Nick Diaz Explains Why Weed Is Good For You. - Page 2 - MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos
General MMA Discussion Discuss King Of The Cage, Ultimate Challenge UK, and HDNet Fights as well as general mixed martial arts discussion.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-04-2009, 12:42 PM
 
Toxic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: See that guy over in the window, with the binoculars?
Posts: 21,821
                     
This makes me think Nick Diaz has been hit in the head WAY to many times, lastly Weed is not good for you, there is something like 8 times as much tar in a joint as in a cigarette, the only people who still try to convince anyone weed is better than cigarettes is people who smoke to much weed, the truth is its just as bad and considering most people who smoke pot also smoke cigarettes......




"If you get hit and it hurts hit him back you not knocked out yet."-Joe Doerksen
The Toxic Terrors (FFL)
Demetrious Johnson*Eduardo Dantas*Emanuel Newton*Will Brooks*Michael Page



Toxic is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-04-2009, 01:04 PM
Banned
 
coldcall420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: banned
Posts: 0
Blog Entries: 1
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic View Post
This makes me think Nick Diaz has been hit in the head WAY to many times, lastly Weed is not good for you, there is something like 8 times as much tar in a joint as in a cigarette, the only people who still try to convince anyone weed is better than cigarettes is people who smoke to much weed, the truth is its just as bad and considering most people who smoke pot also smoke cigarettes......

When did Nick develop this notion that he makes any kind of logical sense or that he should express his uneducated points of view??????
coldcall420 is offline  
post #13 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-04-2009, 01:56 PM
Lightweight
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: long island NY
Posts: 1,572
                     
You gotta love nick diaz as fried as he is, he can still fight. In 2007 there were approximately 4 million deaths associated with smoking complications and as for pot they dont have the statistics but we can assume its nowhere near 1000. Moo juice is right though, it is not good for your lungs to smoke pot at all. Pot doesnt have the same toxins in it as tobacco so it is far less dangerous though. And nobody could smoke 20-30 joints a day but they do that with cigs everyday. So Nick aint completely wrong, just doesnt really know.
jcal is offline  
post #14 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-04-2009, 02:01 PM
Banned
 
coldcall420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: banned
Posts: 0
Blog Entries: 1
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcal View Post
You gotta love nick diaz as fried as he is, he can still fight. In 2007 there were approximately 4 million deaths associated with smoking complications and as for pot they dont have the statistics but we can assume its nowhere near 1000. Moo juice is right though, it is not good for your lungs to smoke pot at all. Pot doesnt have the same toxins in it as tobacco so it is far less dangerous though. And nobody could smoke 20-30 joints a day but they do that with cigs everyday. So Nick aint completely wrong, just doesnt really know.

one joint of "regs" equals the same amount of tar from one pack of cigs....TOXIC was right......

Now myself, I only smoke the best weed....period and i usually use a gravity Bong.....lot worse than one joint, but I also train everyday........
coldcall420 is offline  
post #15 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-04-2009, 02:02 PM
Megaweight
 
CornbreadBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,569
                     
I read about 3 sentences of this and my brain started to cry. It's like listening to a puppy that was given the ability to speak.



CornbreadBB is offline  
post #16 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-04-2009, 02:52 PM
box
M.I.A
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wa
Posts: 2,550
                     
That was hard to read, its one thing to listen to him talk like that.

Anyway, I smoked alot of weed in my day, I wouldnt say its good for you at all, other than getting you high. But people abuse alcohal alot worse than weed and noone says much about it. They need to legalize weed, so its on the same level as alcohal.
box is offline  
post #17 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-04-2009, 04:11 PM
MMA Fanatic
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 78
                 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldcall420 View Post
When did Nick develop this notion that he makes any kind of logical sense or that he should express his uneducated points of view??????
Sounds like your average American.
aimres is offline  
post #18 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-04-2009, 04:21 PM
 
Toxic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: See that guy over in the window, with the binoculars?
Posts: 21,821
                     
I like how people try to say weed isnt bad for you, I want all of you who think Weed is better for you than ciggarettes to go an cut the filter off a cigarette and put it in the end of your next joint, take it apart after you smoke it and look how black and covered with resin it will be as compared to one from a cigarette butt.




"If you get hit and it hurts hit him back you not knocked out yet."-Joe Doerksen
The Toxic Terrors (FFL)
Demetrious Johnson*Eduardo Dantas*Emanuel Newton*Will Brooks*Michael Page



Toxic is offline  
post #19 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-04-2009, 06:46 PM
Lightweight
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: long island NY
Posts: 1,572
                     
Tobacco have nicotine which is a potent poison and highly addictive. It also may contain radioactive elements from the fertilizers that are used on the plant. It is believed by some that the radioactive elements within the fertilizer may be one reason tobacco have a high association beside lung cancer.

Marijuana contains THC which has anti-tumor properties. The most recent research by Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA (the ascendant expert on the subject) found that marijuana smokers actually own a LOWER incidence of lung cancer than average. This may be due to the anti-tumor properties of marijuana. You can find newspaper articles chitchat about this research by penetrating http://www.mapinc.org

As for the fertilizers used on marijuana, those will vary according to who is growing it but I own met a large number of growers and every one of them expressed great diligence about choosing the correct (and safe) fertilizers for their product. They put slightly a bit of work into each plant so they tend to examine these things very obligingly. (This would not apply to ordinary Mexican weed.)

Tobacco also cause emphysema, while marijuana does not.
jcal is offline  
post #20 of 81 (permalink) Old 04-04-2009, 07:09 PM
Flyweight
 
MooJuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: QLD, Aus
Posts: 330
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcal View Post
Tobacco have nicotine which is a potent poison and highly addictive. It also may contain radioactive elements from the fertilizers that are used on the plant. It is believed by some that the radioactive elements within the fertilizer may be one reason tobacco have a high association beside lung cancer.

Marijuana contains THC which has anti-tumor properties. The most recent research by Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA (the ascendant expert on the subject) found that marijuana smokers actually own a LOWER incidence of lung cancer than average. This may be due to the anti-tumor properties of marijuana. You can find newspaper articles chitchat about this research by penetrating http://www.mapinc.org

As for the fertilizers used on marijuana, those will vary according to who is growing it but I own met a large number of growers and every one of them expressed great diligence about choosing the correct (and safe) fertilizers for their product. They put slightly a bit of work into each plant so they tend to examine these things very obligingly. (This would not apply to ordinary Mexican weed.)

Tobacco also cause emphysema, while marijuana does not.

I'm sorry, but in every case of a public issue like this there will ALWAYS be scientists on either side who claim one extreme or the other. Unfortunately, you can't just pick the guy who's on your side and only spout forth his views. It's better to look at clearly unbiased studies, if ur *actually* looking for the truth. Unfortunately tho, as is so often the case, the truth is more than often somewhere in the midle, and not nearly as super exiting as everyone thinks.

So in this case, let me just pause you there and explain that i too, could find studies and articles about how even one joint can give you mental illnesses. As with studies that say that smoking pot actually lowers your chance of lung cancer than those who dont smoke at all and exercise well, etc etc....It just sounds a little...influenced, doesn't it? You gotta face the facts here man.

If weed smoke was anti-tumour, would they not be isolating the exact agent that's lowering the instances of lung cancer, and use it as a cancer vaccine/treatment/cure? Because it surely would be such an amazing find that scientists all over the world would jump on it and, it would be discussed in unbiased, respected scientific forums and much, much more testing would be done.

Unfortunately tho it seems that it's probably just a flawed study that i've actually seen touted on other forums too. And often, when a study is flawed and has results like this, interpretations of it are twisted to end up saying outrageous things to support the people who truly have a point to make.

So basically either tashkin is a pro marijuana campaigner who has let his own motives influence what should have been an unbiased study, or he did a study that had unforseen influencing factors and now pro-weed campaigners are jumping on it and saying that weed is the cure for cancer. (anti-tumour and less cancer implies anti malignant tumour, which implies anti-cancer.)

*edit: i've done some quick research using my uni sources (enables me to access online peer reviewed articles etc) and surprisingly, i havent found a seemingly neutral study on weed yet. there arent even many to begin with. and then i realised that it makes a lot of sense; research studies are funded by research grants, research grants are supplied by governments, governments have political agendas when it comes to drugs. Every single bit of pro-weed study that wud be available to the public (eg via a quick google search) always quotes tashkin for some or all of their material. Ideally, i wud be multilingual and would have access to european studies on the matter - as many european countries seem to be more neutral (and thus properly scientific; science should never be political) on the topics of drugs. Nearly every successful opiate substitution program has originated in europe, because in america, giving drugs to drug addicts would be crucified in the media before it ever gained any credebility - and then it wud become apolitical argument and much less of a medical one. i suspect the same has happened here, but i dont have time to go trawling through european medical studies, so just take it from me that weed (nearly certainly) isnt good for you; nor does it cure cancer.
(i say nearly certainly because i cant get all high and mighty about being neutral and open without acknowledging that all i have learned may be wrong, and anybody else may be right. However...i doubt it.)

anyway sorry to rain on your parade but i just wanted to clear that up. altho on the same note i have never heard from a reputable medical source that one joint has the tar of an entire pack of cigarettes either...All i know for sure is that weed smoke is worse because it is smoked unfiltered and often smoked closer to the roach, which means hotter and harsher air is entering your lungs. saying that one joint would have the tar from a PACK of cigarettes seems to me like the perfect example of the extreme other side of the weed debate.

anyway just trying to shed some truth on all this, as i've said it;s one of the few areas where i actually know what im talking about

Last edited by MooJuice; 04-04-2009 at 07:33 PM.
MooJuice is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome