is good?

A flick through the BMJ archives produces studies with conflicting results. P&T's assertation that all the fuss stems from one dodgy EPA report seems to be false. Regarding the issue of equivalent levels of smoking, a study by the University College London found that dosage levels of cigarette chemicals in non smokers who live with smokers were 0.6-0.7% of those in the smoking spouse. If a smoker smokes 40 a day, that equates to one cigarette per 4 days for the non-smoker.

And that doesn't assume the non-smoker spends every waking moment with their spouse. And what if a person works in an environment where many people are smoking simultaneously?

Find me a doctor who says that smoking ANY number of cigarettes is safe, and I'll shut up.

Reference to abstract: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/4/368

 

[WildCat]

You know of a situation where inhaling carginogens is good?

But there are thresholds for carcinogens. The fluoride in your toothpaste and (probably) your drinking water is a known carcinogen, have you stopped brushing or drinking tap water?

Of course, to prove something is a carcinogen they feed amounts to lab rats that no person would encounter in real life, so you are extremely unlikely to get cancer from fluoride.

Likewise, there is a threshold for tobacco and marijuana. But there is no research into discovering the bounds of this threshold, only fearmongering and misinformation to the point where people run out of a room screaming and covering their babies' nose if someone lights up a cigarette.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You know of a situation where inhaling carginogens is good?

No, but does something have to be good to be legal? There is a point where the inhalation of carcinogens is not harmful.

A flick through the BMJ archives produces studies with conflicting results. P&T's assertation that all the fuss stems from one dodgy EPA report seems to be false. Regarding the issue of equivalent levels of smoking, a study by the University College London found that dosage levels of cigarette chemicals in non smokers who live with smokers were 0.6-0.7% of those in the smoking spouse. If a smoker smokes 40 a day, that equates to one cigarette per 4 days for the non-smoker.

And, has anyone actually suffered ill effects from occasional consumption of second-hand smoke, or frequent consumption, for that matter?


And that doesn't assume the non-smoker spends every waking moment with their spouse. And what if a person works in an environment where many people are smoking simultaneously?

No person is forced to hang out with smokers.

Find me a doctor who says that smoking ANY number of cigarettes is safe, and I'll shut up.

Find me a doctor that has treated a person for second-hand smoke illness and I'll entertain your claims.

 

[thaiboxerken]

On average, cotinine concentrations in non-smokers with a smoking partner were 0.6-0.7% of those in cigarette smokers.

No one forces a person to stay married to a smoker. Also, this "equivalent" dosage does not equate to actually smoking 4 cigarettes a day. The dosage is not cumulative.