-->
Pages: 1

smoking weed


(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)



Posted by: edubz

does smoking weed have any negative effects on bodybuilding?

Im looking to get cut. Besides giving into the munchies, is weed itself bad?


Posted by: BigPapaPump68

No, weed is good for you! Seriously did you even have to ask that question?


Posted by: JasnoE

Smoking weed lowers your testostrone levels


Posted by: Gazhole

Just like any other drug, including alcohol, the answer is a resounding 'yes'.


Posted by: BoneCrusher

Do a little "light" reading in this IM thread ... you really need to read the entire thread to get all the good stuff in there.


Posted by: TJ Cline

Quote:
Originally Posted by edubz
does smoking weed have any negative effects on bodybuilding?

Im looking to get cut. Besides giving into the munchies, is weed itself bad?



Posted by: P-funk

what a stupid question.


Posted by: edubz

Quote:
Originally Posted by P-funk
what a stupid question.

how so? It has no calories, you can over dose from it, and many bodybuilders smoke and still make gains...


Posted by: TJ Cline

Quote:
Originally Posted by edubz
how so? It has no calories, you can over dose from it, and many bodybuilders smoke and still make gains...



Posted by: SuperFlex

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasnoE
Smoking weed lowers your testostrone levels
and helps you become a loser...


Posted by: largepkg

For some reason weed still has this stigma attached to it. I see weed no differently than alcohol. If you abuse it you're a stoner. No differently than if you abuse alcohol you're a drunk.

For some, you see an occasional drink as OK and yet denounce weed all together.

If abused yes it's bad for you.


Posted by: ReproMan

Quote:
Originally Posted by largepkg
For some reason weed still has this stigma attached to it. I see weed no differently than alcohol. If you abuse it you're a stoner. No differently than if you abuse alcohol you're a drunk.

For some, you see an occasional drink as OK and yet denounce weed all together.

If abused yes it's bad for you.

How so? I see people implying that it's bad, but how would it possibly negatively affect bodybuilding other than a decrease in testosterone levels? It's pretty obvious the negative affects alcohol comes with but I'm confused with the whole weed thing. Teach me.


Posted by: aceshigh

i prefer crack for its mass building properties


Posted by: edubz

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperFlex
and helps you become a loser...


alcohol to me, is far worse on society then weed.

Case in point, a man drives down the wrong side of a parkway here in NY last summer, crashes into a limo and kills everyone in the limo. He was drunk.


How many fights have I seen in bars because of alcohol.

anyways, the effects of weed on the body cant be as worse as beer.

I saw arnold smoking a joint after he won a bodybuilding contest on some movie called bulk, or hulk I cant remember.

all in all, weed, when it comes down to it, is a safe, less addicting drug then alcohol. and I think, safe on the body then beer and such


Posted by: the nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by FatCatMC
How so? I see people implying that it's bad, but how would it possibly negatively affect bodybuilding other than a decrease in testosterone levels? It's pretty obvious the negative affects alcohol comes with but I'm confused with the whole weed thing. Teach me.
Don't you want to produce as much test as possible if your bodybuilding?


Posted by: BigPapaPump68

Quote:
Originally Posted by edubz

all in all, weed, when it comes down to it, is a safe, less addicting drug then alcohol. and I think, safe on the body then beer and such
It may be less addicting, but its still not safe nor can it benefit you unless you have glaucoma.


Posted by: ReproMan

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nut
Don't you want to produce as much test as possible if your bodybuilding?

If that's the only negative to smoking weed, then sign me up.


Posted by: the nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by FatCatMC
If that's the only negative to smoking weed, then sign me up.
Sounds like you already are signed up! Now let's burn one down!


Posted by: largepkg

Quote:
Originally Posted by FatCatMC
How so? I see people implying that it's bad, but how would it possibly negatively affect bodybuilding other than a decrease in testosterone levels? It's pretty obvious the negative affects alcohol comes with but I'm confused with the whole weed thing. Teach me.

You missed the point of my post. I simply said that weed is no worse than alcohol. If either are abused it will cause many negative effects.

The most obvious to me is the lack of motivation on weed. Again, if used in a conservative manor I see no problem with weed.


Posted by: BraveUlysses

WEED IS BAD FOR YOU. (mostly for psych. reasons but still bad...)

Inhaling any sort of burnt plant matter is very, very bad for your lungs. Making your cardio sessions much more difficult. Weed is usually smoked unfiltered. Thus, tar build-up is much greater than that of smoking filtered tobacco. No, there arent many (if any) reports of lung cancer from weed. But, smoking it WILL do a number on your lungs. I shit you not.

I dont think that I need to post the negative psychological effects of weed. But, I will note that there are studies that show that weed can break down calcium. That means that prolonged use could relieve you of your teeth and cause other health problems.

I'll stick with my post-workout mood altering endorphins. They are a nicer, cleaner and healthier high.


Posted by: maniclion

You could always cook it in butter and then use it in foods, doesn't just have to be brownies, you get more of the THC that way. If your going for a bulk and have a hard time forcing yourself to eat that much it can be a nice appetite stimulator too.


Posted by: assassin

first the matter of smoking any thing will ruin your progress and will damage your lunges and u won't be able to gain muscles or even workout properly.....second you are talking about a drug wich will destroy your brain and your mental activity will be like sh** ....also it will have all negative effects on your body that u could imagine .....it will lower your testosterone levels .... and also it will have a catabolic effect on your whole body.......i don't even believe that some one would ask such a funny question.....


Posted by: CowPimp

I really don't think the downsides are as great as one would think. If you moderate your intake then you will be just fine; the same goes for virtually any drug. I wouldn't smoke many times each day every day, but I take a couple of bonghits sometimes on the weekend. It doesn't seem to affect my progress. I have gone without smoking for several months at a time on many occasions and noticed no significant changes in my gains strength or mass wise.

Now, if you plan on competing, I would probably stay away from virtually all drugs. Every little bit helps. If you're doing this recreationally and you can control your habit, I think the differences will be completely negligible.

Also, regarding health issues related to marijuana smoking, you can either ingest it (As mentioned my maniclion), or you can purchase a vaporizer online for about 50 dollars. Vaporizing is a process whereby you "cook" the marijuana at a temparature that only ignites the chemicals on and within the pot, but not the plant material itself. The psychoactive substances combust at a much lower temparature than the plant material.


Posted by: the nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by CowPimp
Also, regarding health issues related to marijuana smoking, you can either ingest it (As mentioned my maniclion), or you can purchase a vaporizer online for about 50 dollars. Vaporizing is a process whereby you "cook" the marijuana at a temparature that only ignites the chemicals on and within the pot, but not the plant material itself. The psychoactive substances combust at a much lower temparature than the plant material.
Vaporizers


Posted by: 240sx

I think the biggest side effect is called ( burn out ). I use to smoke a lot , i would drive all the way to the gym sit in the parking lot and talk myself right out of ever going in. So i would end up at the krispie creams drive thru smoking a joint. To each is own. I just got sick of the non productive lifestyle.


Posted by: kicka19

Quote:
Originally Posted by 240sx
I think the biggest side effect is called ( burn out ). I use to smoke a lot , i would drive all the way to the gym sit in the parking lot and talk myself right out of ever going in. So i would end up at the krispie creams drive thru smoking a joint. To each is own. I just got sick of the non productive lifestyle.
thats not the weed, ur just a pussy


Posted by: Prince

I agree with the above, just like alcohol if abused weed is bad, if used occasionaly, i.e. on the weekends, I don't think it is going to cause much damage. In fact you could look at the positive side it will reduce stress levels which could lower cortisol.

* no, I do not smoke weed.


Posted by: SuperFlex

Quote:
Originally Posted by edubz
alcohol to me, is far worse on society then weed.

Case in point, a man drives down the wrong side of a parkway here in NY last summer, crashes into a limo and kills everyone in the limo. He was drunk.


How many fights have I seen in bars because of alcohol.

anyways, the effects of weed on the body cant be as worse as beer.

I saw arnold smoking a joint after he won a bodybuilding contest on some movie called bulk, or hulk I cant remember.

all in all, weed, when it comes down to it, is a safe, less addicting drug then alcohol. and I think, safe on the body then beer and such
I agree, but you're well on your way to falling short of your potential smoking that shit. It was ruined many lives. If that's cool with you, then who gives a shit.


Posted by: Trouble

Time for a little chit chat on the biological basis of addiction.

Read this article.


Posted by: CowPimp

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trouble
Time for a little chit chat on the biological basis of addiction.

Read this article.
I'll have to finish that one when I get back home from work. Interesting read it appears.


Posted by: JOHNYORK

the article explained how smoking weed may cause certain chemicals such as dopamine or seratonin to hbe released this is why people become addicted they like the good feeling ti gives them. but im wondering what it has to do with the question originally asked???


Posted by: ReproMan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trouble
Time for a little chit chat on the biological basis of addiction.

Read this article.

Interesting read. So now we know why some people smoke weed (to subconciously mask the symptoms of RDS), like Johnyork asked, how does this apply to the question at hand?


Posted by: Trouble

Good question.

Original inquiry: what are the negatives of smoking Mjs on body building.

Reply: it removes motivation, it is a weak fix for a larger issue of stress effects on pleasure centers and our internal reward system that reinforces positive actions. Positive actions requires a functional decision making process in the brain, that means we have to discriminate between helpful and destructive choices in lifestyle.

Thats called impulse behavior control. And weed shortcircuits it.

So, we got the underpinnings of The Life (bodybuilding lifestyle) knocked outta kilter if we use MJ chronically. Since its addictive, and it fails to correct the underlying chemical imbalance, it becomes the monkey on the back, substituting temporary feel good buzz of endocannabinoids for the longer duration positive feel good - a much more subtle effect - of strength training endorphins.

Make sense?


Posted by: the nut

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trouble
Good question.

Original inquiry: what are the negatives of smoking Mjs on body building.

Reply: it removes motivation, it is a weak fix for a larger issue of stress effects on pleasure centers and our internal reward system that reinforces positive actions. Positive actions requires a functional decision making process in the brain, that means we have to discriminate between helpful and destructive choices in lifestyle.

Thats called impulse behavior control. And weed shortcircuits it.

So, we got the underpinnings of The Life (bodybuilding lifestyle) knocked outta kilter if we use MJ chronically. Since its addictive, and it fails to correct the underlying chemical imbalance, it becomes the monkey on the back, substituting temporary feel good buzz of endocannabinoids for the longer duration positive feel good - a much more subtle effect - of strength training endorphins.

Make sense?
Far out man, pass the blunt!


Posted by: ReproMan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trouble
Good question.

Original inquiry: what are the negatives of smoking Mjs on body building.

Reply: it removes motivation, it is a weak fix for a larger issue of stress effects on pleasure centers and our internal reward system that reinforces positive actions. Positive actions requires a functional decision making process in the brain, that means we have to discriminate between helpful and destructive choices in lifestyle.

Thats called impulse behavior control. And weed shortcircuits it.

So, we got the underpinnings of The Life (bodybuilding lifestyle) knocked outta kilter if we use MJ chronically. Since its addictive, and it fails to correct the underlying chemical imbalance, it becomes the monkey on the back, substituting temporary feel good buzz of endocannabinoids for the longer duration positive feel good - a much more subtle effect - of strength training endorphins.

Make sense?

Makes sense, but I have used "MJ" on and off for 10 years now and I completely disagree that it is addictive. I smoke, I'm high. If I don't have any, I'm not high, plain and simple. Not once have I ever not had weed and said "Damn, where am I gonna get some, I need my fix." I can see where someone could be addicted to the "escape from reality" one might experience from the high of weed, but there is no way in hell someone could group THC in the same category with nicotine as an addictive drug. I've seen friends of mine give up weed and the same friends give up smoking cigs. The weed smokers quit, never to smoke again. The cig smokers on the other hand, have battled with the addcition for as long as I've known them, some still smoking. My point is, if all that can be linked to "MJ" is "addiction to the high" and "lack of motivation" then I still fail to see the negatives in smoking it. When Tommy Chong gets lung cancer (assuming he doesn't smoke tobacco) then maybe I'll think twice about puffing.


Posted by: Trouble

Nicotine supresses cannabinoid production.

THC replaces it.

Big difference in chemistry, and withdrawal symptoms.

Thats why its easier with MJ to pick it up and put it down.

If you have to have someone come down with lung cancer to stop it, and you been using it for 10 yrs, and you don't see a connection with addiction, even if its subtle, then it don't matter how convincing my argument, you got chemical ear plugs in the way. Its quite possible to use it for long periods and not have it affect overall work performance, know that from many friends who have used it, but when you use a behavior altering drug, it has its costs, make no mistake.

If maintaining motivation and impulse behavior control is problematic, this drug most definitely gets in the way of goal attainment, and, in a very nonobvious way, of futher debilitating the reward system pleasure (reward deficit) response, which is initially short circuited by stress itself.

Its use is illegal, It has risks, and they accumulate as you use it over the long term. Benefit is transient at best. Risks (health and legal) and their sidecar costs, do add up; this I guarantee.

Oh yeah, one more thing.

Ask and ye shall receive:

Maryjane, Immune Suppression, and Lung Cancer.

I tried to avoid the more eye-glazing science detail here.

Ole Tommy Chong may not be the only one one courting lung cancer.


Posted by: ReproMan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trouble
Nicotine supresses cannabinoid production.

THC replaces it.

Big difference in chemistry, and withdrawal symptoms.

Thats why its easier with MJ to pick it up and put it down.

If you have to have someone come down with lung cancer to stop it, and you been using it for 10 yrs, and you don't see a connection with addiction, even if its subtle, then it don't matter how convincing my argument, you got chemical ear plugs in the way. Its quite possible to use it for long periods and not have it affect overall work performance, know that from many friends who have used it, but when you use a behavior altering drug, it has its costs, make no mistake.

If maintaining motivation and impulse behavior control is problematic, this drug most definitely gets in the way of goal attainment, and, in a very nonobvious way, of futher debilitating the reward system pleasure (reward deficit) response, which is initially short circuited by stress itself.

Its use is illegal, It has risks, and they accumulate as you use it over the long term. Benefit is transient at best. Risks (health and legal) and their sidecar costs, do add up; this I guarantee.

Oh yeah, one more thing.

Ask and ye shall receive:

Maryjane, Immune Suppression, and Lung Cancer.

I tried to avoid the more eye-glazing science detail here.

Ole Tommy Chong may not be the only one one courting lung cancer.

So basically what I gathered from quickly glancing at the litterature you posted is: THC impairs the effectiveness of the immune system.

However, I don't have the statistic in front of me (nor do I care to search for it, in fact you may have posted it yourself) but there is a good percentage of humans that more prone to addictions than others. Still after reading your posts, I'm still not seeing proof of a chemical dependence to THC (of course I don't know what half of the words in your posts mean, lol), psycological, yes. Alchoholics become addicted to alchohol because of a chemical dependence, same goes with tobacco users. Granted both start using the drugs as an "escape" but much more dangerous is the dependence they develop. I can speak from first hand experience that I suffered no symptoms of withdraw when I had to stop smoking weed for a period. And I'm not talking a joint here or there, I'm talking ounces a week. Now I might go through 1/8 of an ounce a month, sometimes less, and I see that to be no more dangerous than having a beer or two (of course alchohol is legal...). Again, I know your information is accurate and relevant to the topic at hand, but it's hard for me to accept it when I can speak from first hand experience.

P.S. I'm not addicted to marijuana.


Posted by: Trouble

IF you're talking about a very small amount (you must be using pin joints couple times a week), its not a lot, I agree. You risk is proportional to other factors, including diet, and consumption of drugs and alcohol, along with stress, sleep, diet, blah blah blah.

You are addicted, but its pretty minor. Yeah, some don't have any problems quitting cold or going without for long periods, wihich suggests very weak addiction at best. Legal risk still stands, and as you age, its more of a problem due to drug screens; it will still show up at your use rate, be so advised.


Posted by: JOHNYORK

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trouble
Good question.

Original inquiry: what are the negatives of smoking Mjs on body building.

Reply: it removes motivation, it is a weak fix for a larger issue of stress effects on pleasure centers and our internal reward system that reinforces positive actions. Positive actions requires a functional decision making process in the brain, that means we have to discriminate between helpful and destructive choices in lifestyle.

Thats called impulse behavior control. And weed shortcircuits it.

So, we got the underpinnings of The Life (bodybuilding lifestyle) knocked outta kilter if we use MJ chronically. Since its addictive, and it fails to correct the underlying chemical imbalance, it becomes the monkey on the back, substituting temporary feel good buzz of endocannabinoids for the longer duration positive feel good - a much more subtle effect - of strength training endorphins.

Make sense?
weed "shortcircuits" impulsive behavior control. can u please give me a biologically concrete explanation as to why? the basis of your argument as to why weed kills motivation relies on the fact that weed releases feel good endorphins. this is why your argument im sorry basically is irrelevant. its irrelevant becuase weed is classified as a "psycho" active drug. meaning the affects of weed in no way can be decribed as universal to everyone. why is this? b/c the release of neurotransmitters isnt universal. this is because of genetics. ure genes make u more apt to release these neurotransmitters and experience happiness when one takes part in certain activities. this is why someone who "bugs" out and trips bad the few times he smokes doesnt enjoy smoking but he may become a cocaine addict.


Posted by: CowPimp

I think marijuana is addictive, but not nearly at the level of many other legal drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, and various prescription drugs. In fact, it seems to me like more people have problems maintaining healthy eating habits than controlling their marijuana habits.

Me and many of my friends smoke marijuana, and have smoked for a long time. None of us allow marijuana to interfere with the obligations of life in any way. I have quit smoking for 3-6 months at a time multiple times in order to get a job, just to take a break, or because of drug testing. I also smoke very infrequently, even though I used to smoke more often when I could do so.


Posted by: ReproMan

Quote:
Originally Posted by CowPimp
I think marijuana is addictive, but not nearly at the level of many other legal drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, and various prescription drugs. In fact, it seems to me like more people have problems maintaining healthy eating habits than controlling their marijuana habits.

Me and many of my friends smoke marijuana, and have smoked for a long time. None of us allow marijuana to interfere with the obligations of life in any way. I have quit smoking for 3-6 months at a time multiple times in order to get a job, just to take a break, or because of drug testing. I also smoke very infrequently, even though I used to smoke more often when I could do so.

So would that make food addictive? I just don't see the correlation between marijuana and addiction. Normally the word addiciton is associated with something you need. When you are addicted to nicotine your body needs it to feel "normal" same with alchohol. You're addicted to the chemicals that are in your system, not the buzz you get. But with marijuana the only thing that I can remotely say is addictive is the high which compares to being "addicted" to cake, or pizza. I just think it's an unfair word to use.


Posted by: CowPimp

Quote:
Originally Posted by FatCatMC
So would that make food addictive? I just don't see the correlation between marijuana and addiction. Normally the word addiciton is associated with something you need. When you are addicted to nicotine your body needs it to feel "normal" same with alchohol. You're addicted to the chemicals that are in your system, not the buzz you get. But with marijuana the only thing that I can remotely say is addictive is the high which compares to being "addicted" to cake, or pizza. I just think it's an unfair word to use.
I don't think it's an unfair word to use. You can experience physical withdrawl symptoms from marijuana. If you are a chronic marijuana smoker (No pun intended, heh), then your sleeping and eating habits can get disturbed, you have extremely vivid and dense dreams, sometimes mild depression, etc. Believe me, I've seen it in action. I don't get any of that too bad, except I have crazy ass dreams if I go from smoking daily to cold turkey.

Really, you can become addicted to any activity you enjoy: television, sex, porn, rollercoasters, etc. It doesn't have to be a drug.


Posted by: ReproMan

Quote:
Originally Posted by CowPimp
I don't think it's an unfair word to use. You can experience physical withdrawl symptoms from marijuana. If you are a chronic marijuana smoker (No pun intended, heh), then your sleeping and eating habits can get disturbed, you have extremely vivid and dense dreams, sometimes mild depression, etc. Believe me, I've seen it in action. I don't get any of that too bad, except I have crazy ass dreams if I go from smoking daily to cold turkey.

Really, you can become addicted to any activity you enjoy: television, sex, porn, rollercoasters, etc. It doesn't have to be a drug.
So basically ANYTHING is addictive and once again, it's unfair to group marijuana in the same category as nicotine and alcohol.

I literally smoked ounces to the head a week at one point in my life and quit cold turkey. I stopped for a year, and the only "symptom" I had was now I was remembering my dreams. Thats it.


Posted by: Prince

I do not believe that MJ is physically addictive, mentally maybe.


Posted by: Trouble

Here's the hardcore science buzz, laid out in glorious molecular detail, for the addiction nonbelievers.


FatCat, stop twisting words around to defend your argument. If it binds to opiate receptors and alters their firing behavior in the areas of your brain that sense perceptive sensory inputs, and that changes your response to your own endocannabinoids (natural compounds you make that allow you to respond to THC, which is not molecular magic, Rob), it is addictive. If it binds to dopamine receptors in brain striatal cells that controls impulse behavior and feel good endocannabinoid release in brain, like nicotine does, its another mechanism for addiction.

Animal models are used because you can't chop up and analyze human brains in test subjects, thats an ethical no no.

You have to understand that by overfiring this system, you desensitize it. This is why the reward system become depleted over time through chronic use of THC, and this further reinforces addicitve behavior because you become flat lined for pleasure without it.


Posted by: ReproMan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trouble
Here's the hardcore science buzz, laid out in glorious molecular detail, for the addiction nonbelievers.


FatCat, stop twisting words around to defend your argument. If it binds to opiate receptors and alters their firing behavior in the areas of your brain that sense perceptive sensory inputs, and that changes your response to your own endocannabinoids (natural compounds you make that allow you to respond to THC, which is not molecular magic, Rob), it is addictive. If it binds to dopamine receptors in brain striatal cells that controls impulse behavior and feel good endocannabinoid release in brain, like nicotine does, its another mechanism for addiction.

Animal models are used because you can't chop up and analyze human brains in test subjects, thats an ethical no no.

You have to understand that by overfiring this system, you desensitize it. This is why the reward system become depleted over time through chronic use of THC, and this further reinforces addicitve behavior because you become flat lined for pleasure without it.

Blah, blah, blah. Until those scientists smoke it for a few years, then quit it, I'm not hearing it.


Posted by: JOHNYORK

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trouble
Here's the hardcore science buzz, laid out in glorious molecular detail, for the addiction nonbelievers.


FatCat, stop twisting words around to defend your argument. If it binds to opiate receptors and alters their firing behavior in the areas of your brain that sense perceptive sensory inputs, and that changes your response to your own endocannabinoids (natural compounds you make that allow you to respond to THC, which is not molecular magic, Rob), it is addictive. If it binds to dopamine receptors in brain striatal cells that controls impulse behavior and feel good endocannabinoid release in brain, like nicotine does, its another mechanism for addiction.

Animal models are used because you can't chop up and analyze human brains in test subjects, thats an ethical no no.

You have to understand that by overfiring this system, you desensitize it. This is why the reward system become depleted over time through chronic use of THC, and this further reinforces addicitve behavior because you become flat lined for pleasure without it.
the study was done on mice... their brains are so insignificant that we say they all rely on instinctive behaviors. does harry the mouse differ at all from mike the mouse? no. does harry the human differ much from mike the the human? of course people cannot be compared to animals when it comes to most studies not all but most and especially when it comes to psycho active drugs such as marijuana. if we are to say that ones mental cognitions directly relate to the conditioning one experiences when acquiring an addiction which the study states. than we are saying that humans mental processes are jsut as primative as those of the same mice used inthe study.


Posted by: Trouble

Quote:
Originally Posted by FatCatMC
Blah, blah, blah. Until those scientists smoke it for a few years, then quit it, I'm not hearing it.

Fine, FC, what would you like to hear, first-hand?

Is it addictive? Yes

Does it modify risk perception, decision, and reward behaviors?

Oh yes, I guarantee you this is true, carefully observed in many, many individuals.

Don't ask how long; suffice it to say, more than long enough to qualify.


Posted by: JordanMang

I don't care who says otherwise - pot does impair perceptions and motor skills. I find I have a much slower reaction while high. It's overall a better idea to avoid IMO. But, whatever.


Posted by: CowPimp

There are still levels of addiction. Marijuana has about the lowest incidence of chronic addiction of any drug in existence. The physical withdrawl symptoms are also very mild relative to the vast majority of drugs out there.

Smoking marijuana is a much safer bet from a health and addiction standpoint than drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes, period.


Posted by: maniclion

Quote:
Originally Posted by CowPimp
There are still levels of addiction. Marijuana has about the lowest incidence of chronic addiction of any drug in existence. The physical withdrawl symptoms are also very mild relative to the vast majority of drugs out there.
What about LSD it's non-addictive, no withdrawals. DMT too.


Posted by: CowPimp

Quote:
Originally Posted by maniclion
What about LSD it's non-addictive, no withdrawals. DMT too.
That's why I said "about the lowest" and "vasy majority;" there are always exceptions.


Posted by: blueboy75

Quote:
Originally Posted by 240sx
I think the biggest side effect is called ( burn out ). I use to smoke a lot , i would drive all the way to the gym sit in the parking lot and talk myself right out of ever going in. So i would end up at the krispie creams drive thru smoking a joint. To each is own. I just got sick of the non productive lifestyle.
Totally agree with this point. I can recall missing many workouts back in my college days because id rather be smokin somewhere with my pals. Even when I did make it to the gym, if I got a call from a pal to catch-up I would rush or cut short my work out.

Weed absolutely destroys ones motivation and make people lazy IMO. Furthermore, after a heavy night smoking, the next day or 2 you feel heavy and drowzy which kills your workout.


Posted by: maniclion

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueboy75
Weed absolutely destroys ones motivation and make people lazy IMO. Furthermore, after a heavy night smoking, the next day or 2 you feel heavy and drowzy which kills your workout.
Only if the person is lazy (or they smoke too much), I just smoked a bit tonight, jugged some Kona espresso, popped a couple vikes and zanaflexes and cleaned my whole house, did laundry and cooked a whole bunch of chiken breasts and my dinner, cleaned the cat box and massaged my girlfriends feet all in 4 hours. Now I'm cruising in a paradise of buzz from my true addiction loud jazz in my headphones late at night while everyone's sleeping and I' reading political blogs and other mess.


Posted by: fUnc17

Quote:
Originally Posted by maniclion
Only if the person is lazy (or they smoke too much), I just smoked a bit tonight, jugged some Kona espresso, popped a couple vikes and zanaflexes and cleaned my whole house, did laundry and cooked a whole bunch of chiken breasts and my dinner, cleaned the cat box and massaged my girlfriends feet all in 4 hours. Now I'm cruising in a paradise of buzz from my true addiction loud jazz in my headphones late at night while everyone's sleeping and I' reading political blogs and other mess.
thats the best. i have extreme ADD when i'm high.


Posted by: Prince

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; A03

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.

They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."

Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.

While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...501729_pf.html


Posted by: Prince

U.S. study sees no marijuana link to lung cancer

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12943013/


Posted by: Trouble

The study results were presented in San Diego on Tuesday at a meeting of the American Thoracic Society.

The study was confined to people under age 60 since baby boomers were the most likely age group to have long-term exposure to marijuana, said Dr. Donald Tashkin, senior researcher and professor at the UCLA School of Medicine.

The results should not be taken as a blank check to smoke pot, which has been associated with problems like cognitive impairment and chronic bronchitis, said Dr. John Hansen-Flaschen, chief of pulmonary and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania Health System in Philadelphia. He was not involved in the study.

Previous studies showed marijuana tar contained about 50 percent more of the chemicals linked to lung cancer, compared with tobacco tar, Tashkin said. In addition, smoking a marijuana joint deposits four times more tar in the lungs than smoking an equivalent amount of tobacco.

"Marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so there's less filtration through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles will be inhaled," Tashkin said in a statement. "And marijuana smokers typically smoke differently than tobacco smokers — they hold their breath about four times longer, allowing more time for extra fine particles to deposit in the lung."

He theorized that tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke that produces its psychotropic effect, may encourage aging, damaged cells to die off before they become cancerous.

Hansen-Flaschen also cautioned a cancer-marijuana link could emerge as baby boomers age and there may be smaller population groups, based on genetics or other factors, still at risk for marijuana-related cancers.


Posted by: CowPimp

What I don't find fair about the comparison where it is said that marijuana deposits more tar than tobacco is that filtered tobacco products are compared to unfiltered marijuana products, and plenty of people filter their marijuana via the usage of cotton filters in joints or water in a bong or bubbler. Not to mention vaporizers which burn virtually no plant material at all...


Posted by: JerseyDevil

Being a child of the late 60's/early 70's, I smoked weed from the age of 14 to 27.... and I was not a light user. During that time it was rare for me to go more then a couple of days without getting 'stoned', and during the first 5 years probably smoked 2-3 times a day.

When I finally decided to quit, I was bracing myself for the uncomfort of addiction. I also was a 2-1/2 pack a day smoker (Marlboro, Benson & Hedges) in my youth, and it was VERY difficult to quit.

In my experience, it actually surprised me how easy it was to lay down the bong and the hash pipe....


Posted by: Prince

also, most smokers are smoking 20-30 cigarettes per day, I would guess that the average marijuana smoker smokes one joint or one bowl a day at most, so I don't see how you ccan compare the two.


Posted by: Trouble

I agree that the use of a water pipe for filtering and also the tar delivered in a pin joint are alot different than the person who rips the filter off of their Camels or Marlboroughs.

Surprisingly, the initiation of lung, and head and neck cancers is tied to expression of a variety of nuclear receptors, among them the ERalpha and beta (Estrogen receptor) and also Rev-erb, a retinoid receptor, who action is primarily activated by arachidonic acid - the muscle building and also cancer initiating factor in prostate and breast tissue hyperplasia.

My guess is that there are PAHs, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, that are locally converted by lung microsomal cytochrome P450s (some of which were cloned in a lab I worked in long ago at Vanderbilt U) to compounds that structurally mimic arachidonic acid. Must be sorta the same case for Rev-erb (meaning that the retinoid gene that is shut off is detuning the immune control of run away cell turnover).

In the case of THC, also a lipid, its binding to and positively activating this receptor, and that could be the difference between that apoptosis, programmed cell death, that keeps tumors from forming in chronic pot smoking.

Now that is fucking cool, this connection... I just happened to be reading about this estrogen receptor and retinoid receptor binding today, after finding a funny ass article on ER control of strong myosin chain control in muscle cell.

Who wudda thunk. You mess with ER gene regulation with certain androgens analogs, and you get softer muscles (more water mass) but with less functional strength.

And here all this time, the thinking was, estrogen production was upregulated.
Nope. All that messing with SERMs.


Posted by: CowPimp

Yeah, what she said...


Posted by: JerseyDevil

Ditto



(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)





vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37