Jump to content

Recommended Posts

reason # 301 to get the tubes tied.

 

or... reason #301 for YOU to get snipped, since vastectomies are so much less invasive than tubal ligation :D

 

jokes aside, marijuana definitely doesn't affect the efficacy of birth control, although of course doctors recommend against smoking of any kind. it doesn't implicate hormone levels, so there's no mechanism for decreased efficacy. i mean, it's not like marijuana makes you ovulate!

 

the other stuff you said is more plausible, but there's insufficient evidence so far. it's most likely that marijuana slightly increases a woman's risk of heart disease, but to a lesser extent than cigarettes. the studies on the relationship between marijuana and birth control are under-developed because it's difficult to research illegal substances. that's yet another reason to legalize IMO, so we can figure out if marijuana does actually increase the risk of developing a heart condition in women who use oral contraceptives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Partially wrong, wrong and more wrong.

 

Smoking doesnt affect the efficacy of oral birth control because it doesnt contain THC. Unless you do a highly specific, tightly controlled in vivo study of marijuana impact on patients taking birth control, you CANNOT determine the specific impact. The problem? That study will never occur because of ethics laws - its unethical to have women smoking marijuana in the event that birth control fails and their fetus is exposed to marijuana. But the theory still holds water because their route of metabolism of some forms of pharmaceutical birth control is the SAME EXACT pathway as that of marijuana - some impact is not just inevitable, its guaranteed. But we dont know, and may never know, what the impact is. It could be that their compete directly and result in higher concentrations than normal of the hormones in oral contraceptives resulting in a superior contraceptive effect. But higher levels of hormones isnt necessarily a good thing either. High dose estrogenic oral contraceptives carry with them an inherent risk of cardiovascular complications even without smoking, but amplified by smoking. I dont remember the impact of progestins right now.

 

As for cigarettes vs marijuana, again, you would need to do a controlled study which you cannot do because of ethics. However, the impact is due to the sedimentation of particulate matter and hypoxic, ischemic conditions. Marijuana and tobacco, unquestionably, both cause these cardiac conditions. I can email you a flow chart on the etiology if you wish. But really, its just going to tell you what I already told you:

 

Unfortunately for you pot smokers out there, the difference between smoked and oral THC doesnt stop there. The cardiovascular and cerebrovascular systems are significantly affected by THC. THC, smoked or oral, causes an initial catastrophic drop in blood pressure followed by a non-sympathetic mediated period of tachycardia and increased peripheral vascular resistance (PVR) lasting 2 to 3 hours. Ultimately, the loss of sympathetic control in the central nervous system results in a drop in PVR and lower blood pressure. This cycling effect is known to cause decreased blood flow to muscle tissues and it is suggested (but not definitively proven) to cause platelet activation and changes to the endothelial lining of the vascular system resulting in thrombogenesis (forming clots which can dislodge under high blood pressure conditions and cause heart attacks). The tachycardic state also creates a remarkably higher cardiac oxygen demand. Orally administered THC is okay because the higher oxygen demand is easily met through normal breathing. Smoking, however, increases the amount of carboxyhemoglobin which prevents the absorption of oxygen from the lungs and the increased demand from tachycardia and decreased blood supply/flow combine to cause myocardial ischemia. The possibility of thrombus formation and dislodging in these parameters gives ample opportunity for thromboembolism and myocardial infarction.

 

Saying that marijuana is probably a 'lesser risk' is false. You dont know that. There is no evidence to that fact. There is no justification for it. Most cigarette smokers dont suck it in, hold for 30 seconds and then exhale. Those 30 seconds may allow more particulate matter to settle from 1 joint than 20 cartons of cigarettes. We just dont know because its unethical to do these studies. When we train monkeys to smoke pot and cigarettes, maybe it can be done. But we just cant do it in humans on principle.

 

And none of it challenges the fact that there is still a significant impact, even if it is unquantified. So at best, all you have done is show that marijuana smoking is bad and pharmaceutical oral preparations are still VASTLY superior. And as soon as CB2 selective drugs hit the market, there will be NO JUSTIFICATION for THC containing drugs.

 

Which was my point to begin with.

 

Smoking pot is STILL bad and you have done nothing to indict that. All the evidence above validates my claims. Smoking pot for the purpose of medical treatment is inherently bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smoking doesnt affect the efficacy of oral birth control because it doesnt contain THC. Unless you do a highly specific, tightly controlled in vivo study of marijuana impact on patients taking birth control, you CANNOT determine the specific impact. The problem? That study will never occur because of ethics laws - its unethical to have women smoking marijuana in the event that birth control fails and their fetus is exposed to marijuana.

 

You can, however, study the efficacy rates of oral contraceptives in women who already smoke pot and already take oral contraceptives. OB/GYNs prescribe oral contraceptives to women using marijuana all the time, so you could at least retroactively determine whether women who reported smoking pot reported a higher rate of unplanned pregnancies than women who did not report smoking pot. Sure, it's not quite as solid as a controlled experimental study, but it's solid enough evidence to make predictions about whether there's a likelihood of increased contraceptive failure.

 

But the theory still holds water because their route of metabolism of some forms of pharmaceutical birth control is the SAME EXACT pathway as that of marijuana - some impact is not just inevitable, its guaranteed. But we dont know, and may never know, what the impact is. It could be that their compete directly and result in higher concentrations than normal of the hormones in oral contraceptives resulting in a superior contraceptive effect. But higher levels of hormones isnt necessarily a good thing either. High dose estrogenic oral contraceptives carry with them an inherent risk of cardiovascular complications even without smoking, but amplified by smoking. I dont remember the impact of progestins right now.

 

The college health websites I linked to indicated that there isn't a recognized association between marijuana and birth control efficacy, so I doubt this concern about metabolic interaction is widely recognized by the medical profession. This is consistent with the experience of many women I know personally and with the advice given by OB/GYNs in my area.

 

More importantly, the study from the Drug and Alcohol Dependence journal I linked to says they found no evidence that marijuana impacts hormone levels. I'll quote the abstract: "Chronic marijuana use showed no significant effect on hormone concentrations in either men or women." So it seems that even if they are metabolized in the same pathway, since marijuana doesn't impact hormone levels on its own, I don't think there's enough evidence to claim that marijuana prevents birth control from working properly.

 

I think it's unlikely any evidence of contraceptive failure will emerge from further study, because if the rate of failure was substantially higher I think women would have noticed already because we'd be getting pregnant on the pill, which we would report to our doctors, who would realize there was a problem. I could be wrong, though, and if I'm wrong this is an issue women should be informed about when they're prescribed birth control - which is why I would support further study.

 

I just don't think it's responsible to be telling women there's evidence marijuana will mess with our birth control, when there's really only an under-evidenced possibility that might be true. I think we should approach this the way the Columbia health website I linked to did - we should point out the possibility and suggest that women who are concerned about it choose not to smoke pot or choose to do further research so that they can form an opinion of the risk they're undertaking.

 

As for cigarettes vs marijuana, again, you would need to do a controlled study which you cannot do because of ethics. However, the impact is due to the sedimentation of particulate matter and hypoxic, ischemic conditions. Marijuana and tobacco, unquestionably, both cause these cardiac conditions. I can email you a flow chart on the etiology if you wish. But really, its just going to tell you what I already told you:

Saying that marijuana is probably a 'lesser risk' is false. You dont know that. There is no evidence to that fact. There is no justification for it. Most cigarette smokers dont suck it in, hold for 30 seconds and then exhale. Those 30 seconds may allow more particulate matter to settle from 1 joint than 20 cartons of cigarettes. We just dont know because its unethical to do these studies. When we train monkeys to smoke pot and cigarettes, maybe it can be done. But we just cant do it in humans on principle.

 

Like I said above, you can study people who already use, and you can also do tests on the marijuana and tobacco themselves to see how much tar and particulate matter they produce when burned and pumped into an artificial lung. Even if that doesn't tell us the impacts on human lungs directly, it allows us to compare the two substances.

 

More importantly, there IS evidence that marijuana is less likely to cause emphysema and cancer than tobacco. It'll quote from a drug policy website that cites four scholarly sources on this question: "There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana."

 

My overall point is - although there are some risks to using marijuana (like there are to using any drug), those risks are relatively small and a reasonable person might choose to undertake them because they like getting high, the same way people choose to undertake risks because they like getting drunk. I think the danger is comparable to or less than the danger of alcohol and tobacco, because the negative health consequences of the latter two drugs are much more well-documented. It's good to make sure everyone's informed about the risks, and that the risks are fully studied. I just don't think we should overreact to possible negative health consequences, which you seem to be doing when you say things like - we should treat them in the appropriate context.

 

I'll ignore the rest of your post because I'm narrowly responding to your point about oral contraceptives, not the rest of the medical marijuana debate. I would defend legalization as my alt, but you've already stated you probably agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just hit the blunt one time and see if it don't change your perception on whats important in your life...... alright welllllll you don't all gotta go out and smoke marijuana but damnn. Have you ever had a beer,yeah...well worse than a hit off a blunt. Ever try a ciggarette, well you obviously want cancer. Have you ever debated policy.....99% of you have. That is more detrimental to your health and well being. lets see you speak like a real person again. And foreal would you rather have kids being able to get ahold of it easier than alcohol due to its illegality or make it legal and make it so kids can't toke it up in the bathroom in their junior high school. Marijuana is a plant(okay maybe a drug......but a cool one). and look at it from my perspective, a liberal kid who is straight edge. Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just hit the blunt one time and see if it don't change your perception on whats important in your life...... alright welllllll you don't all gotta go out and smoke marijuana but damnn. Have you ever had a beer,yeah...well worse than a hit off a blunt. Ever try a ciggarette, well you obviously want cancer. Have you ever debated policy.....99% of you have. That is more detrimental to your health and well being. lets see you speak like a real person again. And foreal would you rather have kids being able to get ahold of it easier than alcohol due to its illegality or make it legal and make it so kids can't toke it up in the bathroom in their junior high school. Marijuana is a plant(okay maybe a drug......but a cool one). and look at it from my perspective, a liberal kid who is straight edge. Peace

 

I think the phrase "alcohol/cigarettes are worse for you than marijuana" is a bullshit argument. Yes, nicotine IS arguably worse than THC, and alcohol impairs your judgment to a greater degree. So fucking what? Just because something is "worse" than marijuana doesn't justify it.

 

The fact of the matter is that marijuana is BAD for you. I'm tired of hearing people citing illegit sources and saying that marijuana is healthy/prevents cancer/improves cognition, etc. Everyone knows that's a total load of bullshit. Marijuana is far from the worst thing out there, but you don't have to overcompensate that fact by claiming that it can cure AIDS and raises the dead.

 

I also think that it's pointless to debate evidence over marijuana's side effects. I ran a marijuana AFF, and I can personally guarantee that for every article out there that "proves" that marijuana causes a certain condition, there's another one that "proves" that it doesn't. No one is getting anywhere here.

Edited by NinjaSamurai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nobody claims it cures aids.

 

it does however have anti-naseua and appetite functions that are pretty important if you don't want to weigh 70 lbs from FDA and big pharma approved HIV and AIDS drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was exaggerating.

 

But why would you call me out on the claim that it cures AIDS, and not the claim that it brings the dead back to life?

 

If this is something new that I don't know about then all bets are off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nobody claims it cures aids.

 

it does however have anti-naseua and appetite functions that are pretty important if you don't want to weigh 70 lbs from FDA and big pharma approved HIV and AIDS drugs.

 

 

I resent the cynicism of the bolded parts. You have NO IDEA why it causes those things. But I do. And I could explain the biological mechanisms behind it too.

 

What do you think is going on? That pharma is shelving the drugs with no side effects... just so they can sell more drugs that 'cure' the side effects? Really now? What kind of strange acid trip are you on? Because whatever pill you're dropping, its not a dose of reality.

 

Stop passing judgment on things you don't know the slightest bit about. You dont see me talking about local elections or much in the critique forum, do you? Why? Because I am not qualified to speak on those topics. You should do the same. If you want to have a rational conversation about how the drugs work, why they work, and why the side effects are 100% unavoidable, I am more than willing to engage you or anyone else under the condition that you leave this anti-capitalist bullshit out of it.

 

Oh, and by the way, like I said before, there are dozens upon dozens of drugs out there with better profiles than marijuana to achieve the attenuation of the same side effects. The idea of using medical marijuana is bogus. I pointed out all the reasons why. The ONLY place where I can see it having meaningful effect is in palliative care. Why? Because its end-of-life and the alternative therapies for treating pain are not as good. But when you have alternative therapies EQUAL TO OR BETTER than marijuana, with a safer side effect profile, then no, you do not give marijuana. Any claim otherwise is idiotic.

Edited by Ankur
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I resent the cynicism of the bolded parts. You have NO IDEA why it causes those things. But I do. And I could explain the biological mechanisms behind it too.

 

What do you think is going on? That pharma is shelving the drugs with no side effects... just so they can sell more drugs that 'cure' the side effects? Really now? What kind of strange acid trip are you on? Because whatever pill you're dropping, its not a dose of reality.

 

Stop passing judgment on things you don't know the slightest bit about. You dont see me talking about local elections or much in the critique forum, do you? Why? Because I am not qualified to speak on those topics. You should do the same. If you want to have a rational conversation about how the drugs work, why they work, and why the side effects are 100% unavoidable, I am more than willing to engage you or anyone else under the condition that you leave this anti-capitalist bullshit out of it.

 

You, my friend, must be a genius, because I saw no such subtext in retired's comment. He didn't claim to know how the HIV drugs work, or that it's a conspiracy, just that it has a certain side effect. And he's right. The newly approved HIV/AIDS drugs cause rapid weight loss. You don't have to be a pharmacist to know these things.

 

TROLLING STATUS: DENIED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I resent the cynicism of the bolded parts. You have NO IDEA why it causes those things. But I do. And I could explain the biological mechanisms behind it too.
Herp derp, cause knowing the mechanism behind solar fusion is important to know that the sun is probably good.

 

These 4 sentences above have a amazingly silly logic when you look at how we normally examine statements...

 

 

What do you think is going on? That pharma is shelving the drugs with no side effects... just so they can sell more drugs that 'cure' the side effects? Really now? What kind of strange acid trip are you on? Because whatever pill you're dropping, its not a dose of reality.

Stop treating acid as negative. It rocks.

 

Stop passing judgment on things you don't know the slightest bit about. You dont see me talking about local elections or much in the critique forum, do you?

This seems like a scientist bitching about a philosopher critiquing science. And the scientist(s) rightly point out that the philosopher knows nothing about the specifics of science. But how does that really matter when the philosopher knows the structure of the science? Sorry if this seems tangential, but ultimately its kinda lulzy that you would type these words-- it seems like its spawned from some butt-hurt philosophical-scientific squabble.

Why? Because I am not qualified to speak on those topics. You should do the same. If you want to have a rational conversation about how the drugs work, why they work, and why the side effects are 100% unavoidable, I am more than willing to engage you or anyone else under the condition that you leave this anti-capitalist bullshit out of it.

Silly scientists. Trying to use ethics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You, my friend, must be a genius, because I saw no such subtext in retired's comment. He didn't claim to know how the HIV drugs work, or that it's a conspiracy, just that it has a certain side effect. And he's right. The newly approved HIV/AIDS drugs cause rapid weight loss. You don't have to be a pharmacist to know these things.

 

TROLLING STATUS: DENIED

There's a very good reason why you only have 72 posts and already have a red box.

 

troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has more views than the Journal Article Request thread. I thought that was funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a very good reason why you only have 72 posts and already have a red box.

 

troll.

 

I don't know what you're trying to say, because my response to Ankur wasn't half as critical as yours. What point are you making, anyway? What did I say to make you have to turn around and insult me personally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my general point was that really o na significant scale marijuana causes little harm and that by legalizing and taxing it prices wqill remain the same as street and the goverment is cashing it and therefore it boosts the economy, causing economic stability, and helping pay off our debts. marijuana production, is at a value of $35.8 billion, and exceeds the combined value of corn ($23.3 billion) and wheat ($7.5 billion). It could easily be sold through the goverment such as oregon's hard alcohol(only through goverment distributors) and be less money but with tax be 35.8 billion and by being only sold threough the gov essentially they are making hella bank off of it. I was being sarcastic but its harms are significantly outweighed by the economic boosts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many incentives for the government to legalize marijuana, and that fact isn't obscure or new. The problem is that the decision to legalize weed would have to go through the legislative branch, and the tobacco and lumber industries would lobby against it. We've already seen the healthcare industry convince politicians to let poor citizens die, so there's no doubt that they could also be convinced to let poor students be sober.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I resent the cynicism of the bolded parts. You have NO IDEA why it causes those things. But I do. And I could explain the biological mechanisms behind it too.

 

What do you think is going on? That pharma is shelving the drugs with no side effects... just so they can sell more drugs that 'cure' the side effects? Really now? What kind of strange acid trip are you on? Because whatever pill you're dropping, its not a dose of reality.

 

Stop passing judgment on things you don't know the slightest bit about. You dont see me talking about local elections or much in the critique forum, do you? Why? Because I am not qualified to speak on those topics. You should do the same. If you want to have a rational conversation about how the drugs work, why they work, and why the side effects are 100% unavoidable, I am more than willing to engage you or anyone else under the condition that you leave this anti-capitalist bullshit out of it.

 

Oh, and by the way, like I said before, there are dozens upon dozens of drugs out there with better profiles than marijuana to achieve the attenuation of the same side effects. The idea of using medical marijuana is bogus. I pointed out all the reasons why. The ONLY place where I can see it having meaningful effect is in palliative care. Why? Because its end-of-life and the alternative therapies for treating pain are not as good. But when you have alternative therapies EQUAL TO OR BETTER than marijuana, with a safer side effect profile, then no, you do not give marijuana. Any claim otherwise is idiotic.

 

just so we're, clear, you aren't denying anything in my post, right? Mainly: that marijuana is a great way for patients who take drugs that make them vomit from nausea and lose appetite as a result of big pharma and FDA approved drugs not to die of malnutrition.

 

I'm not a big fan of medical marijuana: that shit should be legal for anyone. Viewing marijuana use medically probably requires we consider more aspects than the typical problem-solution, symptom-cure side of the equation, wellness in more than just the pallative/pain-management sort of way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just so we're, clear, you aren't denying anything in my post, right? Mainly: that marijuana is a great way for patients who take drugs that make them vomit from nausea and lose appetite as a result of big pharma and FDA approved drugs not to die of malnutrition.

 

I'm not a big fan of medical marijuana: that shit should be legal for anyone. Viewing marijuana use medically probably requires we consider more aspects than the typical problem-solution, symptom-cure side of the equation, wellness in more than just the pallative/pain-management sort of way.

 

I basically agree that marijuana, in comparison to other legal drugs, like salvia or alcohol, is relatively benign. I also think its addictive properties are far less than that of cigarettes. As such, I see no reason why marijuana cannot be legalized and controlled like cigarettes or alcohol.

 

But justifying legalization of marijuana because of medical reasons is asanine from a scientific perspective. There is only one medically relevant situation in which marijuana is an acceptable pharmaceutical option.

 

I will also agree that as a whole, the mechanism by which we stop the HIV virus from replicating will have systemic side effects. Many cancer drugs and antivirals work similarly - they stop DNA replication. Unfortunately, the normal body cells replicate too. As a result, the way in which you stop HIV begins to kill normal cells too. Its unavoidable that side effects include nausea and vomiting. There are no other real alternatives.

 

But using marijuana to treat nausea and GI issues resulting from side effects to other drug therapies (MS, HIV, cancer, etc) is basically nonsensical.

1) It interacts with the medications that you use to treat those diseases.

2) So many other drugs are equal to or better for the purpose of stimulating appetite and resolving nausea.

 

So why would you EVER advocate using marijuana for a medical application?

 

Its common sense. Other drugs are better than marijuana and marijuana has side effects that are bad.... thus marijuana shouldnt be used. In debate speak, the counterplan and disad just rocked pot's world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herp derp, cause knowing the mechanism behind solar fusion is important to know that the sun is probably good.

 

These 4 sentences above have a amazingly silly logic when you look at how we normally examine statements...

 

 

 

Stop treating acid as negative. It rocks.

 

 

This seems like a scientist bitching about a philosopher critiquing science. And the scientist(s) rightly point out that the philosopher knows nothing about the specifics of science. But how does that really matter when the philosopher knows the structure of the science? Sorry if this seems tangential, but ultimately its kinda lulzy that you would type these words-- it seems like its spawned from some butt-hurt philosophical-scientific squabble.

 

Silly scientists. Trying to use ethics.

 

Its not a critique of science if the critique is based on flawed assumptions. The critique is basically the equivalent of an ad hom. Comforting to know you like unwarranted conjecture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not a critique of science if the critique is based on flawed assumptions. The critique is basically the equivalent of an ad hom. Comforting to know you like unwarranted conjecture.

 

This seems like a scientist bitching about a philosopher critiquing science.

I lol'd. I said it was "like", meaning there were similarities. Not that they were the same.

 

It reminded me of a K of science, not the exact same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for critiques of science.

 

But what retired is saying is not a critique of science. Its not even close. He has a very, very partial understanding of the science, then criticizes the things he doesn't understand without having all the relevant knowledge. And the parts that escape him are the very things that reject ALL of his ideas.

 

He's a knowledgeable person, but the details and nuances of science escape him for the same reason that the nuances and details of much of postmodern philosophy escapes me; a primer isnt enough to give me more than a superficial understanding of the key points. Reading the USA Today science section doesnt give anyone an understanding of science to be able to discuss whether its the FDA's and pharmaceutical companies' fault that drugs have side effects. The fact that he suggests its their fault shows how limited his knowledge actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I said it was "like", meaning there were similarities. Not that they were the same.

 

But what retired is saying is not a critique of science. .

Jesus H. Christ.

 

Come on. Did you read my post at all?

 

It reminded me of a K of science, I never said it was one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Methinks ankur is the only one who hasn't done pot here

 

You should try jenkem. It's like cocaine, but legal and shitty!

Edited by Shinku-hadoken
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Methinks ankur is the only one who hasn't done pot here

 

You should try jenkem. It's like cocaine, but legal and shitty!

 

You should try cocaine. It's like jenkem, but illegal and awesome!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Methinks ankur is the only one who hasn't done pot here

 

You should try jenkem. It's like cocaine, but legal and shitty!

 

 

You should never assume things I have and havent done. For all you know I have done 8 balls while wearing bell bottom pants. And then for all you know I havent done anything including alcohol cigarettes and caffeine. And my status of having tried things and not tried things has nothing to do with the fact that you cant beat the science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

before anyone else bothers responding to ankur, you should consider that he works for a big pharma firm with a strong economic interest in seeing the medical market for raw marijuana go up in smoke.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...