slept2long

Sorry I took so long to get back to you Vorhis. I wasn't able to find the article I was speaking of but I found a better one.

Here's an article from NORML.

" Various studies have claimed that cannabis destroys brain cells (Landfield et al., 1988; Haper et al., 1977; Meyers and Heath, 1979; Heath et al., 1980). However, several other studies found no structural or neurochemical atrophy in the brain at all (Cabral et al., 1991; Paule et al., 1992; Co et al., 1977; Kuehnle, 1977). Furthermore, it should be noted that Heath's work was sharply criticized for avoiding safeguards of bias and reporting "changes" that occur normally in the mammalian brain (Natl. Acad. of Sciences, Inst. Medicine, 1982)."


"The most serious physical danger of using cannabis is in smoking it. Inhaling any sort of burnt plant matter is not very good for the lungs. Tashkin et al. (1990) reports decreased gas exchange capacity and the existence of particle residue in the lungs of marijuana smokers several times greater than for tobacco smokers. Wu et al. (1988) noted that marijuana is several times more carcinogenic than tobacco. These findings, though, must be interpreted with caution. In both studies, smoked marijuana was not filtered, while smoked tobacco was. Tashkin et al. notes that, "these differences could largely account for more than twofold greater tar yield from marijuana than tobacco that was measured using syringe-simulated puffs of similar volume and duration." Smoking cannabis through a water-pipe will filter out water soluble carcinogens and will also greatly cool down the smoke. Furthermore, cannabis need not be smoked: In Middle Eastern countries, it has been consumed through teas and food for centuries, avoiding the carcinogenicity of smoke altogether."


"It could also be noted that the mere contents of carcinogenic chemicals doesn't necessarily indicate an extreme health hazard. For example, roasted coffee contains 800 volatile chemicals, of which only 21 have been tested on rodents, and of those, 16 were carcinogenic (Ames, 1990). Coffee has never been considered a great cancer-causing substance, though."

Captain Pedantic

I think there should be a ban on people being stoned and dull in my company. Really, though, piercings don't make people dull. Sure, some dull people are pierced, but they were probably dull anyway.

Although, frankly, there should be a ban on anyone being in my company while dull for any reason. I don't care if you're talking about piss-all because you're stoned (or drunk, or high on coke, or whatever)and think you're being oh-so-funny, or if you're talking about "penalties" and "goal kicks" because you're a football nerd. If you're dull, you can bugger right off.

I do think cannabis should be legal, even if only for medicinal purposes. Reason being that it will get lots of essentially harmless people out of the way of the law, freeing the police up to arrest evil crims. I do not wish to smoke dope myself, and I don't drink either (anyone saying "oh, I must avoid your country" at this point should be reminded here that not drinking alcohol at all is very unusual in the UK).

I also think that people who get all "counter-culture" and smug about smoking dope, as if anyone who doesn't is just a slave of the system, and probably frigid as well, should be forced to do something extremely unpleasant for my benefit.

Also, those people who get pierced tongues and then spend the whole time sticking their tongues out should be punished in some small way. Just because I don't like to imagine what they'd do with a genital piercing.Similarly, the people who say in a smug manner that "Oh, they just do it to be cool, and "individual" just like everyone else HUR HUR HUR" should also be punished. I accept that not everyone gets pierced because they want attention, and anyone who says they do is probably an arse.

But people who smoke dope and are not dull in my company (like my own dear parents), and people who are not show-offs about their piercings are fine and dandy, in my opinion.