The argument that many cannabis user hold is not it's healthy, but that it's a good pass time and release, better than many of the alternatives. I'm not saying that is is, although I would. Just that it is a choice, and one we should be free to make without judgement or bias, It is always useful to be aware of the risks that you are taking and I would hope that all pot smokers are but these videos, while they are interesting and useful, do no give a healthy account of cannabis in the real world.
You can't say "50 Joints" is the LD50 because you are talking about something that varies depending on the THC content of plant itself. Its like comparing a 40oz bottle of beer to a 40oz bottle of whiskey, and judging it solely on the capacity of the 40oz bottle.
But supposing your "50 joints" did contain the proposed LD50, how much time "in minutes" would those 50 joints need to be consumed in, for the THC content to have a lethal effect?
The biggest exception I would make is the claim that marijuana addiction and withdrawal are somehow on par with tobacco or alcohol. I've had to quit all three after heavy use. Weed was nothing to quit. Perhaps people vary a lot on this, but other long term users who quit agreed with me. 2nd possible problem -- I 'm betting if you Google 'Barney and Evil' you will get 10 hits at the top that confirm everyone's suspicion.
I would love to see you pwning the "MSG IS BAD" people. MSG IS A PROTEIN DERIVED FROM SEAWEED! Is eating SEAWEED bad? NO! Is eating a protein derived from seaweed that you would be ingesting if you ate plain seaweed bad? NO!
I'm actually tripping balls right now on weed, I'm not doing this again lol. My family has a history of mental illness and I stopped smoking it a decade ago due to bad/intense experiences... I've had a reminder tonight of why, lol. I'll stick to meditation to enhance my appreciation of art :-) Thanks for the info concordance - mental health isn't something to play with.
I am a cannabis smoker and I admit that I can be very baised myself. You did an excellent job on this video, being objective towards cannabis use. Thank you for being one of the few people our there who have a rational view on things.
I think the analogy to creationists is actually a good one. A lot of them make the same claims any time Intelligent Design is shunned. Some spooky group of guys in hoods secretly want to keep ID out of science, no matter its credentials. The exact same claims are made by the green evangelicals. They'll say: Oh, you have to look at who is administering the test, and I've got tons of unaccredited studies that were left out because of the pharmaceutical conspiracy!!11!1
I notice you have not mentioned the greatest harm caused by cannabis. That is the criminalisation of people for a victimless crime. This ruins peoples lives. The health risks associated with imprisonment and poverty surely out weigh any potential risk from cannabis use.
Great video, will it stop me from smoking pot? Probably not..
Does this video convince me that smoking pot is bad for you?
To be honest breathing in smoke has to be bad for you, pot smoke is smoke, so I will assume it's not good for me.
Have i ever felt withdrawal? Yes, devastatingly so, but not from pot. But to be honest the physician proscribed drug i was addicted to was an opiate, no comparison...
@Moontanman i also drink Tequila, never smoked cigarettes and I eat lots of vegetables , what's my point? I often think of the guy who asked his doc if he would live to be an old man, the doc asked him if he smoked, no, drank, no, stayed up late and partied, no, ran around with loose women, no.. the doc paused and said, "why do you care?" life is a risk and some things i enjoy are risky, but it's always good to have some idea of what your risk is, thank you for making this video...
I have a video debunking everyone of your fucking bullshit resources. The facts on lung damage are because of the tobacco not the marijuana and I have a video of the actual scientist who was involved in the study saying there is no lung damage at all other than acute bronchitus- the only risk involved with smoking. Dr. Tashkin, the actual scientist involved in the study, knows better than your ignorant as fuck ass. Please shut your fucking hole bitch.
@merryfourtwenty: Wow, so hostile for someone who supposedly has all the facts in his corner. You'd think someone so secure in their position wouldn't resort to childish name calling.
@merryfourtwenty Why do you resort to insults? Looking over your channel, I would also suggest you are extremely biased when it comes to marijuana.
The _opinion_ of scientists is irrelevant - it is the peer-reviewed studies and their impact (i.e. number of citations) that is of relevance. As c0nc0rdance himself states: do not confuse the message with the messenger. Instead, stop resorting to childish insults and demonstrate why the pubmed articles he linked are flawed.
LD-50 rating wrong! Its 1:40,000 which means 1500 pound of marijuana must be smoked in 15 minutes to overdose. Low density reason safe-absolutely wrong. There are no CB-1 receptors in either dopamine producing neurons or the respiratory/cardiovascular system combined with low toxicity that makes it safe. Why could New Zealand not do a study of pure pot smokers but must mix with tobacco is because they need tobacco to get a cancer result. That is straight falsified research. Fucking liar!
@merryfourtwenty On a final, more scientific note however; it was not difficult finding out where you got your criticism of the LD-50 presented in the video, as you yourself have reuploaded liberalviewer's video on Fox News regarding it. The statement he quotes and which you here presents comes from a 1988 ruling on it's medical use.
I'm not saying it's wrong, but you should actually cite your sources and admit that in this case, your source is over 20 years old, which may have implications.
I am very pro cannabis, but everything you said was correct. I think cannabis should be treated like many other drugs. It isn't harmless, but it is less harmful than many other substances. Some people should never even touch cannabis. One thing I am a bit uncertain on is the cancer causing part...with big tobacco there are the many additives..how would this be less harmful than a cannabis joint? I personally vaporize my cannabis, but I know that joints are second least harmful way 2 smoke
So that would be 50-60 joints orally? As in eating them? Hmmm.
LD50 for vitB6 in rats was 657.5 mg/kg. Schu- macher et al. 1965 - so THC is about as toxic as B6.
A question on the studies into addiction. Where did the subjects come from? My point; if they were arrested for theft it is easy to blame it on addiction and if they don't do heroin but do smoke weed then they can blame it on that. Just a thought...
The Cannabis world is upside down and it's hard to make heads or tails out of anything. There is so much conflicting data, and so much bias on all sides of the argument that it seems as if perhaps politicians are playing it safe by keeping laws as they are, out of sheer confusion!
I think you will agree that this is a painful (But fairly common) result of scientific infancy. The field is still new, and there is much to be learned in the coming years.
I hope that the future holds more funding, larger scale studies, and concrete answers. Until then, I hope I have the willpower I pride myself on, and can sate my curiosity in quick order and be done with it!
PERSONALLY I didn't have many bad experiences with cannabis since I used it rather sporadically. The ones that were bad were acceptable as risk - bad trips can happen, but they pass. I consider myself a lucky one, because apparently I'm immune to any addiction... But I've seen people who weren't really thinking much about what they were doing... and smoked recklessly. Maybe that's just a matter of priorities or personality.
Cannabis is the staff of life, it's your navigator, it's your reality check, it's your everything. Without it you tend to regress to the ol' mule with the carrot attached to its head, unquestioning and unperturbed.
watch?v=5e-79-Z5Kg0
C0nc0rdance should speak about cannabis's effect on consciousness, which is the entire point of smoking it. Tobacco doesn't offer you that payback. One toke of good hydro will keep me high for about 7 hours. You don't have to puff away as you do with a cigarette.
Please be aware that saying, "I get the same response from AIDS denialists and creationists" is not an argument, because it could be used no matter what the position you take. Even in one of the studies you read out, it said there was still a debate over cannabis and schizophrenia. I agree with you that the health effects of marijuana are probably negative (and comparable to alcohol) but you paint a picture that the science is settled when the very papers you cite say it's not.
"Even in one of the studies you read out, it said there was still a debate over cannabis and schizophrenia. I agree with you that the health effects of marijuana are probably negative (and comparable to alcohol) but you paint a picture that the science is settled when the very papers you cite say it's not." I no longer respect him enough to say it as such.
Further, correlation is NOT causation! And any good scientist knows that; well, anyone who is not being paid to lie to us or is as biased as can get. What the study shows is that for a tiny portion <10% of PREDISPOSED patients (smaller than for most psychiatric meds) cannabis can exacerbate effects. Look, do we want to honest here or not? I want to be honest and I already know most atypical antipsychotics have WORSE side effects including inducing those they are supposed to control.
You have essentially done the same thing that you have accused him of. You say that his argument is invalid - yet you present an ambiguous, unspecific argument that is just as useful as an ad-hominem attack. You are supposed to present evidence, and he is supposed to refute that evidence, and vise versa. So far, all you've done is say he's being biased. That's not science, that's history.
@lIThorIl I don't ever recall him saying that the topic was settled... He specifically made the video regarding its negative effects and there is substantial evidence showing its link to schizophrenia as illustrated in this video. Maybe it was one of the earlier published papers. Unless you cite the one you're referring too, it would be difficult for anyone to assess this claim.
@C0nc0rdance Continued from previous comment...Part 2
Sources:
1. PMID: 18676872
2. PMID: 19627647
3. PMID: 16684342
4. PMID: 17884351 ...cannabis extract has both THC and CBD, right?
5. PMID: 17349865
6. PMID: 18378995
Too much of anything psychoactive is bad for people with a genetic liability to schizo. Legalization would lead to people knowing how high the THC content is when they buy their cannabis. They would also cross-breed our cannabis to have a higher content of CBD.
Umm...dude? A couple things wrong with your position there:
1st, I checked your cited sources, and the addiction and cancer papers, actually stated that, in fact, cannibis is BENEFICIAL for cancer and that Cannibis causes NO form of physical addiction!
That paper on Schizophrenia, though, is actually the one area where you almost had a valid point! ...Sort of. Pot doesn't *cause* schizophrenia. However, if you had it already, it could worsen some of your symptoms (temporarily). Esp. paranoia.
@macgeek2004 Cannabinoids can either inhibit cancer progression: Mol Cancer. 2010 Jul 22;9:196. Or it can cause them to progress more rapidly: J Immunol. 2005 Mar 15;174(6):3281-9. Addiction to cannabis is well established: Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2008 Jul-Sep;52(3):217-32. There is no distinction for "physical" addiction. And, yes, cannabis is strongly linked to schizophrenia as a component cause: Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011 Apr 16. It causes brain changes that can lead to schizophrenia.
@C0nc0rdance Cannabinoids don't cause cancers to progress. It's the methylation of the cannabinoid receptors that actually expedites cancer growth. If a cancer/tumor has low expressions of cannabinoid receptors, then it's difficult for the cannabinoids to agonize them and induce ceramide. Actually, the changes in the brain aren't significant, and other studies show that the environment may contribute to schizophrenia. Since, the majority of pot users aren't schizophrenic. Balance of THC:CBD :)
@C0nc0rdance J Immunol. 2005 Mar 15;174(6):3281-9 "We demonstrated that the human breast cancer cell lines MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 and the mouse mammary carcinoma 4T1 express low to undetectable levels of cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, and that these cells are resistant to Delta9-THC-induced cytotoxicity." THIS is the very definition of cherry picking, you dishonest prick.
@C0nc0rdance Well well, you did cherry pick these studies, after all. There are more studies presenting the positive effects of cannabis once they adjusted for confounding factors. You're not the only one that uses PubMed Central as a source, friend. Over 150 studies, you say? I currently have over 300 studies from PubMed Central that are 21st century. If you don't believe me, then I'll send them to you via PM. :)
@zekdom Just because there are more positive effects than negative effects doesn't mean there are no negative effects. The whole video was to show that there are some negative effects, which is something a lot of people try to deny.
If you want to argue that cannabis is on a whole healthy for you, then that's a different subject.
@BrotherAlpha Oh, I understand that there are negative effects, but Concordance stated that there are more studies showing the negative effects than there are positive. He especially, if I remember correctly, stated that there are more studies showing how cannabis increases the cancer risk, which is laughably a falsehood. But yeah, everything has a negative side to it.
You don't remember correctly. I stated that the literature on lung abnormalities produced by Dr. Don Tashkin is strongly in favor (I think it's 6 to 1) of precancerous changes being linked to increasing smoked cannabis dose.
There ARE in fact more papers showing a link to lung cancer, but Tashkin's 2005 study is the LARGEST to date, and it failed to find a dose-dependent correlation.
Zekdom accurately represents my intent: dispelling myths that cannabis is risk-free.
@C0nc0rdance Well, that was in the past. The cannabinoid levels have risen, which adds more of a "protective" (bronchodilating and anti-tumoral) effect. Once you eliminate the studies that didn't adjust for confounding factors, there are more studies showing insignificant increases in cancer risk. I would've liked your video, but you had to present yourself as a "neutral" messenger, which kind of killed the true intent of your video. If what you were solely doing was to dispel myths, then fine.
@C0nc0rdance "Or it can cause them to progress more rapidly" -- only when you have a prohibitionist cunt scientist that uses a strain of mouse that has been bred to have a genetic disposition for tumors and when you use pure THC without the CBD contents of natural marijuana. People do not inject themselves with nor do they smoke pure THC. Marijuana can not be shown to cause cancer unless you falsify your research.
@merryfourtwenty I've seen my fair share of bias in other fields which I eagerly debate. One such field is the issue of creationism. There is no difference between the bias you exhibit and theirs. By asserting that the studies that present findings which conflict with your personal beliefs are automatically flawed (because you 'know' you're right), or turn to conspiracies (i.e. the papers presented are written by 'prohibitionists'), you are in no way different than creationists or 9/11 truthers.
I wish the Internet were made up of people like you. We can disagree on issues, but still fundamentally agree that the process of deciding should be based on honest inquiry.
@merryfourtwenty I also would like to add that I actually smoke relatively much marijuana, and I believe that regardless of the dangers associated with smoking, there are arguments from social sciences and matters of principle and liberty to present arguments for legalization superior to those whom wish to keep it illegal.
I assume you are yourself for legalization. That's great, but please don't use myths as arguments. It makes the campaign for drug policy reform look much worse.
Yes, I think it's long overdue. It's a very promising class of drugs, and not just for cancer. Alzheimer's is possibly MORE exciting, where we don't have a lot of other therapeutics near the post-market stage.
@itry2brational It suggests that plant-derived chemical compounds from the cannabis plant inhibits cancer cell proliferation, metastasis, and invasion. That study didn't observe the smoked form.
Weed feels good, mostly. Weed is fun. I've got less than 60 years of my life left. Weed has health benefits and drawbacks. I don't smoke I don't drink. I have felt adverse effects and I will stop when they start bothering me or outweighing the benefits.
If someone's actually interested in the truth, they'll compare both sides of this disagreement; the "other side" can be found by googling "granny storm crow list"...
The list I'm mentioning is 429 pages long and on some pages there are as many as 13 or 14 references, a lot of them citing scientific literature. It's obvious they got you beat on quantity alone, but as for quality, everyone has to decide for themselves...
I'd suggest you make a video on 9/11 conspiracy theories, but the topic is so broad and varied it might require more than one video (or be hard to pick what exactly to address) - and the pushback from it might impress you even compared to the pushback from the marijuana vids ;-)
The method of consumption in several clinical trials by way of vaporization has shown to devoid the inhalant of all of it's cancer causing agents by way of burning plant matter. I would appreciate a PM on the issue.
I am not a denialists, and this label offends me because i do take the studies into account. The only reason i feel tempted to unsubscribe is because you fail to see the larger picture of Drug use in the global market place.
I have children and one day i am not naive to know they will have sex and do drugs, to preach "purity" or exclaim the safety of abstinence are not convincing.
You were bias in that you only looked for negative research studies. There exists counter studies for each ailment referenced, previously listed on your comments from your last video.
A drug can be judged on it's own merits, but because it exists in a market is fair to compare to other drugs. Just as one religion is fair to compare to another.
Do not judge weed off THC, its like judging oranges only on Vitamin C even though it carries many other CBD's and CBN's. You must compare tootherdrugs
Yourself poorly is where you call people with any sort of disagreement for denialists not considering they are willing to look at a broader picture, simply knows things you don't and is more neutral from bias, whatever the reason they might have its a distasteful approach from your side and definitely doesn't strengthen your video, and its argument.
I repeatedly invite dissension in the vid. I expected disagreement, I welcome it. If we don't disagree it isn't interesting or productive. Please disagree.
What I am referring to WRT denialism is that dismissing studies because they disagree with your conclusions is exactly the tactic used by denialists (HIV, AGW, creationists). We have to take all the research, and dismiss none of it, or we are guilty of selective acceptance, the mechanism that always leads to denialism.
I do find it ironic that you present yourself as a neutral messenger *with* a message when your presentations are as sloppy and seemingly biased as they are. I am not sure how else you can expect a struggle from people to see your message as clear, neutral and focused when you back it up with studied conducted on 15 subject and overall with a bias that can only reflect on the presenter considering the fair amounts (luckily growing) of studies on the subject. Where you really present .. (cont)
Does the research allow for the fact that people may have been pre-disposed to psychosis before turning to Canabis? Or that people with mental health issues such as depresion turn to THC or Opiates to "self-medicate"?
"Pre-disposed" is a bad terminology, because it suggests deterministic effects of genetics. "Component cause" is the scientific term. It allows that there are multiple mechanisms that work together to nudge probabilities one way or the other. In this case, more recent studies have focused on variations in COMT1, a gene associated with the interaction of THC and psychoses. COMT1(Val/Val) + THC = 22 fold increased risk of schizophrenia in one study.
This is Pseudoskepticism. How about you try show us how H2O is also not good always, you can always find something. But seriously demonizing a plant like this is pure Pseudoskepticism! Grow up or change work you seem to be trapped in lack of understanding. Some of the work you do is still good, but sometimes we all make mistake. You did one on this, it's actually kinda silly to see you fall for this propaganda. I actually question WHY you did this, got paid for it?
Death treaths? Really? Thats sick the guy needs therapy.
I mean i really dislike the videos content. Honestly i have no clue if its true or not, didn't read any of the studies cited. And somehow atm i still hope he is totaly wrong.
Especially as my personal experiance with adictive behavior is very different, i smoke cigarettes and weed.
But i mean even if the content of the video was totaly made up and full of lies, Treathen to kill someone for it? That's sick or a troll.
There is a spectrum of addiction and nicotine and THC are nowhere near each other on it. Yes, people can get "addicted" to all sorts of things and it does matter where it lies relative to other things. It's not so black and white where things just are or are not addictive. Saying it's equivalent to nicotine gives a very false impression. I would guess that it's a lot closer to alcohol. I know very few people who consume alcohol or THC that can't go a few hours without using, not so for nic.
@ArchNME It is exactly on par with coffee, as far as addictiveness (while being tremendously less toxic). It is considerably less addictive than ethanol.
Hey, just like to say a couple of things, firstly, thank you for the videos and a genuine neutral view! As a young casual cannabis smoker you have given me some things to think about.
Secondly, I would like to point out that even though by smoking Cannabis you will be exposed to more carcinogens but you will not be taking in radioactive material (i.e Polonium 210), which are present in commercially grown tobacco due to the fertilizers used.
We all know pot smoking is more popular among young people than older people. So it has always been.
Young people generally assume that's just because the older people are "old fashioned". Well, I was a teenager in the 70's and 80's. There was nothing stuffy about my generation. We smoked a lot of pot.
But the thing is... Most of us quit. Why? Not because it's illegal or "wrong", and not even for health. We quit because at some point, we just prefer to have a clearer mind.
Sorry but as a user of cannabis for about 5 years and a have been smoking for the past 8 year and now quit I can say that the effect of ciggeretes and cannabis in my own experience is not comparable. I stopped smoking tabbaco but still smoke 1 joint at the end of the night. When I smoked I had shortness of breath when I had to run for the train in the morning, now I have not. How can that be true if I only smoke 8 cigarettes less and I still smoke 20 a day in my joint?
@philateliceun Also, when I smoked tabaco I smoked from 10:00 in the morning to 01:00 in the morning, no rest for my lungs. Now since I stopped smoking my lungs are tar and smoke free for a good 12 hours and I feel it. The difference between cannabis and tabbaco is that in cannabis there is no list of 500 additives including things like Ammonia, kerosine, sulfur, gasoline, hundreds of preservatives and taste enhancers.
@philateliceun Where is it exactly that you phisically have to "run" for a train in you daily endevours? What state? What county? Where are these trains you speak of so inept?
@briankofke lol Yeah i think it is sloppy translating on my part. I mean with running for a train running to catch a train. In Holland the train is a good way of transport since there are traffic jams always everywhere in the area where I live.
I have never tried marijuana. I have no interest in doing so, because I'm a big fan of reality just the way it is. However, I totally believe that it should be legal for an adult to smoke, eat, or otherwise use the herb if they choose. The same way that alcohol prohibition failed miserably, so too is prohibition on marijuana an abysmal failure. Education is the key, and this video is a great step in that direction. I was personally somewhat ignorant of all the facts regarding health risks.
The reason people (that aren't just speaking from experience) say cannabis is not addictive is because unlike every other known addiction (including sex and gambling) cannabis does not work on dopamine receptors. But dependence (as defined by the DSM-IV TR) includes a list of factors all present in chronic cannabis users.
Is cannabis addictive in the SAME WAY as cigarettes, alcohol, heroine, or gambling? No. Is it addictive in that it causes withdrawl and major life changes to allow use? Yes.
i smoke pot everyday and i freely admit that it is bad for ur lungs, addictive, and maybe even related to mental disorders . . . however i dont really care. i like getting high and i find it to improves my value and enjoyment of life. ive also heard that weed has anti-tumor properties too as well as being good to induce appetite in chemotherapy patients. ive suffered from mental problem my whole life and in my opinion, ppl who have disorders are probably more likely to want to get high.
cont . . . maybe thats why there is a corrilation between some disorders and smoking pot . . . or maybe smoking pot makes u more likely to develope a disorder. i dont know but for me, its a persona choice and the government shouldnt have any say in what i do with my body. i wanna get hgih and i demand the right to do so.
When I was young i started playing rugby and racing motorbikes. Now in my mid twenties I have had both a shoulder and a knee reconstruction and movement and strength in both is limited.
Later I also started experimenting with drugs. I had some great times, and some embarrassing mornings, but I still look forward to future endeavors.
My point is that LIFE has negative health effects and there seems to be a stigma when considering the benefits of cannabis, to include personal enjoyment.
i understand you were looking at the harmful effects of marijuana, but i think it would be good just as a scientific study, research marijuana's medical benefits. becuase there are benefits, you even stated some shitzophrenics 'benefited" from smoking it. then allow others to make there dission if the benefits outway the risks, or not.
Clearly, there was cherry picking of studies. Moreover, by stating that he found the the allegations of cherry picking to be "most offensive", C0nc0rdance seems to be confirming the fact of cherry picking. Methinks he doth protest too much.
I CHOOSE to smoke cannibis. I'm fully aware of the potential implications. My choice. Great video anyway. Science is critical. I also inject heroin, once a month on a purely recreational basis. Also no problem. But i'm concerned about people doing it that aren't as middle class as me, like construction workers. Or blacks.
I appreciate your video and agree with it. Truth>denial. I hope that you do make your video on aspartame because me and one of my friends debate this quite often. I am not that informed and have not had the time (I'm working on my undergrad) to do all of the necessary research to take a firm stance. Anyway keep the videos coming!!!!!!
LMAO at some of these comments. C0nc0rdance, I didn't realize after watching as many of your videos as I have, that you were a religious nut! I'll have to go back and rewatch looking for that religious propaganda. Oh, and to bamboowhatever: "he's a square"??!! What is this, the 50s?
@Manifestatheist Past tense, moron. He grew up a religious nut and the mentality has carried over. And by his own admission, he was the kind of person who would have been shunned in my high school. I guarantee he would have never made it to a single one of the good parties where all the fun happened.
@bamboo4tameshigiri Haha, bamboo....you're really adept at the ad homs. You may notice that I didn't specifically address you with the "religious nut" comment--that's because I was laughing at the sentiment--it does make me laugh. "The mentality has carried over"--why is that? Have you watched any of his videos besides these two? RE the "square" comment--while it may be self-ascribed, it's still hilarious to see someone use it against him in the context in which you did. Again, LMAO!
@Manifestatheist Yes, troll. I have seen every single 1. That's why I can tell you that he wouldn't have had any life experience at all in the city I grew up in.
@bamboo4tameshigiri You're cracking me up. Project much? You've done nothing but troll on these videos, and continue to name-call; and yet, you still have not made a single coherent statement refuting what is presented in the videos. That is the very epitome of trolling. And who ever said "everything that feels good must automatically be bad for you"? C0nc0rdance certainly didn't. Anyway, I'm finished with this conversation--oh, and I support the legalization of pot; cheers!
@Manifestatheist "...and yet, you still have not made a single coherent statement refuting what is presented in the videos." That's a lie and the record show it.
@Manifestatheist The mentality that "everything that feels good must automatically be bad for you" is not rational. That's Churchy McChurch Church speaking.
Playing devils advocate, did you bother to research the studies that contradict the studies shown in the video? I agree with most of your points but I'm sure the people that disagreed with you would have been best served by presenting both sides.....
Which Tashkin paper are you alluding to? If you are referencing Dr. Donald Tashkin from the UCLA medical center, other researchers and him did not find a positive link. Please read:
Marijuana Use and the Risk of Lung & Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control Study
He also did an interview with the Washington Post and several other news agencies a few years ago presenting these results, which showed no cancer-marijuana connection.
I've read it. They did find a positive link between marijuana use and cancer. In fact, the heaviest smokers had more of several types of cancers. For example, the people in the study who smoked >60 joint years were 2.8 times as likely to have oral cancer than non-pot smokers, however these people were chronic cigarette smokers, so he tried to untangle the associations by continuous variable analysis, subtracting the risk from cigarettes so that the risk was less than 1.
The speculation he advanced in the paper is that smoked marijuana is a carcinogen, but that it also contains substances that inhibit the development of cancers. Let me quote from his conclusion:
"such inhibitory effects in some preclinical models do not necessarily imply that exposure to marijuana smoke can prevent cancer occurrence in humans."
I hope you actually read this paper, especially the "Discussion". Does it sound like the author disproved the cancer and pot link?
@C0nc0rdance The road you are on with that argument is not valid First of all, in order for research to be done on marijuana a medical professional must apply to the NIDA, and the NIDA only grants the rights to research drug abuse, and NOT research to test for the ,medical benefits of a drug. The bottom line is that marijaunna is a plant that mankind has used for over 10,000yrs, with documented medical uses dating back 5000yrs. Who is anyone to tell another what they can put into their body?
This is getting repetitive. The NIDA does not hold sway in Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia or South America. It grants licenses for labs, not individual studies, and there are no stated guidelines that research must focus on the negative effects. In fact, the therapeutic uses of cannabinoids are well-documented in the literature, so clearly the NIDA is failing in what you think its mission is.
@C0nc0rdance Precicfesly why most of the info. we have gleaned about the medical benefits of cannabanoids (I.E.marijuanna kills cancer) is from researchers from China, Spain and Italy, and NOT the US. The US Gov. has known since 1974 that marijuanna fights and kills cancer. You apparently are not aware of that little study.
Opium is also a plant that has been used for thousands of years. We restrict its usage as well and its abused as well. Its derivatives can be prescribed for specific conditions, but we don't allow people to use opium for recreation because it results in societal and personal harms.
Personal liberty is always tempered by societal costs. You can't set your house on fire because the fire department has to come put it out, or the fire might spread to others' houses.
@C0nc0rdance Yes, opium is a plant that has proven quite addictive and dangerous. To compare marijuanna to opium is like comparing parsley to monks hood. How many have died from opium, heroin, vicodin, and all other opiates derived from opium? I don't know, but I can tell you that in the 5000 years of recorded history concerning the use of marijuanna, there is not a single recorded death due to overdose of cannabis.Not one. And you have no right to interject on my personal liberties.
@C0nc0rdance Personal liberty is NOT always tempered by societal costs; it is the personal liberties of the people that MAKE the society.There are two kinds of people in this world; those that believe the ends justify the means, and those that do not. You CLEARY believe that the ends justify the means (As did Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and all othery murdering tyrants our world has seen).You are a sickness to this world, and if you mess with MY personal freedoms for your gains, well, look at history.
PEOPLE make the society. Individuals cooperating. If you wish absolute freedom, then move to a deserted island. Governments are about shared doctrines. They impose limits to what our personal freedoms are so that we can all get along. You may not dump toxic waste on your own land, you may not torture your own dog or horse, you may not grow illegal drugs, you may not carry an assault rifle. We are a society, and we get to decide what is acceptable.
@C0nc0rdance You Sir neeed to research the constitution and our founding fathers. The society they created was a republic, where each individual has certain inalianable rights, which include the right to freedom, the pursuit of happiness, life and liberty. The society you are reffering to is a mirror of communism, socialism and fascism. A society has no bearing on the inalianable right of an individual, and when it does the society collapses into tyrrany. Thats the history of it.
Calm down, brianofke. Yes, every person has basic rights. However, the government is also granted certain rights. Things like regulating trade, collecting taxes, public safety and defense. The US Constitution also allows for laws and amendments to be voted in by our representatives. We've seen fit to regulate dangerous foods and drugs, to license businesses, to regulate the distribution of certain products. That's one of our rights as a society, to seek the common good.
@C0nc0rdance Not to mention the fact that our society has been manipulated into believing that the most important plant on the planet, which can cure cancer and many other diseases, holds the best protein food source, is the best building material with over 50,000 applications, and is friendly to the environment but not the pharmaceutical and petro-chemical corps.,is an evil weed. You are buying into a cognitive dissonance of idiocy, and people see the lie you are woven into. In short, you suck.
I would have thought the most important plant would be something like wheat, rice or corn.
THC is perfectly legal for cancer therapy. It's called Marinol and is Schedule III, available by prescription. It's just not as effective as other (non-abused) cannabinoids.
I'm always amused when people run out of actual arguments, because that's when they resort to abuse and name-calling. It's the mentality of the playground, infantile and self-defeating.
@C0nc0rdance Wow. You are quite sick. I think I have never felt so ill before just typing to another. Disgusting how you promote the pharmaceutical industry after promoting the very commodities they have absorbed and polluted. I have "number" chief, and there is no reason to concern yourself with me as I have an agenda of peace on this earth. Please find yourself another anorchist to hang with, because I hate you, I hate how you operate, and I hate your ideals. Now Fuck Off.
@stiimuli I spent about a month here doing exactly that. Read the comment section of both of his cannabis videos. Several other people also pointed out exactly how biased and hyperbolic these videos are.
@bamboo4tameshigiri Im not going to go through and read all the comments for each video.
1)every comment I've read thus far criticizing these videos is an ad hominem attack full of personal insults yet devoid of any citation of actual research adressing the actual points.
2)The number of detractors has no bearing on the validity of the points in the video.
@stiimuli I don't care what you think. I'm not going through all of this again. The information is at your fingertips. Believe whatever the hell you want.
@bamboo4tameshigiri "I don't care what you think." if you didnt care, you wouldnt have been posting comments here for a month. All Im asking for is your side of the arguement.
"The information is at your fingertips."
Right now the only information at my fingertips is the information in the above video and the citations of the research used to support it. I've asked you for reliable information supporting an opposing viewpoint but you dont want to provide that.
@stiimuli If you want some information, then watch the following (keep in mind, this guy uses PubMed as a source, too. So you can either watch his videos, or just skip to view the links in the video description):
@C0nc0rdance 2 to 1 in lung cancer studies? Really? There have been a lot of studies that haven't adjusted for confounding factors(like tobacco smoke). Now, if you wish to compare the studies that have adjusted for confounding factors, like tobacco smoke, then marijuana wins in a lower lung cancer risk compared to tobacco. Challenge me, seriously. This needs to be discussed.
Also the whole it effects people differently, I must disagree, the only negative effects I have ever seen is if they haven't eatin. You are cherry picking. This is fact.
Show me 1 case of a marijuana smoker with brown lung or cancer. I have seen numerous studies that say marijuana does not cause either. I need to know where you get this seemingly bogus information.
Small cell lung cancer in a 26-year-old man with significant Cannabis exposure.
"...regular marijuana smoking produces a number of long-term pulmonary consequences, including chronic cough and sputum, histopathologic evidence of widespread airway inflammation and injury and immunohistochemical evidence of dysregulated growth of respiratory epithelial cells, that may be precursors to lung cancer."
@C0nc0rdance I don't care what 1 study shows, humans have been smoking it for thousands of years. So since this is fact show me some evidence of marijuana only smokers suffering from these as they can with cigarettes. Until then I will go off of the 1st hand knowledge I have from smoking it with many people such as the elderly and none of them suffer from anything you claim in this video. So show me the proof and I will concur, until then stop the lies.
"regular marijuana smoking produces a number of long-term pulmonary consequences, including chronic cough and sputum, histopathologic evidence of widespread airway inflammation and injury and immunohistochemical evidence of dysregulated growth of respiratory epithelial cells, that may be precursors to lung cancer."
"bronchitis, airway injury (erythema, edema, and increased secretions) correlate with alterations in bronchial biopsies, and dysregulated growth of the bronchial epithelium with altered expression of nuclear and cytoplasmic proteins involved in the pathogenesis of bronchogenic carcinoma. Other consequences ... abnormalities in human alveolar macrophages; impairment of their cytokine production, antimicrobial activity, and tumoricidal function."
"Regular marijuana use can lead to extensive airway injury and alterations in the structure and function of alveolar macrophages, potentially predisposing to pulmonary infection and respiratory cancer."
Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2001 Mar;7(2):43-61.
"These findings suggest that smoking marijuana and/or cocaine, like tobacco smoking, exerts field cancerization effects on bronchial epithelium."
@C0nc0rdance You can keep spewing all these studies because more show it is less harmful then cigarettes and alcohol. I have smoked and know a lot of smokers, I have 1st hand experience. Also these facts your spewing are outdated lmfao. Just like it kills brain cells? Yea if you suffocate monkies it will show dead brain cells. Have you ever smoked pot? If not stfu and dont respond.
@bamboo4tameshigiri If he is a religious nut he needs to understand God gave ALL herbs to man and we have receptors for this. Also HIS best estimate is 50 joints and he lies, He uses his opinions. I believe in God and guess what? I think more deeply and critically due to this herb. He wants to try and lie to dictate peoples lives. Churches are for control. If you want to get to know God read the bible smoke a joint sit back and go through your brain.
@C0nc0rdance Yeah and, by your own words, green tea gives you cancer too. Right? Or is it the burned irritated tissue itself? Are you ready to be honest yet or are you going to continue the dishonest propaganda campaign?
my last two comments were meant to apply to the quotes and citations you used in your reply to me earlier (I am youtuben00b and expected them to show up underneath). oh well :P
Though it is true that some of the byproducts from the combustion of marijuana are carcinogenic, it is critical to note that cannabinoids such as THC and cannabidiol are potent anticancer agents. There is an equal amount of evidence, if not more, supporting cannabinoids positive affects on suppressing tumor growth. This may explain why researchers have been able to demonstrate cannabis smoke-induced cellular damage, but NOT a clear cannabis smoke and lung cancer link.
That's one possibility: it could be that marijuana smoking both causes and treats cancer of the lung at the same time.
Of course, several groups HAVE shown a positive correlation between marijuana smoking and lung cancer. Even the Tashkin paper gives a 95% confidence interval that stretches from a risk factor of 0.2 to 3 times the risk. That overlaps many of the previous studies that found a positive association.
I was shocked by the part in your last video referencing strong evidence for an inverse correlation between learning ability and pot use, so I went searching for the paper you cited. I am a microbiologist, and part of my job is to review literature with a discriminating eye. "Regional Brain Abnormalities Associated With Long-term Heavy Cannabis Use" is the most flawed paper I have ever read! How did they get published R^2 values of less than .3? And only 15 subjects, in a self-selecting group?
"Cannabis users performed significantly worse than alcohol users and non-users on all performance indices. They recalled significantly fewer words overall (p < 0.001), demonstrating impaired learning (p < 0.001), retention (p < 0.001) and retrieval (p < 0.05) (Cohen's d 0.43-0.84). The degree of impairment was associated with the duration, quantity, frequency and age of onset of cannabis use, but was unrelated to alcohol exposure or other drug use."
The argument that many cannabis user hold is not it's healthy, but that it's a good pass time and release, better than many of the alternatives. I'm not saying that is is, although I would. Just that it is a choice, and one we should be free to make without judgement or bias, It is always useful to be aware of the risks that you are taking and I would hope that all pot smokers are but these videos, while they are interesting and useful, do no give a healthy account of cannabis in the real world.
crazyhairball18 6 days ago
This is almost as disappointing as that time I learned there was no God.
ChakraKnot 1 week ago
You can't say "50 Joints" is the LD50 because you are talking about something that varies depending on the THC content of plant itself. Its like comparing a 40oz bottle of beer to a 40oz bottle of whiskey, and judging it solely on the capacity of the 40oz bottle.
But supposing your "50 joints" did contain the proposed LD50, how much time "in minutes" would those 50 joints need to be consumed in, for the THC content to have a lethal effect?
123backinyerface 3 weeks ago
The biggest exception I would make is the claim that marijuana addiction and withdrawal are somehow on par with tobacco or alcohol. I've had to quit all three after heavy use. Weed was nothing to quit. Perhaps people vary a lot on this, but other long term users who quit agreed with me. 2nd possible problem -- I 'm betting if you Google 'Barney and Evil' you will get 10 hits at the top that confirm everyone's suspicion.
MsMrNoface 3 weeks ago
I would love to see you pwning the "MSG IS BAD" people. MSG IS A PROTEIN DERIVED FROM SEAWEED! Is eating SEAWEED bad? NO! Is eating a protein derived from seaweed that you would be ingesting if you ate plain seaweed bad? NO!
bulbinking 3 weeks ago
@bulbinking
I did! Check through my videos.
MSG is found in a wide variety of foods, but none so much as in parmesan cheese.
C0nc0rdance 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm actually tripping balls right now on weed, I'm not doing this again lol. My family has a history of mental illness and I stopped smoking it a decade ago due to bad/intense experiences... I've had a reminder tonight of why, lol. I'll stick to meditation to enhance my appreciation of art :-) Thanks for the info concordance - mental health isn't something to play with.
strangestdude 1 month ago in playlist More videos from C0nc0rdance
Comment removed
strangestdude 1 month ago in playlist More videos from C0nc0rdance
Hardcore marijuana activists who deny this evidence are just as vapid as religious fundamentalists who deny evidence contrary to their God.
JohnSmith88823 1 month ago
Marijuana withdrawal is hardly comparable to alcohol or nicotine withdrawal.
Ostrasize 1 month ago
Why is it that you don't answer my questions except for the one time you thought I was disagreeing with you?
CappitranoBellephant 1 month ago
great video. I smoked for 6 years in my teens.The info sounds right to me.
lessevdoolbretsim 1 month ago in playlist More videos from C0nc0rdance
I am a cannabis smoker and I admit that I can be very baised myself. You did an excellent job on this video, being objective towards cannabis use. Thank you for being one of the few people our there who have a rational view on things.
leomollon123 1 month ago
I think the analogy to creationists is actually a good one. A lot of them make the same claims any time Intelligent Design is shunned. Some spooky group of guys in hoods secretly want to keep ID out of science, no matter its credentials. The exact same claims are made by the green evangelicals. They'll say: Oh, you have to look at who is administering the test, and I've got tons of unaccredited studies that were left out because of the pharmaceutical conspiracy!!11!1
SocialDissimulation 1 month ago
You cherry pick studies on every video.
OldSchopenhauer 1 month ago
I notice you have not mentioned the greatest harm caused by cannabis. That is the criminalisation of people for a victimless crime. This ruins peoples lives. The health risks associated with imprisonment and poverty surely out weigh any potential risk from cannabis use.
ironmonkidragonsclaw 1 month ago in playlist More videos from C0nc0rdance
smoke what you like, drink what you like but don,t make it illegal it opens the door to more crime.
Tralgit 2 months ago
Great video, will it stop me from smoking pot? Probably not..
Does this video convince me that smoking pot is bad for you?
To be honest breathing in smoke has to be bad for you, pot smoke is smoke, so I will assume it's not good for me.
Have i ever felt withdrawal? Yes, devastatingly so, but not from pot. But to be honest the physician proscribed drug i was addicted to was an opiate, no comparison...
Moontanman 4 months ago
@Moontanman i also drink Tequila, never smoked cigarettes and I eat lots of vegetables , what's my point? I often think of the guy who asked his doc if he would live to be an old man, the doc asked him if he smoked, no, drank, no, stayed up late and partied, no, ran around with loose women, no.. the doc paused and said, "why do you care?" life is a risk and some things i enjoy are risky, but it's always good to have some idea of what your risk is, thank you for making this video...
Moontanman 4 months ago
I bet if you do a video on alcohol, and compared it with weed... you would know how far fetched these studies are.
Nitharsan2008 5 months ago
Basically the argument here is cannabis *may* cause schizophrenia.
Got it.
WTFGUY956 5 months ago
I have a video debunking everyone of your fucking bullshit resources. The facts on lung damage are because of the tobacco not the marijuana and I have a video of the actual scientist who was involved in the study saying there is no lung damage at all other than acute bronchitus- the only risk involved with smoking. Dr. Tashkin, the actual scientist involved in the study, knows better than your ignorant as fuck ass. Please shut your fucking hole bitch.
merryfourtwenty 6 months ago
@merryfourtwenty: Wow, so hostile for someone who supposedly has all the facts in his corner. You'd think someone so secure in their position wouldn't resort to childish name calling.
andyissemicool 5 months ago
@merryfourtwenty Why do you resort to insults? Looking over your channel, I would also suggest you are extremely biased when it comes to marijuana.
The _opinion_ of scientists is irrelevant - it is the peer-reviewed studies and their impact (i.e. number of citations) that is of relevance. As c0nc0rdance himself states: do not confuse the message with the messenger. Instead, stop resorting to childish insults and demonstrate why the pubmed articles he linked are flawed.
LucidCatnap 5 months ago
LD-50 rating wrong! Its 1:40,000 which means 1500 pound of marijuana must be smoked in 15 minutes to overdose. Low density reason safe-absolutely wrong. There are no CB-1 receptors in either dopamine producing neurons or the respiratory/cardiovascular system combined with low toxicity that makes it safe. Why could New Zealand not do a study of pure pot smokers but must mix with tobacco is because they need tobacco to get a cancer result. That is straight falsified research. Fucking liar!
merryfourtwenty 6 months ago
@merryfourtwenty On a final, more scientific note however; it was not difficult finding out where you got your criticism of the LD-50 presented in the video, as you yourself have reuploaded liberalviewer's video on Fox News regarding it. The statement he quotes and which you here presents comes from a 1988 ruling on it's medical use.
I'm not saying it's wrong, but you should actually cite your sources and admit that in this case, your source is over 20 years old, which may have implications.
LucidCatnap 5 months ago
I am not accusing the researchers of being dumb or bias I am accusing you of being dumb and bias.
adamnewbold1 6 months ago
I am very pro cannabis, but everything you said was correct. I think cannabis should be treated like many other drugs. It isn't harmless, but it is less harmful than many other substances. Some people should never even touch cannabis. One thing I am a bit uncertain on is the cancer causing part...with big tobacco there are the many additives..how would this be less harmful than a cannabis joint? I personally vaporize my cannabis, but I know that joints are second least harmful way 2 smoke
Stealthmachin3 6 months ago
So that would be 50-60 joints orally? As in eating them? Hmmm.
LD50 for vitB6 in rats was 657.5 mg/kg. Schu- macher et al. 1965 - so THC is about as toxic as B6.
A question on the studies into addiction. Where did the subjects come from? My point; if they were arrested for theft it is easy to blame it on addiction and if they don't do heroin but do smoke weed then they can blame it on that. Just a thought...
DrSpooglemon 6 months ago
Thank You for doing this...
The Cannabis world is upside down and it's hard to make heads or tails out of anything. There is so much conflicting data, and so much bias on all sides of the argument that it seems as if perhaps politicians are playing it safe by keeping laws as they are, out of sheer confusion!
I think you will agree that this is a painful (But fairly common) result of scientific infancy. The field is still new, and there is much to be learned in the coming years.
mymommy1230 7 months ago
@mymommy1230
I hope that the future holds more funding, larger scale studies, and concrete answers. Until then, I hope I have the willpower I pride myself on, and can sate my curiosity in quick order and be done with it!
mymommy1230 7 months ago
PERSONALLY I didn't have many bad experiences with cannabis since I used it rather sporadically. The ones that were bad were acceptable as risk - bad trips can happen, but they pass. I consider myself a lucky one, because apparently I'm immune to any addiction... But I've seen people who weren't really thinking much about what they were doing... and smoked recklessly. Maybe that's just a matter of priorities or personality.
r0galik 7 months ago
Comment removed
centraldrummer 8 months ago
Cannabis is the staff of life, it's your navigator, it's your reality check, it's your everything. Without it you tend to regress to the ol' mule with the carrot attached to its head, unquestioning and unperturbed.
watch?v=5e-79-Z5Kg0
C0nc0rdance should speak about cannabis's effect on consciousness, which is the entire point of smoking it. Tobacco doesn't offer you that payback. One toke of good hydro will keep me high for about 7 hours. You don't have to puff away as you do with a cigarette.
Hanahleia 8 months ago 2
C0nc0rdance,
Please be aware that saying, "I get the same response from AIDS denialists and creationists" is not an argument, because it could be used no matter what the position you take. Even in one of the studies you read out, it said there was still a debate over cannabis and schizophrenia. I agree with you that the health effects of marijuana are probably negative (and comparable to alcohol) but you paint a picture that the science is settled when the very papers you cite say it's not.
lIThorIl 8 months ago 15
This has been flagged as spam show
"Even in one of the studies you read out, it said there was still a debate over cannabis and schizophrenia. I agree with you that the health effects of marijuana are probably negative (and comparable to alcohol) but you paint a picture that the science is settled when the very papers you cite say it's not." I no longer respect him enough to say it as such.
bamboo4tameshigiri 8 months ago
Further, correlation is NOT causation! And any good scientist knows that; well, anyone who is not being paid to lie to us or is as biased as can get. What the study shows is that for a tiny portion <10% of PREDISPOSED patients (smaller than for most psychiatric meds) cannabis can exacerbate effects. Look, do we want to honest here or not? I want to be honest and I already know most atypical antipsychotics have WORSE side effects including inducing those they are supposed to control.
bamboo4tameshigiri 7 months ago
@lIThorIl
You have essentially done the same thing that you have accused him of. You say that his argument is invalid - yet you present an ambiguous, unspecific argument that is just as useful as an ad-hominem attack. You are supposed to present evidence, and he is supposed to refute that evidence, and vise versa. So far, all you've done is say he's being biased. That's not science, that's history.
JohnSmith88823 1 month ago
@lIThorIl I don't ever recall him saying that the topic was settled... He specifically made the video regarding its negative effects and there is substantial evidence showing its link to schizophrenia as illustrated in this video. Maybe it was one of the earlier published papers. Unless you cite the one you're referring too, it would be difficult for anyone to assess this claim.
jshowa7 3 weeks ago
Cognitive bias.and fear-mongering
qnbs7 8 months ago
Fucker
qnbs7 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Continued from previous comment...Part 2
Sources:
1. PMID: 18676872
2. PMID: 19627647
3. PMID: 16684342
4. PMID: 17884351 ...cannabis extract has both THC and CBD, right?
5. PMID: 17349865
6. PMID: 18378995
Too much of anything psychoactive is bad for people with a genetic liability to schizo. Legalization would lead to people knowing how high the THC content is when they buy their cannabis. They would also cross-breed our cannabis to have a higher content of CBD.
tnturtlegurl 9 months ago
Umm...dude? A couple things wrong with your position there:
1st, I checked your cited sources, and the addiction and cancer papers, actually stated that, in fact, cannibis is BENEFICIAL for cancer and that Cannibis causes NO form of physical addiction!
That paper on Schizophrenia, though, is actually the one area where you almost had a valid point! ...Sort of. Pot doesn't *cause* schizophrenia. However, if you had it already, it could worsen some of your symptoms (temporarily). Esp. paranoia.
macgeek2004 9 months ago
C0nc0rdance 9 months ago 2
@C0nc0rdance Cannabinoids don't cause cancers to progress. It's the methylation of the cannabinoid receptors that actually expedites cancer growth. If a cancer/tumor has low expressions of cannabinoid receptors, then it's difficult for the cannabinoids to agonize them and induce ceramide. Actually, the changes in the brain aren't significant, and other studies show that the environment may contribute to schizophrenia. Since, the majority of pot users aren't schizophrenic. Balance of THC:CBD :)
tnturtlegurl 9 months ago
@C0nc0rdance J Immunol. 2005 Mar 15;174(6):3281-9 "We demonstrated that the human breast cancer cell lines MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 and the mouse mammary carcinoma 4T1 express low to undetectable levels of cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, and that these cells are resistant to Delta9-THC-induced cytotoxicity." THIS is the very definition of cherry picking, you dishonest prick.
bamboo4tameshigiri 8 months ago
"There is no distinction for "physical" addiction." There is, in reality world. Maybe not in biased land.
bamboo4tameshigiri 8 months ago
@bamboo4tameshigiri We all are fighting for what we believe in :D
tnturtlegurl 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance "It causes brain changes that can lead to schizophrenia." You're a god damned liar. Who is paying you to lie to us?
bamboo4tameshigiri 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Well well, you did cherry pick these studies, after all. There are more studies presenting the positive effects of cannabis once they adjusted for confounding factors. You're not the only one that uses PubMed Central as a source, friend. Over 150 studies, you say? I currently have over 300 studies from PubMed Central that are 21st century. If you don't believe me, then I'll send them to you via PM. :)
Have a nice day!
zekdom 8 months ago 2
@zekdom Just because there are more positive effects than negative effects doesn't mean there are no negative effects. The whole video was to show that there are some negative effects, which is something a lot of people try to deny.
If you want to argue that cannabis is on a whole healthy for you, then that's a different subject.
BrotherAlpha 7 months ago 5
@BrotherAlpha Oh, I understand that there are negative effects, but Concordance stated that there are more studies showing the negative effects than there are positive. He especially, if I remember correctly, stated that there are more studies showing how cannabis increases the cancer risk, which is laughably a falsehood. But yeah, everything has a negative side to it.
zekdom 7 months ago
@zekdom
You don't remember correctly. I stated that the literature on lung abnormalities produced by Dr. Don Tashkin is strongly in favor (I think it's 6 to 1) of precancerous changes being linked to increasing smoked cannabis dose.
There ARE in fact more papers showing a link to lung cancer, but Tashkin's 2005 study is the LARGEST to date, and it failed to find a dose-dependent correlation.
Zekdom accurately represents my intent: dispelling myths that cannabis is risk-free.
C0nc0rdance 7 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Well, that was in the past. The cannabinoid levels have risen, which adds more of a "protective" (bronchodilating and anti-tumoral) effect. Once you eliminate the studies that didn't adjust for confounding factors, there are more studies showing insignificant increases in cancer risk. I would've liked your video, but you had to present yourself as a "neutral" messenger, which kind of killed the true intent of your video. If what you were solely doing was to dispel myths, then fine.
zekdom 7 months ago
@C0nc0rdance "Or it can cause them to progress more rapidly" -- only when you have a prohibitionist cunt scientist that uses a strain of mouse that has been bred to have a genetic disposition for tumors and when you use pure THC without the CBD contents of natural marijuana. People do not inject themselves with nor do they smoke pure THC. Marijuana can not be shown to cause cancer unless you falsify your research.
merryfourtwenty 6 months ago
@merryfourtwenty I've seen my fair share of bias in other fields which I eagerly debate. One such field is the issue of creationism. There is no difference between the bias you exhibit and theirs. By asserting that the studies that present findings which conflict with your personal beliefs are automatically flawed (because you 'know' you're right), or turn to conspiracies (i.e. the papers presented are written by 'prohibitionists'), you are in no way different than creationists or 9/11 truthers.
LucidCatnap 5 months ago
@LucidCatnap
I wish the Internet were made up of people like you. We can disagree on issues, but still fundamentally agree that the process of deciding should be based on honest inquiry.
C0nc0rdance 5 months ago
@merryfourtwenty I also would like to add that I actually smoke relatively much marijuana, and I believe that regardless of the dangers associated with smoking, there are arguments from social sciences and matters of principle and liberty to present arguments for legalization superior to those whom wish to keep it illegal.
I assume you are yourself for legalization. That's great, but please don't use myths as arguments. It makes the campaign for drug policy reform look much worse.
LucidCatnap 5 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Your completely misleading people that marijuana causes schizophrenia.
opszanski 6 months ago
@C0nc0rdance , any chance you could make a video on cannabinoids and it's affects on tumors(cancer)?
gskowal 4 months ago
@gskowal
Yes, I think it's long overdue. It's a very promising class of drugs, and not just for cancer. Alzheimer's is possibly MORE exciting, where we don't have a lot of other therapeutics near the post-market stage.
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago
Wow, the Marijuana Evangelicals are out in force.
SocialDissimulation 9 months ago
American Association for Cancer Research (2007, April 17). Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows.
TheAtheistPaladin 9 months ago 2
Cannabidiol induces programmed cell death in breast cancer cells by coordinating the crosstalk between apoptosis and autophagy. May 12, 2011
Shrivastava A, Kuzontkoski PM, Groopman J, Prasad A.
Does this study suggest that cannabis kills breast cancer cells?
itry2brational 9 months ago
@itry2brational It suggests that plant-derived chemical compounds from the cannabis plant inhibits cancer cell proliferation, metastasis, and invasion. That study didn't observe the smoked form.
tnturtlegurl 9 months ago
Weed feels good, mostly. Weed is fun. I've got less than 60 years of my life left. Weed has health benefits and drawbacks. I don't smoke I don't drink. I have felt adverse effects and I will stop when they start bothering me or outweighing the benefits.
JustaEropeanGuy 9 months ago
its safe through a vaporizer
heypono 9 months ago
If someone's actually interested in the truth, they'll compare both sides of this disagreement; the "other side" can be found by googling "granny storm crow list"...
The list I'm mentioning is 429 pages long and on some pages there are as many as 13 or 14 references, a lot of them citing scientific literature. It's obvious they got you beat on quantity alone, but as for quality, everyone has to decide for themselves...
s1k3st937 9 months ago
lmao, you never did an experiment. *sigh* so simple.
slowmopoke 10 months ago
I'd suggest you make a video on 9/11 conspiracy theories, but the topic is so broad and varied it might require more than one video (or be hard to pick what exactly to address) - and the pushback from it might impress you even compared to the pushback from the marijuana vids ;-)
Falco98 10 months ago
The method of consumption in several clinical trials by way of vaporization has shown to devoid the inhalant of all of it's cancer causing agents by way of burning plant matter. I would appreciate a PM on the issue.
Puabond 10 months ago 2
I am not a denialists, and this label offends me because i do take the studies into account. The only reason i feel tempted to unsubscribe is because you fail to see the larger picture of Drug use in the global market place.
I have children and one day i am not naive to know they will have sex and do drugs, to preach "purity" or exclaim the safety of abstinence are not convincing.
Puabond 10 months ago 2
You were bias in that you only looked for negative research studies. There exists counter studies for each ailment referenced, previously listed on your comments from your last video.
A drug can be judged on it's own merits, but because it exists in a market is fair to compare to other drugs. Just as one religion is fair to compare to another.
Do not judge weed off THC, its like judging oranges only on Vitamin C even though it carries many other CBD's and CBN's. You must compare tootherdrugs
Puabond 10 months ago
Yourself poorly is where you call people with any sort of disagreement for denialists not considering they are willing to look at a broader picture, simply knows things you don't and is more neutral from bias, whatever the reason they might have its a distasteful approach from your side and definitely doesn't strengthen your video, and its argument.
BBMorti 10 months ago 2
@BBMorti
I repeatedly invite dissension in the vid. I expected disagreement, I welcome it. If we don't disagree it isn't interesting or productive. Please disagree.
What I am referring to WRT denialism is that dismissing studies because they disagree with your conclusions is exactly the tactic used by denialists (HIV, AGW, creationists). We have to take all the research, and dismiss none of it, or we are guilty of selective acceptance, the mechanism that always leads to denialism.
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago
I do find it ironic that you present yourself as a neutral messenger *with* a message when your presentations are as sloppy and seemingly biased as they are. I am not sure how else you can expect a struggle from people to see your message as clear, neutral and focused when you back it up with studied conducted on 15 subject and overall with a bias that can only reflect on the presenter considering the fair amounts (luckily growing) of studies on the subject. Where you really present .. (cont)
BBMorti 10 months ago 3
I wasn't aware that there was such a thing as an "AIDS denialist"
Sad.
paspax 10 months ago
Does the research allow for the fact that people may have been pre-disposed to psychosis before turning to Canabis? Or that people with mental health issues such as depresion turn to THC or Opiates to "self-medicate"?
NoFaithNoPain 10 months ago
@NoFaithNoPain
"Pre-disposed" is a bad terminology, because it suggests deterministic effects of genetics. "Component cause" is the scientific term. It allows that there are multiple mechanisms that work together to nudge probabilities one way or the other. In this case, more recent studies have focused on variations in COMT1, a gene associated with the interaction of THC and psychoses. COMT1(Val/Val) + THC = 22 fold increased risk of schizophrenia in one study.
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago
Is it bad that when I thought nicotine... I thought Nykytyne?
marquee989 10 months ago
This is Pseudoskepticism. How about you try show us how H2O is also not good always, you can always find something. But seriously demonizing a plant like this is pure Pseudoskepticism! Grow up or change work you seem to be trapped in lack of understanding. Some of the work you do is still good, but sometimes we all make mistake. You did one on this, it's actually kinda silly to see you fall for this propaganda. I actually question WHY you did this, got paid for it?
cohnkrad 10 months ago
Death treaths? Really? Thats sick the guy needs therapy.
I mean i really dislike the videos content. Honestly i have no clue if its true or not, didn't read any of the studies cited. And somehow atm i still hope he is totaly wrong.
Especially as my personal experiance with adictive behavior is very different, i smoke cigarettes and weed.
But i mean even if the content of the video was totaly made up and full of lies, Treathen to kill someone for it? That's sick or a troll.
Aanthanur 10 months ago
There is a spectrum of addiction and nicotine and THC are nowhere near each other on it. Yes, people can get "addicted" to all sorts of things and it does matter where it lies relative to other things. It's not so black and white where things just are or are not addictive. Saying it's equivalent to nicotine gives a very false impression. I would guess that it's a lot closer to alcohol. I know very few people who consume alcohol or THC that can't go a few hours without using, not so for nic.
ArchNME 10 months ago
@ArchNME It is exactly on par with coffee, as far as addictiveness (while being tremendously less toxic). It is considerably less addictive than ethanol.
bamboo4tameshigiri 10 months ago
I just noticed a huge grammatical error in what I said, apologies to all.
DealWithItStudios 10 months ago
Hey, just like to say a couple of things, firstly, thank you for the videos and a genuine neutral view! As a young casual cannabis smoker you have given me some things to think about.
Secondly, I would like to point out that even though by smoking Cannabis you will be exposed to more carcinogens but you will not be taking in radioactive material (i.e Polonium 210), which are present in commercially grown tobacco due to the fertilizers used.
DealWithItStudios 10 months ago
We all know pot smoking is more popular among young people than older people. So it has always been.
Young people generally assume that's just because the older people are "old fashioned". Well, I was a teenager in the 70's and 80's. There was nothing stuffy about my generation. We smoked a lot of pot.
But the thing is... Most of us quit. Why? Not because it's illegal or "wrong", and not even for health. We quit because at some point, we just prefer to have a clearer mind.
pburto 10 months ago
Sorry but as a user of cannabis for about 5 years and a have been smoking for the past 8 year and now quit I can say that the effect of ciggeretes and cannabis in my own experience is not comparable. I stopped smoking tabbaco but still smoke 1 joint at the end of the night. When I smoked I had shortness of breath when I had to run for the train in the morning, now I have not. How can that be true if I only smoke 8 cigarettes less and I still smoke 20 a day in my joint?
philateliceun 10 months ago
@philateliceun Also, when I smoked tabaco I smoked from 10:00 in the morning to 01:00 in the morning, no rest for my lungs. Now since I stopped smoking my lungs are tar and smoke free for a good 12 hours and I feel it. The difference between cannabis and tabbaco is that in cannabis there is no list of 500 additives including things like Ammonia, kerosine, sulfur, gasoline, hundreds of preservatives and taste enhancers.
philateliceun 10 months ago
@philateliceun Where is it exactly that you phisically have to "run" for a train in you daily endevours? What state? What county? Where are these trains you speak of so inept?
briankofke 10 months ago
@briankofke lol Yeah i think it is sloppy translating on my part. I mean with running for a train running to catch a train. In Holland the train is a good way of transport since there are traffic jams always everywhere in the area where I live.
philateliceun 10 months ago
I have never tried marijuana. I have no interest in doing so, because I'm a big fan of reality just the way it is. However, I totally believe that it should be legal for an adult to smoke, eat, or otherwise use the herb if they choose. The same way that alcohol prohibition failed miserably, so too is prohibition on marijuana an abysmal failure. Education is the key, and this video is a great step in that direction. I was personally somewhat ignorant of all the facts regarding health risks.
5avan10 10 months ago 2
Thank you for your unbiased honesty. You did a great job in both your videos concerning marijuana, as usual.
Tigerpawzs 10 months ago
The reason people (that aren't just speaking from experience) say cannabis is not addictive is because unlike every other known addiction (including sex and gambling) cannabis does not work on dopamine receptors. But dependence (as defined by the DSM-IV TR) includes a list of factors all present in chronic cannabis users.
Is cannabis addictive in the SAME WAY as cigarettes, alcohol, heroine, or gambling? No. Is it addictive in that it causes withdrawl and major life changes to allow use? Yes.
dbryantmsed 10 months ago
i smoke pot everyday and i freely admit that it is bad for ur lungs, addictive, and maybe even related to mental disorders . . . however i dont really care. i like getting high and i find it to improves my value and enjoyment of life. ive also heard that weed has anti-tumor properties too as well as being good to induce appetite in chemotherapy patients. ive suffered from mental problem my whole life and in my opinion, ppl who have disorders are probably more likely to want to get high.
keggerous 10 months ago
cont . . . maybe thats why there is a corrilation between some disorders and smoking pot . . . or maybe smoking pot makes u more likely to develope a disorder. i dont know but for me, its a persona choice and the government shouldnt have any say in what i do with my body. i wanna get hgih and i demand the right to do so.
keggerous 10 months ago
When I was young i started playing rugby and racing motorbikes. Now in my mid twenties I have had both a shoulder and a knee reconstruction and movement and strength in both is limited.
Later I also started experimenting with drugs. I had some great times, and some embarrassing mornings, but I still look forward to future endeavors.
My point is that LIFE has negative health effects and there seems to be a stigma when considering the benefits of cannabis, to include personal enjoyment.
ASparrow1 10 months ago
But wait, don't some doctors use marijuana to help cancer patients?
LuvStruckMess 10 months ago
i understand you were looking at the harmful effects of marijuana, but i think it would be good just as a scientific study, research marijuana's medical benefits. becuase there are benefits, you even stated some shitzophrenics 'benefited" from smoking it. then allow others to make there dission if the benefits outway the risks, or not.
dtpheif 10 months ago
@dtpheif decision, wow that was a bad spelling
dtpheif 10 months ago
Clearly, there was cherry picking of studies. Moreover, by stating that he found the the allegations of cherry picking to be "most offensive", C0nc0rdance seems to be confirming the fact of cherry picking. Methinks he doth protest too much.
pupsenok 10 months ago
I CHOOSE to smoke cannibis. I'm fully aware of the potential implications. My choice. Great video anyway. Science is critical. I also inject heroin, once a month on a purely recreational basis. Also no problem. But i'm concerned about people doing it that aren't as middle class as me, like construction workers. Or blacks.
anavrintobin 10 months ago
Can it help me to feel anything, i cant feel shit in my life not even pain, would some smokedrugs help?
donaropa 10 months ago
@donaropa Probably not. Weed would just make you not care that you can't feel anything.
LuvStruckMess 10 months ago
As a recreational cannabis user who recognizes the risks of cannabis use I found both of these videos very informative. Keep up the good work!
TheSecularViewer 10 months ago
@TheSecularViewer I agree! I'm not a frequent user at all, but it is nice to know factual information about it. Everything in moderation, of course.
Guardian0487 10 months ago
I appreciate your video and agree with it. Truth>denial. I hope that you do make your video on aspartame because me and one of my friends debate this quite often. I am not that informed and have not had the time (I'm working on my undergrad) to do all of the necessary research to take a firm stance. Anyway keep the videos coming!!!!!!
darkstar11235 10 months ago
I am a heavy user of cannabis, and I must say that the negative effects does not out weigh the positive effects,
marllaNEWACC 10 months ago
Just a thanks for covering this. More light, less fire. My favorite maxim with such topics.
TIPinkUnicorn 10 months ago
LMAO at some of these comments. C0nc0rdance, I didn't realize after watching as many of your videos as I have, that you were a religious nut! I'll have to go back and rewatch looking for that religious propaganda. Oh, and to bamboowhatever: "he's a square"??!! What is this, the 50s?
Manifestatheist 10 months ago
@Manifestatheist Past tense, moron. He grew up a religious nut and the mentality has carried over. And by his own admission, he was the kind of person who would have been shunned in my high school. I guarantee he would have never made it to a single one of the good parties where all the fun happened.
bamboo4tameshigiri 10 months ago
@bamboo4tameshigiri Haha, bamboo....you're really adept at the ad homs. You may notice that I didn't specifically address you with the "religious nut" comment--that's because I was laughing at the sentiment--it does make me laugh. "The mentality has carried over"--why is that? Have you watched any of his videos besides these two? RE the "square" comment--while it may be self-ascribed, it's still hilarious to see someone use it against him in the context in which you did. Again, LMAO!
Manifestatheist 10 months ago
@Manifestatheist Yes, troll. I have seen every single 1. That's why I can tell you that he wouldn't have had any life experience at all in the city I grew up in.
bamboo4tameshigiri 10 months ago
@bamboo4tameshigiri You're cracking me up. Project much? You've done nothing but troll on these videos, and continue to name-call; and yet, you still have not made a single coherent statement refuting what is presented in the videos. That is the very epitome of trolling. And who ever said "everything that feels good must automatically be bad for you"? C0nc0rdance certainly didn't. Anyway, I'm finished with this conversation--oh, and I support the legalization of pot; cheers!
Manifestatheist 10 months ago
@Manifestatheist "...and yet, you still have not made a single coherent statement refuting what is presented in the videos." That's a lie and the record show it.
bamboo4tameshigiri 10 months ago
@Manifestatheist The mentality that "everything that feels good must automatically be bad for you" is not rational. That's Churchy McChurch Church speaking.
bamboo4tameshigiri 10 months ago
Playing devils advocate, did you bother to research the studies that contradict the studies shown in the video? I agree with most of your points but I'm sure the people that disagreed with you would have been best served by presenting both sides.....
frankbranches 10 months ago
@C0nc0rdance
Which Tashkin paper are you alluding to? If you are referencing Dr. Donald Tashkin from the UCLA medical center, other researchers and him did not find a positive link. Please read:
Marijuana Use and the Risk of Lung & Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control Study
He also did an interview with the Washington Post and several other news agencies a few years ago presenting these results, which showed no cancer-marijuana connection.
jfelg998877 10 months ago
@jfelg998877
I've read it. They did find a positive link between marijuana use and cancer. In fact, the heaviest smokers had more of several types of cancers. For example, the people in the study who smoked >60 joint years were 2.8 times as likely to have oral cancer than non-pot smokers, however these people were chronic cigarette smokers, so he tried to untangle the associations by continuous variable analysis, subtracting the risk from cigarettes so that the risk was less than 1.
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago
@jfelg998877
The speculation he advanced in the paper is that smoked marijuana is a carcinogen, but that it also contains substances that inhibit the development of cancers. Let me quote from his conclusion:
"such inhibitory effects in some preclinical models do not necessarily imply that exposure to marijuana smoke can prevent cancer occurrence in humans."
I hope you actually read this paper, especially the "Discussion". Does it sound like the author disproved the cancer and pot link?
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago
@C0nc0rdance The road you are on with that argument is not valid First of all, in order for research to be done on marijuana a medical professional must apply to the NIDA, and the NIDA only grants the rights to research drug abuse, and NOT research to test for the ,medical benefits of a drug. The bottom line is that marijaunna is a plant that mankind has used for over 10,000yrs, with documented medical uses dating back 5000yrs. Who is anyone to tell another what they can put into their body?
briankofke 10 months ago
@briankofke
This is getting repetitive. The NIDA does not hold sway in Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia or South America. It grants licenses for labs, not individual studies, and there are no stated guidelines that research must focus on the negative effects. In fact, the therapeutic uses of cannabinoids are well-documented in the literature, so clearly the NIDA is failing in what you think its mission is.
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Precicfesly why most of the info. we have gleaned about the medical benefits of cannabanoids (I.E.marijuanna kills cancer) is from researchers from China, Spain and Italy, and NOT the US. The US Gov. has known since 1974 that marijuanna fights and kills cancer. You apparently are not aware of that little study.
briankofke 10 months ago
@briankofke
Opium is also a plant that has been used for thousands of years. We restrict its usage as well and its abused as well. Its derivatives can be prescribed for specific conditions, but we don't allow people to use opium for recreation because it results in societal and personal harms.
Personal liberty is always tempered by societal costs. You can't set your house on fire because the fire department has to come put it out, or the fire might spread to others' houses.
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Yes, opium is a plant that has proven quite addictive and dangerous. To compare marijuanna to opium is like comparing parsley to monks hood. How many have died from opium, heroin, vicodin, and all other opiates derived from opium? I don't know, but I can tell you that in the 5000 years of recorded history concerning the use of marijuanna, there is not a single recorded death due to overdose of cannabis.Not one. And you have no right to interject on my personal liberties.
briankofke 10 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Personal liberty is NOT always tempered by societal costs; it is the personal liberties of the people that MAKE the society.There are two kinds of people in this world; those that believe the ends justify the means, and those that do not. You CLEARY believe that the ends justify the means (As did Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and all othery murdering tyrants our world has seen).You are a sickness to this world, and if you mess with MY personal freedoms for your gains, well, look at history.
briankofke 10 months ago
@briankofke
PEOPLE make the society. Individuals cooperating. If you wish absolute freedom, then move to a deserted island. Governments are about shared doctrines. They impose limits to what our personal freedoms are so that we can all get along. You may not dump toxic waste on your own land, you may not torture your own dog or horse, you may not grow illegal drugs, you may not carry an assault rifle. We are a society, and we get to decide what is acceptable.
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago
@C0nc0rdance You Sir neeed to research the constitution and our founding fathers. The society they created was a republic, where each individual has certain inalianable rights, which include the right to freedom, the pursuit of happiness, life and liberty. The society you are reffering to is a mirror of communism, socialism and fascism. A society has no bearing on the inalianable right of an individual, and when it does the society collapses into tyrrany. Thats the history of it.
briankofke 10 months ago
@briankofke
Calm down, brianofke. Yes, every person has basic rights. However, the government is also granted certain rights. Things like regulating trade, collecting taxes, public safety and defense. The US Constitution also allows for laws and amendments to be voted in by our representatives. We've seen fit to regulate dangerous foods and drugs, to license businesses, to regulate the distribution of certain products. That's one of our rights as a society, to seek the common good.
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Not to mention the fact that our society has been manipulated into believing that the most important plant on the planet, which can cure cancer and many other diseases, holds the best protein food source, is the best building material with over 50,000 applications, and is friendly to the environment but not the pharmaceutical and petro-chemical corps.,is an evil weed. You are buying into a cognitive dissonance of idiocy, and people see the lie you are woven into. In short, you suck.
briankofke 10 months ago
@briankofke
I would have thought the most important plant would be something like wheat, rice or corn.
THC is perfectly legal for cancer therapy. It's called Marinol and is Schedule III, available by prescription. It's just not as effective as other (non-abused) cannabinoids.
I'm always amused when people run out of actual arguments, because that's when they resort to abuse and name-calling. It's the mentality of the playground, infantile and self-defeating.
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Wow. You are quite sick. I think I have never felt so ill before just typing to another. Disgusting how you promote the pharmaceutical industry after promoting the very commodities they have absorbed and polluted. I have "number" chief, and there is no reason to concern yourself with me as I have an agenda of peace on this earth. Please find yourself another anorchist to hang with, because I hate you, I hate how you operate, and I hate your ideals. Now Fuck Off.
briankofke 10 months ago
@briankofke An agenda of peace on this earth?-----------"Now fuck off" HUH?
EarlFaulk 9 months ago
@C0nc0rdance You're still here lying about cannabis? I have lost ALL respect for you.
bamboo4tameshigiri 9 months ago
@bamboo4tameshigiri could you please point out these lies and the research which supports the charicterization of these points as lies?
Ask yourself if you're being objective in your assessment of this information or if you're reactionarily defending something you enjoy.
stiimuli 9 months ago
@stiimuli I spent about a month here doing exactly that. Read the comment section of both of his cannabis videos. Several other people also pointed out exactly how biased and hyperbolic these videos are.
bamboo4tameshigiri 9 months ago
@bamboo4tameshigiri Im not going to go through and read all the comments for each video.
1)every comment I've read thus far criticizing these videos is an ad hominem attack full of personal insults yet devoid of any citation of actual research adressing the actual points.
2)The number of detractors has no bearing on the validity of the points in the video.
3) to what bias are you referring?
stiimuli 9 months ago
@stiimuli I don't care what you think. I'm not going through all of this again. The information is at your fingertips. Believe whatever the hell you want.
bamboo4tameshigiri 9 months ago
@bamboo4tameshigiri "I don't care what you think." if you didnt care, you wouldnt have been posting comments here for a month. All Im asking for is your side of the arguement.
"The information is at your fingertips."
Right now the only information at my fingertips is the information in the above video and the citations of the research used to support it. I've asked you for reliable information supporting an opposing viewpoint but you dont want to provide that.
stiimuli 9 months ago
@stiimuli If you want some information, then watch the following (keep in mind, this guy uses PubMed as a source, too. So you can either watch his videos, or just skip to view the links in the video description):
Marijuana: Silencing the Siren
Marijuana: Light the Beacon, not the joint!
tnturtlegurl 9 months ago
@tnturtlegurl Thanks for keeping up the fight so people can see the truth.
bamboo4tameshigiri 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance 2 to 1 in lung cancer studies? Really? There have been a lot of studies that haven't adjusted for confounding factors(like tobacco smoke). Now, if you wish to compare the studies that have adjusted for confounding factors, like tobacco smoke, then marijuana wins in a lower lung cancer risk compared to tobacco. Challenge me, seriously. This needs to be discussed.
tnturtlegurl 8 months ago 2
Also the whole it effects people differently, I must disagree, the only negative effects I have ever seen is if they haven't eatin. You are cherry picking. This is fact.
TheBbg83 10 months ago
Show me 1 case of a marijuana smoker with brown lung or cancer. I have seen numerous studies that say marijuana does not cause either. I need to know where you get this seemingly bogus information.
TheBbg83 10 months ago
@TheBbg83
Read:
J Thorac Oncol. 2011 Jan;6(1):218-9.
Small cell lung cancer in a 26-year-old man with significant Cannabis exposure.
"...regular marijuana smoking produces a number of long-term pulmonary consequences, including chronic cough and sputum, histopathologic evidence of widespread airway inflammation and injury and immunohistochemical evidence of dysregulated growth of respiratory epithelial cells, that may be precursors to lung cancer."
Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2005 Jun;63(2):93-100.
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago
@C0nc0rdance I don't care what 1 study shows, humans have been smoking it for thousands of years. So since this is fact show me some evidence of marijuana only smokers suffering from these as they can with cigarettes. Until then I will go off of the 1st hand knowledge I have from smoking it with many people such as the elderly and none of them suffer from anything you claim in this video. So show me the proof and I will concur, until then stop the lies.
TheBbg83 10 months ago
@TheBbg83
Actually, common U.S. consumption really only started since the 60's. In fact, you can find this fact in the paper you cited:
"regular marijuana use did not become common in the U.S. until the late 1960s and early 1970s,"
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev October 2006 15; 1829.
I'd like to quote for you a few of Dr. Tashkin's findings in the next posts. You trust that Dr. Tashkin is honest about marijuana use, I hope?
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago
@TheBbg83
"regular marijuana smoking produces a number of long-term pulmonary consequences, including chronic cough and sputum, histopathologic evidence of widespread airway inflammation and injury and immunohistochemical evidence of dysregulated growth of respiratory epithelial cells, that may be precursors to lung cancer."
Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2005 Jun;63(2):93-100.
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago
@TheBbg83
"bronchitis, airway injury (erythema, edema, and increased secretions) correlate with alterations in bronchial biopsies, and dysregulated growth of the bronchial epithelium with altered expression of nuclear and cytoplasmic proteins involved in the pathogenesis of bronchogenic carcinoma. Other consequences ... abnormalities in human alveolar macrophages; impairment of their cytokine production, antimicrobial activity, and tumoricidal function."
J Clin Pharmacol. 2002 Nov;42:71S-81S
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago
@TheBbg83
"Regular marijuana use can lead to extensive airway injury and alterations in the structure and function of alveolar macrophages, potentially predisposing to pulmonary infection and respiratory cancer."
Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2001 Mar;7(2):43-61.
"These findings suggest that smoking marijuana and/or cocaine, like tobacco smoking, exerts field cancerization effects on bronchial epithelium."
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998 Aug 19;90(16):1198-205.
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago
@C0nc0rdance You can keep spewing all these studies because more show it is less harmful then cigarettes and alcohol. I have smoked and know a lot of smokers, I have 1st hand experience. Also these facts your spewing are outdated lmfao. Just like it kills brain cells? Yea if you suffocate monkies it will show dead brain cells. Have you ever smoked pot? If not stfu and dont respond.
TheBbg83 10 months ago
@TheBbg83 No, he's a square and was a religious nut. I seriously doubt he even got invited to any of the good parties.
bamboo4tameshigiri 10 months ago
@bamboo4tameshigiri If he is a religious nut he needs to understand God gave ALL herbs to man and we have receptors for this. Also HIS best estimate is 50 joints and he lies, He uses his opinions. I believe in God and guess what? I think more deeply and critically due to this herb. He wants to try and lie to dictate peoples lives. Churches are for control. If you want to get to know God read the bible smoke a joint sit back and go through your brain.
TheBbg83 10 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Yeah and, by your own words, green tea gives you cancer too. Right? Or is it the burned irritated tissue itself? Are you ready to be honest yet or are you going to continue the dishonest propaganda campaign?
bamboo4tameshigiri 10 months ago
my last two comments were meant to apply to the quotes and citations you used in your reply to me earlier (I am youtuben00b and expected them to show up underneath). oh well :P
mim0sabones 10 months ago
Though it is true that some of the byproducts from the combustion of marijuana are carcinogenic, it is critical to note that cannabinoids such as THC and cannabidiol are potent anticancer agents. There is an equal amount of evidence, if not more, supporting cannabinoids positive affects on suppressing tumor growth. This may explain why researchers have been able to demonstrate cannabis smoke-induced cellular damage, but NOT a clear cannabis smoke and lung cancer link.
jfelg998877 10 months ago
@jfelg998877
That's one possibility: it could be that marijuana smoking both causes and treats cancer of the lung at the same time.
Of course, several groups HAVE shown a positive correlation between marijuana smoking and lung cancer. Even the Tashkin paper gives a 95% confidence interval that stretches from a risk factor of 0.2 to 3 times the risk. That overlaps many of the previous studies that found a positive association.
More research is certainly needed...
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago
Also, PMID: 21049267
starbobpizza 10 months ago
Any idea when you'll do the one on aspartame? As someone who was raised on diet sodas, it's of particular interest to me.
evilotakuneko 10 months ago
I was shocked by the part in your last video referencing strong evidence for an inverse correlation between learning ability and pot use, so I went searching for the paper you cited. I am a microbiologist, and part of my job is to review literature with a discriminating eye. "Regional Brain Abnormalities Associated With Long-term Heavy Cannabis Use" is the most flawed paper I have ever read! How did they get published R^2 values of less than .3? And only 15 subjects, in a self-selecting group?
mim0sabones 10 months ago 19
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011 Feb 17.
"Cannabis users performed significantly worse than alcohol users and non-users on all performance indices. They recalled significantly fewer words overall (p < 0.001), demonstrating impaired learning (p < 0.001), retention (p < 0.001) and retrieval (p < 0.05) (Cohen's d 0.43-0.84). The degree of impairment was associated with the duration, quantity, frequency and age of onset of cannabis use, but was unrelated to alcohol exposure or other drug use."
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago