News in a nutshell - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences: "A PhD in pot
Want a career change? You can enroll in 'cannabis college,' geared to train people to grow weed to supply the burgeoning medical marijuana industry, as more states enact such laws. Read more in the Chronicle of Higher Education."
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query marijuana. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query marijuana. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, March 01, 2010
span.fullpost {display:none;}
Friday, June 12, 2009
Marijuana Fanatacism
The pro marijuana crowd is touting a study that failed to show a carcinogenic effect of smoking pot.
The author of that study, Dr. Tashkin, does an excellent job of reviewing the data in this video. The important thing about the video is for non scientists, both pro and anti marijuana, to understand three points:
1. THC, the major psychoactive agent in marijuana is not the same thing as marijuana smoke. There is extensive evidence that THC has minimal if any health risk.
2. Marijuana smoke contains more known carcinogens than does tobacco smoke. Smoking marijuana would be expected to increase risk of cancer,.
3. In a well done study, the UCLA group failed to find the expected risk from marijuana smoke.
What does this NOT mean?
Contrary to how the MJ fanatics are pusing these data, Dr. Tashkin's stuidy does NOT mean that MJ does NOT cause cancer.
Similar studies of tobacco failed to show the expected result there too. The reasons for those failures, now that we have much more data, are assumed to be "confounding variables," that is differences in the smoker and non smoker groups not identified by the researchers.
Similarly the failure to confirm an expected result does not prove that the concern abut cancer and marijuana goes away. We know that MJ smoke will cause cancer and can explain this by its chemical composition.
What DOES this mean?
This is a surprising result since we know that the tars in marijuana smoke should cause cancer. Moreover we know those tars are getting in because biopsies studies of lung in MJ users show changes consistent with the expected effects of these tars.
So either there were confounding variables or some ingredient of the smoke is protective.
Pot smokers should also be aware that tobacco smoke is also highly implicated in diseases other than lung cancer, eg atherosclerosis and cancer outside the lung.
What is a confounding variable?
In animal studies we are able to control almost every possible difference between two groups. Most animal studies are done with inbred mice, meaning we know that genetically both groups are similar. We also monitor the mice for unexpected badges that can effect an experiment .. e.g. changes in dominance, weight gain, etc.
In human studies we have much less control. Some imaginable confounding variables are:
a. the diet of the marijuana users could be very different from that of non users.
b. the folks who use MJ may come from a different genetic stock than those who do not.
c. MJ smokers may congregate in different neighborhood or work in different jobs than non users.
Could this be an accidental result?
All statistical studies depend on the size of the population and can only produce probability. If enough studies are done some will fail. Again, a number of early tobacco studies also failed to show the risk of tobacco.
Could MJ be anticancer?
The study raises that question. Most of the evidence, however, suggests that MJ smoke is carcinogenic. An anticancer effect would imply that some ingredient of the smoke has an unexpected activity.
Is it wise to smoke MJ?
The answer is much as it was thirty years ago for tobacco. We knew the stuff was loaded with carcinogens. This was no direct evidence for cancer and some early studies pointed the other way.
Anti tobacco folks suggested a a thought experiment long before we had enough human data to make our point. Imagine collecting the tars from an putting then under a bandage on your arm. Based on what we knew about tobacco and now know about marijuana, BOTH should cause a skin cancer. If you are comfortable with the risk, then smoke away .. just do not do it near others who may not want to be in your experiment.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
A Simple Idea
A Simple Idea
The first step in legalization ought to be rationalization. There is simply no scientific support for the "theory" that marijuana is a dangerous drug.
A major reason I find Lee's strident advocacy of medical marijuana wrong headed (other than his sinking to abusive name calling) is that he is just as bad as the opponents of marijuana is misusing facts. Everytime he posts one of these stories I wonder what the real facts are? Is this patient someone really in need of marijuana or just some worshiper?
In someways this issue is a lot like global warming. The Luddites or the 4R party (radical religious republican remnant) claim to have knowledge that is superior to that of the huge mass of the scoientific community. This goves me an idea, somethng on which I would expet thehim (Lee) would agree .....
One of the most effective tools in turning the tides of opinion in re global warming has been Gore's movie. There must be dozens of visible figures, accepted leaders, with Gore's stature who could host such a movie revealing just the facts about marijuana. What if Lee and his community turned their efforts to funding such a flick?
The star would have to be someone with gravitas. The movie would obviously have ti acknowledge the association of marijuana with a fringe culture but transform use of marijuana into a mainstream issue.
Or we can pretend that marijuana is the gift of Krishna.
The first step in legalization ought to be rationalization. There is simply no scientific support for the "theory" that marijuana is a dangerous drug.
A major reason I find Lee's strident advocacy of medical marijuana wrong headed (other than his sinking to abusive name calling) is that he is just as bad as the opponents of marijuana is misusing facts. Everytime he posts one of these stories I wonder what the real facts are? Is this patient someone really in need of marijuana or just some worshiper?
In someways this issue is a lot like global warming. The Luddites or the 4R party (radical religious republican remnant) claim to have knowledge that is superior to that of the huge mass of the scoientific community. This goves me an idea, somethng on which I would expet thehim (Lee) would agree .....
One of the most effective tools in turning the tides of opinion in re global warming has been Gore's movie. There must be dozens of visible figures, accepted leaders, with Gore's stature who could host such a movie revealing just the facts about marijuana. What if Lee and his community turned their efforts to funding such a flick?
The star would have to be someone with gravitas. The movie would obviously have ti acknowledge the association of marijuana with a fringe culture but transform use of marijuana into a mainstream issue.
Or we can pretend that marijuana is the gift of Krishna.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Mary Jane Replaces the Marijuana Man
The greatest effect of legalization would be to free the forces of marketing.
Coffee sells in huge amounts for three reasons ... it is not regulated for its psychoactive effects and those effects are pleasant. Add to these the power of marketing and we have everything from Maxwell House to Starbucks. Imagine marijuana sales on that scale! Imagine Mad Ave pushing marijuana!
There is a huge marketing advantage of mj over coffee. People buy coffee for its taste. If "marijuana" were legal, there would be no reason to restrict the use of THC, the active ingredient in mj, to reefers.
Now imagine M&Ms as M&M&Ms. Chocolate already contains low amounts of an mj like ingredient. Lace the M&M with THC and the marketers would go wild! Imagine Valentines Day!
But wait, like one of those TV ads, "there is more." M&M&Ms could be made LOW calorie! The sweet taste of sugar in chocolates could be replaced with other sweeteners. The result ... a product with more effect than chocolate but with no weight gain! Hell, unlike tobacco, marijuan products could be sold for their health advantages.
The marketers would go wild. All that Benson and Hedges talent punished by fears of cancer would now be free to fly! As long as new marijuana based products did not involve inhaled smoke, the government would have no reason regulate this new market. If mj were a state monopoly, the government itself would have huge reasons to promote sales. Imagine, printing the state lottery number on individual M&M&Ms!
My favorite marketing tool for Marijuana, however, would be sex, Lets call her Mary Jane and imagine MJ, dressed in a seductive low cut gown in a bar or wearing a smartly feminine business suit at a conference table at Gates, Bogle, Harumph and Smits. The MJ lady, sips her marijuana laced sweet chocolate, the camera sweeps to a head shot, her mascara-enhanced eyes look out .. the men are high, very high.
Victoria's Secret models replacing the Marlboro Man! l
Monday, December 27, 2010
A Medal of Some Honor, an Accolade
This is an essay about an accolade I received from Thehim, a priggish liberal, self described as being Jewish by descent. I am , I suppose honored.
Thehim hates me and showed that hatred, ironically in a thread devoted to free speech. He did this by deleting comments I made about why our buses SHOULD carry ads from a group opposed to Israel. The irony is comical but I decided to use this example of liberal censorship to write about bigotry, Jewish bigotry within our own community.
Jews have always had people like Thehim. At the Passover Seder we discuss how to explain our traditions of freedom to "the son who knows too much." Some are just too smart to see the lessons of the exodus as a universal lesson we, as the Jews, an offer all mankind.
In the previous century, before Hitler and Stalin, Jews of Germany and Russia were truly patriotic. Once being of Jewish ancestry was accepted, Jews by descent were amongst the most liberals of the Russians and Germans. Some became leaders in Stalin's Russia. Trotsky died for his enthusiasms. In Germany, betrayed by the Nazis, these Germans had to flee or die along with those whose Judaism was an identity rather than a history.
Often today, Jews by descent are among our most liberal Americans. Some, like Alinsky and Gompers, led great social movements. Emmanuel and Axelrod are important figures in the Obama White House, the Passover Seder has become a new national tradition. Obama's own children attended Jewish preschools in Chicago and a cousin of Mrs. Obama is a prominent rabbi in that town. Three of the four liberals on the US Supreme Court are Jews. We, Jews by identity and Jews by descent, have good reason to be proud of our role in America.
David Goldstein, the editor of the Horsesass and its founder, is another Jew by descent. Unlike Thehim, Goldy is proud of his origins and sees Jewish liberalism as a Jewish trait ... I spend a lot of time at his blog. Goldy writes insightfully about Washington State politics with a wit and challenge that is utterly missing from the rest of our media.
Sadly, Goldy, aka David Goldstein, allows Lee to post as an associate blogger.
"Sadly" is not because Lee can not write or, for that matter, because he hates me. That hate is a personal and unpleasant affair. My concern here is for Horsesass, David Goldstein's creation. Lee is no Goldy. Thehim can write. Unfortunately, unlike Goldy, Lee has little breadth and seems to have deep knowledge of on;y two things ... Thehim's ego and the drug wars.
That mixture is toxic. Lee rarely posts on anything other than drugs . Withing the drug sphere, Lee is a devout with all the conviction of a religious fanatic. Where Billy Graham and George Bush obsess about Jesus on the cross, Lee obsesses about the five fingered leaves of cannabis. He is obsessed with marijuana.
Lee supports legalization, like anyone with a rational knowledge of marijuana, But, Lee's support is a crusader. Give the platform of Horsesass , in Lee's priggish mind, marijuana is not just a recreational drug as much as it is salvational miracle. All opposition is evil, marijuana as far beyond science as the Eucharist is beyond the Big Mac.
In Lee's world, cops and docs persecute helpless marijuana "patients" as if pot smokers were Christians in the arena. Imagine the cruelty this fanatic sees when a hospital will not let a marijuana user smoke just because weed is full of carcinogens and not very effective as a drug! Or imagine his vision of a pack of gun toting cops, arresting some innocent person one and discovering pot farm intended to only as medicine! Must be a plant! (pun intended).
There is no other side to Lee's fanaticism. Lee went ballistic when I criticized Hempfest for featuring a medical student as if he were an expert scientist. This expert, against masses of evidence that the tars in MJ smoke are carcinogenic, claimed there were counteracting good in reefers because marijuana is a natural product. At first Lee insisted I was not at Hempfest until I posted a photo essay of my rather pleasant time at the festival. Of course Thehim was offended when I criticized the organizers for allowing kids to inhale carcinogen laden MJ smoke MJ good, anything else bad in lee's world.
Like any other religious fanatic, Lee's bigotry goes on and on. He was a highly vocal proponent of Washington's assisted suicide act, aka "Death with Dignity." I opposed the bill because it imposes huge costs for the benefit of a tiny number of people who qualify for its definition of right to die. Beyond mere money, the act, now the law, threatens the current informal process of assisting terminal patients to die. "Death with Dignity" requires a legalistic, expensive review. Anyone opposed to suicide hates the terminally ill. Others, especially Joel Connelly of the PI, defended the rights of physicians who take the Hippocratic Oath to mean that they can not assist in others' deaths. There are no exceptions to Lee's orthodoxy. Joel, an Episcoplan of Irish descent, must be a Catholic fanatic. Lee insists that unbelievers, Catholics especially, are all evil. So, like me, Joel became a target.
In short, Lee lives in a world where Nero rules and Lee nobly sides with those suffering under a mad ruler. Lee, clearly did not take psych 101.
How did I become a target of Lee's ire? Most liberal Jews .by descent or history, are fervent supporters of Palestine. Extremists, generally who see their Judaism as only be descent, are fanatic on that subject, unable to see the fears of the Israelis or the unhidden legacy of the holocaust against the true sufferings of the Palestinian people.
Lees' righteousness on this issue, led him to invent SJ the bigot. After the onslaught of a Muslim terrorist on a Jewish office here in Seattle, I questioned what the man has been taught in Islamic school. Of course, this made ME a bigot.
SJ was stalking Lee, protector of the persecuted. Lee fantasized about masses of harassing emails. These visions culminated in his filing a (false) complaint against me at the UW, where (after an investigation cleared me) Lee was patiently told about the first amendment. Lee also instigated at threat against me that led to the UW and Seattle police asking if I wanted protection. I assured them that I did not think Lee was dangerous and that, other than Thehim, knew of no Muslim upset with me.
Lee's going ballistic is .. well .. pretty funny. He debates using names .. I became his favorite "douchebag" and he insisted over and over again that he wanted intercourse with me. I thrust back, suggesting that though not gay, I found his interest in sex with me flattering. Humor did not prevail.
When I made fun of Lee's obscenities, Thehim yelled at Goldy, the owner of the HA blog, complaining that I was stalking Thehim on the blog. So Goldy asked me not to post on Lee's threads.
Recently, in a lapse of judgment, I did comment in support of a criticism (by Lee) of King County. The county had ordered removal of an anti-Israel ads from the Metro buses, Lee, of course, took offense and deleted my post... what follow is Lee responding to a question someone asked about how Lee could support free speech AND censorship:
If Lee does read this he is more than welcome to free speech on my blog.
Thehim hates me and showed that hatred, ironically in a thread devoted to free speech. He did this by deleting comments I made about why our buses SHOULD carry ads from a group opposed to Israel. The irony is comical but I decided to use this example of liberal censorship to write about bigotry, Jewish bigotry within our own community.
Jews have always had people like Thehim. At the Passover Seder we discuss how to explain our traditions of freedom to "the son who knows too much." Some are just too smart to see the lessons of the exodus as a universal lesson we, as the Jews, an offer all mankind.
In the previous century, before Hitler and Stalin, Jews of Germany and Russia were truly patriotic. Once being of Jewish ancestry was accepted, Jews by descent were amongst the most liberals of the Russians and Germans. Some became leaders in Stalin's Russia. Trotsky died for his enthusiasms. In Germany, betrayed by the Nazis, these Germans had to flee or die along with those whose Judaism was an identity rather than a history.
Often today, Jews by descent are among our most liberal Americans. Some, like Alinsky and Gompers, led great social movements. Emmanuel and Axelrod are important figures in the Obama White House, the Passover Seder has become a new national tradition. Obama's own children attended Jewish preschools in Chicago and a cousin of Mrs. Obama is a prominent rabbi in that town. Three of the four liberals on the US Supreme Court are Jews. We, Jews by identity and Jews by descent, have good reason to be proud of our role in America.
David Goldstein, the editor of the Horsesass and its founder, is another Jew by descent. Unlike Thehim, Goldy is proud of his origins and sees Jewish liberalism as a Jewish trait ... I spend a lot of time at his blog. Goldy writes insightfully about Washington State politics with a wit and challenge that is utterly missing from the rest of our media.
Sadly, Goldy, aka David Goldstein, allows Lee to post as an associate blogger.
"Sadly" is not because Lee can not write or, for that matter, because he hates me. That hate is a personal and unpleasant affair. My concern here is for Horsesass, David Goldstein's creation. Lee is no Goldy. Thehim can write. Unfortunately, unlike Goldy, Lee has little breadth and seems to have deep knowledge of on;y two things ... Thehim's ego and the drug wars.
That mixture is toxic. Lee rarely posts on anything other than drugs . Withing the drug sphere, Lee is a devout with all the conviction of a religious fanatic. Where Billy Graham and George Bush obsess about Jesus on the cross, Lee obsesses about the five fingered leaves of cannabis. He is obsessed with marijuana.
Lee supports legalization, like anyone with a rational knowledge of marijuana, But, Lee's support is a crusader. Give the platform of Horsesass , in Lee's priggish mind, marijuana is not just a recreational drug as much as it is salvational miracle. All opposition is evil, marijuana as far beyond science as the Eucharist is beyond the Big Mac.
In Lee's world, cops and docs persecute helpless marijuana "patients" as if pot smokers were Christians in the arena. Imagine the cruelty this fanatic sees when a hospital will not let a marijuana user smoke just because weed is full of carcinogens and not very effective as a drug! Or imagine his vision of a pack of gun toting cops, arresting some innocent person one and discovering pot farm intended to only as medicine! Must be a plant! (pun intended).
There is no other side to Lee's fanaticism. Lee went ballistic when I criticized Hempfest for featuring a medical student as if he were an expert scientist. This expert, against masses of evidence that the tars in MJ smoke are carcinogenic, claimed there were counteracting good in reefers because marijuana is a natural product. At first Lee insisted I was not at Hempfest until I posted a photo essay of my rather pleasant time at the festival. Of course Thehim was offended when I criticized the organizers for allowing kids to inhale carcinogen laden MJ smoke MJ good, anything else bad in lee's world.
Like any other religious fanatic, Lee's bigotry goes on and on. He was a highly vocal proponent of Washington's assisted suicide act, aka "Death with Dignity." I opposed the bill because it imposes huge costs for the benefit of a tiny number of people who qualify for its definition of right to die. Beyond mere money, the act, now the law, threatens the current informal process of assisting terminal patients to die. "Death with Dignity" requires a legalistic, expensive review. Anyone opposed to suicide hates the terminally ill. Others, especially Joel Connelly of the PI, defended the rights of physicians who take the Hippocratic Oath to mean that they can not assist in others' deaths. There are no exceptions to Lee's orthodoxy. Joel, an Episcoplan of Irish descent, must be a Catholic fanatic. Lee insists that unbelievers, Catholics especially, are all evil. So, like me, Joel became a target.
In short, Lee lives in a world where Nero rules and Lee nobly sides with those suffering under a mad ruler. Lee, clearly did not take psych 101.
How did I become a target of Lee's ire? Most liberal Jews .by descent or history, are fervent supporters of Palestine. Extremists, generally who see their Judaism as only be descent, are fanatic on that subject, unable to see the fears of the Israelis or the unhidden legacy of the holocaust against the true sufferings of the Palestinian people.
Lees' righteousness on this issue, led him to invent SJ the bigot. After the onslaught of a Muslim terrorist on a Jewish office here in Seattle, I questioned what the man has been taught in Islamic school. Of course, this made ME a bigot.
SJ was stalking Lee, protector of the persecuted. Lee fantasized about masses of harassing emails. These visions culminated in his filing a (false) complaint against me at the UW, where (after an investigation cleared me) Lee was patiently told about the first amendment. Lee also instigated at threat against me that led to the UW and Seattle police asking if I wanted protection. I assured them that I did not think Lee was dangerous and that, other than Thehim, knew of no Muslim upset with me.
Lee's going ballistic is .. well .. pretty funny. He debates using names .. I became his favorite "douchebag" and he insisted over and over again that he wanted intercourse with me. I thrust back, suggesting that though not gay, I found his interest in sex with me flattering. Humor did not prevail.
When I made fun of Lee's obscenities, Thehim yelled at Goldy, the owner of the HA blog, complaining that I was stalking Thehim on the blog. So Goldy asked me not to post on Lee's threads.
Recently, in a lapse of judgment, I did comment in support of a criticism (by Lee) of King County. The county had ordered removal of an anti-Israel ads from the Metro buses, Lee, of course, took offense and deleted my post... what follow is Lee responding to a question someone asked about how Lee could support free speech AND censorship:
SJ’s banning is the equivalent of a restaurant owner refusing to serve someone who is not wearing pants and throwing his own poop. It has nothing to do with free speech. He’s free to say whatever the hell he wants on his own blog or in Goldy’s threads, but he lost his privilege to post here after numerous warnings. If you want more details, feel free to email me separately.So, this is my accolade.
If Lee does read this he is more than welcome to free speech on my blog.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
More More abut Lee Thehim ...
see new comments.
HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » “There is no Medical Marijuana law in Pierce County”
Given the emphasis Lee has made on "medical marijuana" may I suggest for balance that folks read this excellent summary of the literature by the American College of Physicians?
The key points, if I may summarize the already brief report, are these:
are medical uses of THC, the most important of the known ingredients in marijuana.
THC, however, is already legal.
Legal THC can be given in a number of forms, including an aerosol that is leagal in Canada but not yet in the USA.
2. Smoking weed should not be encouraged because of concerns about purity and evidence that inhaling smoke is bad for you.
3. Research in THC and marijuana in general is merited.
4. Even when it becomes legalized, hopefully we will not encourage people to smoke pot without a lot of evidence that we are not repeating the epidemic of the last three centuries caused by the "filthy habit."
Brownies are probably fine!
******************************************
As for Lee,
He is making a tempest out of a few snow flakes. THC is available as a legal drug.
Unless a patient can not take the legal, oral drug, they have no problem. Of course one reason for taking THC is nausea and that can make an oral drug difficult to take. I supect anybody who needs it can can get the Canadian drug pretty easily and hopefully will soon be able to do buy the aerosol here too. Certaionly I would urge his friend to do that rather than getting herself fucked over by the pot police.
Gieb the profit motic=ve in this society, I would also expect to see injectable and supository forms if the data continue to look good.
Finally, Lee's misrepresenting science is not a good way to convince people that marijuana should be legal. As far as I can find out:
a. ther eis not evidence that reefers have any benefit that is not attributeable to THC asnd THC IS legal now.
b. The report in my link offers ane xcellent summary any lay person can read, inlcuding recommendations that will allow physicians and patients to get the hep they desire wothout braking the law.
c. Lee's reference to an expert who supports his opinion at the UW turns out to be to a medical student who is doing a PhD in the geography of marijuans usuage. Sumil Aggarwal is better read than Lee, but his degree is not in toxicology, psychopharmacology, or biochemistry. While Sunil has read the literature, based on our conversation .. he is not terribly expert in the relevnat biochemistry or pharmacology. Sunil, also seem to beleive in herbal medicine and a number of other ideas that are, to say the least, not in good favor among most scientists. There are, by the way, a number of folks at UW who do have expertise in these areas and I have suggested to lee that he talk with them.
HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » “There is no Medical Marijuana law in Pierce County”
Given the emphasis Lee has made on "medical marijuana" may I suggest for balance that folks read this excellent summary of the literature by the American College of Physicians?
The key points, if I may summarize the already brief report, are these:
are medical uses of THC, the most important of the known ingredients in marijuana.
THC, however, is already legal.
Legal THC can be given in a number of forms, including an aerosol that is leagal in Canada but not yet in the USA.
2. Smoking weed should not be encouraged because of concerns about purity and evidence that inhaling smoke is bad for you.
3. Research in THC and marijuana in general is merited.
4. Even when it becomes legalized, hopefully we will not encourage people to smoke pot without a lot of evidence that we are not repeating the epidemic of the last three centuries caused by the "filthy habit."
Brownies are probably fine!
******************************************
As for Lee,
He is making a tempest out of a few snow flakes. THC is available as a legal drug.
Unless a patient can not take the legal, oral drug, they have no problem. Of course one reason for taking THC is nausea and that can make an oral drug difficult to take. I supect anybody who needs it can can get the Canadian drug pretty easily and hopefully will soon be able to do buy the aerosol here too. Certaionly I would urge his friend to do that rather than getting herself fucked over by the pot police.
Gieb the profit motic=ve in this society, I would also expect to see injectable and supository forms if the data continue to look good.
Finally, Lee's misrepresenting science is not a good way to convince people that marijuana should be legal. As far as I can find out:
a. ther eis not evidence that reefers have any benefit that is not attributeable to THC asnd THC IS legal now.
b. The report in my link offers ane xcellent summary any lay person can read, inlcuding recommendations that will allow physicians and patients to get the hep they desire wothout braking the law.
c. Lee's reference to an expert who supports his opinion at the UW turns out to be to a medical student who is doing a PhD in the geography of marijuans usuage. Sumil Aggarwal is better read than Lee, but his degree is not in toxicology, psychopharmacology, or biochemistry. While Sunil has read the literature, based on our conversation .. he is not terribly expert in the relevnat biochemistry or pharmacology. Sunil, also seem to beleive in herbal medicine and a number of other ideas that are, to say the least, not in good favor among most scientists. There are, by the way, a number of folks at UW who do have expertise in these areas and I have suggested to lee that he talk with them.
TheHim threatens my First Amendment Rights
This has gotten way out of control but Lee Rosenberg in email and on his blog is now threatening to have men fired for expressing my opinions about the Quran and Mr. Haq's motivations for killing Jews. Oh yeh, Lee is also upset that I have called him for misrepresenting the facts on marijuana.
Interstikng. Will someone tell me the difference between lee and a Discovery Insitute Fanatic?
Anyhow I am not ocnerned, thans to Tom jefferson we academics do have the first amendment as part of our jobs! Not a bad perk wheh dealing with this sort of agitprop.
Back to citing Lee's blog:
EFFin’ Unsound » Blog Archive » Another Round: "July 13th, 2008 at 11:10 am
OK, let’s count the misrepresentations in this comment:
1. Lee, for some reason, keeps bringing the issue up ind oiscussions of other matters. (the current thread in email he refers to is a disagreement over whether doctos should prescribe reefers, ie smoked marijuana. Le favors this and I do not.)
No, the disagreement is not over whether doctors should prescribe reefers, it’s over whether or not there’s a medical need for marijuana. The difference is that one can ingest marijuana in a number of different ways other than reefers. This has been explained to you several times, yet you continue to lie.
2. While I honestly do not know why the Haq story is important to Lee
That’s clearly a lie. You know exactly why this is important to me. It’s because I think it’s wrong to accuse the Islamic Center of the Tri-Cities of teaching Haq to hate Jews without any proof whatsoever.
3. I suspect he feels that Mr. Haq’s anger may be justified by what Lee (and one assumes Haq) sees as the unacceptable behavior of Israel.
Absolutely not. I’ve never once said that his anger towards all Jews is justified by that. I’ve simply said it was caused by that, but I don’t feel it’s justified. That’s lie #3"
Lee,
You may want t look at the post I just placed at SJ and HA clarifying the facts on marijuana. There is, to the best of my knowledge=, no evidence that marijuan is a better drug than THC and THC is legal. The only reason to use marijua as a dleivery vehicle is to provide it as an areodol anmd doing so in a a likley carcoinogenic smoke wis NOT a good idea.
Somehow I find it hard to imgine that the Islamic Center is goinfg to get excited about a post that is now two years old but go ahead.
If I need a spell checker, you need a dose of logic viz.
"4. Returning to Mr. Haq, the real issue ought to be whether he is a symptom of a larger problem. Lee does not think so
That’s lie #4. I certainly believe that animosity towards Jews because of Israeli foreign policy is a large problem."
And the lie is????? Or are you saying you do not think Islam has a long history of antisemitism?
As for going after my job, shall we trade blows? Lets see, I am protected bny my rigrts of free speach and by academci freedom. Your use of pot is protected by? You use of slander is protecte by? Oh well, last time I saw two makes playing thast game one 3=ws a dalmatian and the other poodle. They pee-ed on a lot of trees and then on someone's trousers
Don;'t pee on the trousers Mr,. Dog!
Interstikng. Will someone tell me the difference between lee and a Discovery Insitute Fanatic?
Anyhow I am not ocnerned, thans to Tom jefferson we academics do have the first amendment as part of our jobs! Not a bad perk wheh dealing with this sort of agitprop.
Back to citing Lee's blog:
EFFin’ Unsound » Blog Archive » Another Round: "July 13th, 2008 at 11:10 am
OK, let’s count the misrepresentations in this comment:
1. Lee, for some reason, keeps bringing the issue up ind oiscussions of other matters. (the current thread in email he refers to is a disagreement over whether doctos should prescribe reefers, ie smoked marijuana. Le favors this and I do not.)
No, the disagreement is not over whether doctors should prescribe reefers, it’s over whether or not there’s a medical need for marijuana. The difference is that one can ingest marijuana in a number of different ways other than reefers. This has been explained to you several times, yet you continue to lie.
2. While I honestly do not know why the Haq story is important to Lee
That’s clearly a lie. You know exactly why this is important to me. It’s because I think it’s wrong to accuse the Islamic Center of the Tri-Cities of teaching Haq to hate Jews without any proof whatsoever.
3. I suspect he feels that Mr. Haq’s anger may be justified by what Lee (and one assumes Haq) sees as the unacceptable behavior of Israel.
Absolutely not. I’ve never once said that his anger towards all Jews is justified by that. I’ve simply said it was caused by that, but I don’t feel it’s justified. That’s lie #3"
4. Returnoing to Mr. Haq, the real issue ought to be whether he is a symptom of a larger problem. Lee does not think so
That’s lie #4. I certainly believe that animosity towards Jews because of Israeli foreign policy is a large problem.
OK, now let’s get back to the heart of the matter…
Was Haq taught this and/or worse as he grew up iand attended Muslim school? It would be vert\y odd if he were not.
First of all, you don’t even know whether or not Haq attended a Muslim school, let alone who was teaching him and what he was being taught. You are making an accusation against a very specific Islamic Center with absolutely no evidence to back you up. As I sent you in email, I’m going to make sure the Islamic Center is aware of this, and unlike the past times this has come up, I will not hesitate to try to get you removed from your job at UW if you don’t stop misrepresenting my views.
Lee,
You may want t look at the post I just placed at SJ and HA clarifying the facts on marijuana. There is, to the best of my knowledge=, no evidence that marijuan is a better drug than THC and THC is legal. The only reason to use marijua as a dleivery vehicle is to provide it as an areodol anmd doing so in a a likley carcoinogenic smoke wis NOT a good idea.
Somehow I find it hard to imgine that the Islamic Center is goinfg to get excited about a post that is now two years old but go ahead.
If I need a spell checker, you need a dose of logic viz.
"4. Returning to Mr. Haq, the real issue ought to be whether he is a symptom of a larger problem. Lee does not think so
That’s lie #4. I certainly believe that animosity towards Jews because of Israeli foreign policy is a large problem."
And the lie is????? Or are you saying you do not think Islam has a long history of antisemitism?
As for going after my job, shall we trade blows? Lets see, I am protected bny my rigrts of free speach and by academci freedom. Your use of pot is protected by? You use of slander is protecte by? Oh well, last time I saw two makes playing thast game one 3=ws a dalmatian and the other poodle. They pee-ed on a lot of trees and then on someone's trousers
Don;'t pee on the trousers Mr,. Dog!
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Marijuan and Compliance
Hi Greg,
I ran across your name on a blog I use, HorsesAss. Basically a friend of mine, Lee Rosenberg, is advocating the "rights" of transplant patients to medical marijuana. He refers to a Stranger article using you as a reference.
While I am personally a strong advocate of legalized MJ and am impressed with the clinical work on THC, I worry that misplaced activism will misuse the MMJ issue to cause even more harm at the UW from "compliance."
I wonder if you would be interested in replying.
If you want I can post to HA or (really) I suggest you post. either ion HA or at my blog, SeattleJew.
Lee is a good guy, but it seems to me that academics need to be firm as we can about keeping the politcal process out of clinical medicine.
Here is my post.
It refers to the piece on HA and that refers to a piece in the Stranger.
YELLOW JOURNALISM
Last night at DL we had a speaker who, rightly, trashed the radical right for its misuse of journalism. His point was that FAUX and fiends misuses the media by lies and slurs. True enough.
So, is the same strategy OK if it is used to promote a liberal cause? I share Lee's enthusiasm for legalizing marijuana ... I even support legalizing marijuana. BUT, that support does not justify swift boat attacks on the medical care system.
The article cited by Lee, has more horse turds than a 1908 NY City street..
Here area few, simple facts:
1. Experts ... Of the two UW "expert" cited in suport of the reporter's attcks on transplant medicine, Dr. Roffman has no relevant credential. Roffman is a (PhD) sociologist specializing in entrepreneurship.
Dr. Greg Carter is a clinician in rehab medicine who does study use of cannabinoids in muscular dystrophy. According to the article, contamination of MJ by a fungus is the major reason userfs of commercial MJ are rejected and Dr. Carter rejects this.
I am sufficiently skeptical that I plan to email Greg Carter and see if I can get him to comment. Until then let me point out to HA readers that njeither Dr. Carter nor I (nor Lee or the Stranger reporter) know the rules used to assign priorities for transplant.
3.Just because some Doc prescribes MJ does not mean that this is good medical practice. As long as something is harmless, as MJ probably is, a physician can prescribe ANYTHING. Your friendly local doc can prescribe massage, sex, herbal tees, or chocolate covered grasshoppers. Marijuana is NOT an approved drug. The designation of MMJ exists BECAUSE of the same dumb laws that pretend it is a gharmful drug.
4. Medical MJ is an impure plant, not very different in its supervison than healthfood peanut butter. Why do I mantion the latter? Well, like MJ, peanut butter is a good "soil" to grw a toxic fungus. If the shop grinds its own PB but is nto sufficiently careful, you may get aflatoxin .. a carcinogen .. along with that PB&J sandwich. I suspect that the fungus Apergillis, can grow on MJ even after it is is provided to a pt unless the stuff is carefully kept.
Given the costs of a transplant and the rarity of donor organs, would it be unreasonable of a transplant committee to prioritize those patients most willing to abode by strict guidance form their physicians?
Finally Lee, all of us are worried about the future of healthcare. As an inmate of the healthcare asylum I can tell you one of the biggest problems we face is overwhelmingly regulation resulting from activists groups.
--
Stephen M. Schwartz
Pathology
I ran across your name on a blog I use, HorsesAss. Basically a friend of mine, Lee Rosenberg, is advocating the "rights" of transplant patients to medical marijuana. He refers to a Stranger article using you as a reference.
While I am personally a strong advocate of legalized MJ and am impressed with the clinical work on THC, I worry that misplaced activism will misuse the MMJ issue to cause even more harm at the UW from "compliance."
I wonder if you would be interested in replying.
If you want I can post to HA or (really) I suggest you post. either ion HA or at my blog, SeattleJew.
Lee is a good guy, but it seems to me that academics need to be firm as we can about keeping the politcal process out of clinical medicine.
Here is my post.
It refers to the piece on HA and that refers to a piece in the Stranger.
YELLOW JOURNALISM
Last night at DL we had a speaker who, rightly, trashed the radical right for its misuse of journalism. His point was that FAUX and fiends misuses the media by lies and slurs. True enough.
So, is the same strategy OK if it is used to promote a liberal cause? I share Lee's enthusiasm for legalizing marijuana ... I even support legalizing marijuana. BUT, that support does not justify swift boat attacks on the medical care system.
The article cited by Lee, has more horse turds than a 1908 NY City street..
Here area few, simple facts:
1. Experts ... Of the two UW "expert" cited in suport of the reporter's attcks on transplant medicine, Dr. Roffman has no relevant credential. Roffman is a (PhD) sociologist specializing in entrepreneurship.
Dr. Greg Carter is a clinician in rehab medicine who does study use of cannabinoids in muscular dystrophy. According to the article, contamination of MJ by a fungus is the major reason userfs of commercial MJ are rejected and Dr. Carter rejects this.
I am sufficiently skeptical that I plan to email Greg Carter and see if I can get him to comment. Until then let me point out to HA readers that njeither Dr. Carter nor I (nor Lee or the Stranger reporter) know the rules used to assign priorities for transplant.
3.Just because some Doc prescribes MJ does not mean that this is good medical practice. As long as something is harmless, as MJ probably is, a physician can prescribe ANYTHING. Your friendly local doc can prescribe massage, sex, herbal tees, or chocolate covered grasshoppers. Marijuana is NOT an approved drug. The designation of MMJ exists BECAUSE of the same dumb laws that pretend it is a gharmful drug.
4. Medical MJ is an impure plant, not very different in its supervison than healthfood peanut butter. Why do I mantion the latter? Well, like MJ, peanut butter is a good "soil" to grw a toxic fungus. If the shop grinds its own PB but is nto sufficiently careful, you may get aflatoxin .. a carcinogen .. along with that PB&J sandwich. I suspect that the fungus Apergillis, can grow on MJ even after it is is provided to a pt unless the stuff is carefully kept.
Given the costs of a transplant and the rarity of donor organs, would it be unreasonable of a transplant committee to prioritize those patients most willing to abode by strict guidance form their physicians?
Finally Lee, all of us are worried about the future of healthcare. As an inmate of the healthcare asylum I can tell you one of the biggest problems we face is overwhelmingly regulation resulting from activists groups.
--
Stephen M. Schwartz
Pathology
Monday, June 22, 2009
Marijuana Damages DNA And May Cause Cancer, New Test Reveals
Marijuana Damages DNA And May Cause Cancer, New Test Reveals: "There have been many studies on the toxicity of tobacco smoke. It is known that tobacco smoke contains 4000 chemicals of which 60 are classed as carcinogens. Cannabis in contrast has not been so well studied. It is less combustible than tobacco and is often mixed with tobacco in use. Cannabis smoke contains 400 compounds including 60 cannabinoids. However, because of its lower combustibility it contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke.”
The authors added: “It is well known that toxic substances in tobacco smoke can damage DNA and increase the risk of lung and other cancers. Scientists were unsure though whether cannabis smoke would have the same effect. Our research has focused on the toxicity of acetaldehyde, which is present in both tobacco and cannabis.”"
This is an important issue. While scientists agree that the psychoactive components of marijuana are harmless, SMOKING REEFERS is very likely to cause cancer. The idea of medical marijuana makes no more sense than it would to prescribe tobacco smoke for people in need of nicotine.
To be sure there is a recent study that failed to find the expected link to lung cancer. Unfortunately, the way epidemiology works a failed experiment never proves something is not true because there are always unknown potential variables. E.g. in the study here the numbers of people who did not smoke both tobacco and reefers was small. In contrast the evidence that the chemicals found in reefer smoke cause cancer is overwhelming.
My best advice is if you need MJ for nausea or some other medical use, get a script for the legal version of THC
The authors added: “It is well known that toxic substances in tobacco smoke can damage DNA and increase the risk of lung and other cancers. Scientists were unsure though whether cannabis smoke would have the same effect. Our research has focused on the toxicity of acetaldehyde, which is present in both tobacco and cannabis.”"
This is an important issue. While scientists agree that the psychoactive components of marijuana are harmless, SMOKING REEFERS is very likely to cause cancer. The idea of medical marijuana makes no more sense than it would to prescribe tobacco smoke for people in need of nicotine.
To be sure there is a recent study that failed to find the expected link to lung cancer. Unfortunately, the way epidemiology works a failed experiment never proves something is not true because there are always unknown potential variables. E.g. in the study here the numbers of people who did not smoke both tobacco and reefers was small. In contrast the evidence that the chemicals found in reefer smoke cause cancer is overwhelming.
My best advice is if you need MJ for nausea or some other medical use, get a script for the legal version of THC
Monday, December 07, 2009
-sweet mysteries of chocolate
MMMMM Good
Adam Drewnowski at the University of Michigan researched whether chocolate triggers the production of opioids. Opioids are chemicals, such as those found in opium, that produce a feeling of well-being (euphoria). Drewnowski found that eating chocolate causes the brain to produce natural opiates, which dulI pain and increase a feeling of well-being. If the receptors in the brain that signal the presence of opioids were blocked, chocolate bingeing decreased. It was not shown, however, if this was caused by the high fat or sugar content of chocolate candy.
Researchers at the Neurosciences Institute in San Diego, Emmanuelle diTomaso (she's now at Harvard University) and Daniele Piomelli (he's now at the University of California, Irvine) looked into the chemical components of chocolate. They found three substances in chocolate that 'could act as cannabinoid mimics either directly (by activating cannabinoid receptors) or indirectly (by increasing anandamide levels).' What do all these big words mean? A little background information may help make this more understandable.
A receptor is a structure on the surface of a cell that interacts with certain chemicals. Receptors have different shapes, and thus interact with specific molecules. diTomaso describes this interaction like this: 'the active compound will lock itself to the protein and that triggers a reaction inside the cell.' Cannabinoids are substances that act like cannabis, also known as marijuana. The active chemical in marijuana is called tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and there are receptors in the brain that bind THC. When THC binds to these receptors, the person feels 'high.' Anandamide is a lipid that is normally found in the brain; it can bind to the same receptors as THC and thus produce a similar effect to 'being high.'
Does chocolate affect the brain in the same way marijuana does? There are chemicals in chocolate that act like THC, resulting in production of dopamine, a neurotransmitter. However, there is no THC in chocolate, so you aren't breaking the law by eating chocolate. One of the compounds in chocolate is anandamide, which is already produced in your brain. If anandamide is already in your brain, then why don't you feel happy all the time? Well, anandamide is broken down quickly, so it isn't around long in your brain to make you smile. But chocolate may extend the feelings of well being. Piomelli's research indicates that there are two chemicals in chocolate which inhibit the natural breakdown of anandamide. This may be a reason why we like to eat chocolate! And dark chocolate contains more of these compounds than milk chocolate.
Eating a bar of chocolate will not make you feel giddy or 'high.' This may be because anandamide and the two compounds that enhance its effect are short-lived and localized in the brain. THC activates many receptors throughout the brain, so it has a much larger effect. Chocolate's effect is limited because anandamide is not present all over the brain. Scientists doubt if anandamide and other chemicals in chocolate have much effect because they are present only in small amounts. Christian Felder at the National Institute of Mental Health estimates that a 130-pound person would have to eat 25 pounds of chocolate at one time to get any marijuana-like effect. Also, because these compounds are eaten, it's difficult to determine how much enters the bloodstream and actually reaches the brain.
There may also be other explanations for the feelings caused by chocolate and these may have nothing to do with cannabinoids, anandamide, or receptors. There are many other components in chocolate that may play a role in its popularity. Eating chocolate may be pleasurable because of a unique interaction among a few of its components.
Chocolate also contains phenylethylamine, a chemical related to amphetamines. Like amphetamines, this chemical causes blood pressure and blood-sugar levels to rise, resulting in a feeling of alertness and contentment. Phenylethylamine has been called the 'love-drug' because it quickens your pulse, as if you are in love. Caffeine in chocolate may also cause feelings of alertness and a pounding heart. Other stimulants in chocolate include theobromine and methylxanthines. These caffeine-relatives are weaker than caffeine-you'd have to eat more than 12 Hershey bars to get as much caffeine as there is in one cup of coffee. All of these stimulants increase the activity of neurotransmitters in the brain.
Whatever the true reason for chocolate's popularity, scientists will continue to investigate the sweet mysteries of cacao. In the meantime, grab a bar for yourself and a box for your Valentine."
Here is the beginning of my post. And here is the rest of it.
Adam Drewnowski at the University of Michigan researched whether chocolate triggers the production of opioids. Opioids are chemicals, such as those found in opium, that produce a feeling of well-being (euphoria). Drewnowski found that eating chocolate causes the brain to produce natural opiates, which dulI pain and increase a feeling of well-being. If the receptors in the brain that signal the presence of opioids were blocked, chocolate bingeing decreased. It was not shown, however, if this was caused by the high fat or sugar content of chocolate candy.
Researchers at the Neurosciences Institute in San Diego, Emmanuelle diTomaso (she's now at Harvard University) and Daniele Piomelli (he's now at the University of California, Irvine) looked into the chemical components of chocolate. They found three substances in chocolate that 'could act as cannabinoid mimics either directly (by activating cannabinoid receptors) or indirectly (by increasing anandamide levels).' What do all these big words mean? A little background information may help make this more understandable.
A receptor is a structure on the surface of a cell that interacts with certain chemicals. Receptors have different shapes, and thus interact with specific molecules. diTomaso describes this interaction like this: 'the active compound will lock itself to the protein and that triggers a reaction inside the cell.' Cannabinoids are substances that act like cannabis, also known as marijuana. The active chemical in marijuana is called tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and there are receptors in the brain that bind THC. When THC binds to these receptors, the person feels 'high.' Anandamide is a lipid that is normally found in the brain; it can bind to the same receptors as THC and thus produce a similar effect to 'being high.'
Does chocolate affect the brain in the same way marijuana does? There are chemicals in chocolate that act like THC, resulting in production of dopamine, a neurotransmitter. However, there is no THC in chocolate, so you aren't breaking the law by eating chocolate. One of the compounds in chocolate is anandamide, which is already produced in your brain. If anandamide is already in your brain, then why don't you feel happy all the time? Well, anandamide is broken down quickly, so it isn't around long in your brain to make you smile. But chocolate may extend the feelings of well being. Piomelli's research indicates that there are two chemicals in chocolate which inhibit the natural breakdown of anandamide. This may be a reason why we like to eat chocolate! And dark chocolate contains more of these compounds than milk chocolate.
Eating a bar of chocolate will not make you feel giddy or 'high.' This may be because anandamide and the two compounds that enhance its effect are short-lived and localized in the brain. THC activates many receptors throughout the brain, so it has a much larger effect. Chocolate's effect is limited because anandamide is not present all over the brain. Scientists doubt if anandamide and other chemicals in chocolate have much effect because they are present only in small amounts. Christian Felder at the National Institute of Mental Health estimates that a 130-pound person would have to eat 25 pounds of chocolate at one time to get any marijuana-like effect. Also, because these compounds are eaten, it's difficult to determine how much enters the bloodstream and actually reaches the brain.
There may also be other explanations for the feelings caused by chocolate and these may have nothing to do with cannabinoids, anandamide, or receptors. There are many other components in chocolate that may play a role in its popularity. Eating chocolate may be pleasurable because of a unique interaction among a few of its components.
Chocolate also contains phenylethylamine, a chemical related to amphetamines. Like amphetamines, this chemical causes blood pressure and blood-sugar levels to rise, resulting in a feeling of alertness and contentment. Phenylethylamine has been called the 'love-drug' because it quickens your pulse, as if you are in love. Caffeine in chocolate may also cause feelings of alertness and a pounding heart. Other stimulants in chocolate include theobromine and methylxanthines. These caffeine-relatives are weaker than caffeine-you'd have to eat more than 12 Hershey bars to get as much caffeine as there is in one cup of coffee. All of these stimulants increase the activity of neurotransmitters in the brain.
Whatever the true reason for chocolate's popularity, scientists will continue to investigate the sweet mysteries of cacao. In the meantime, grab a bar for yourself and a box for your Valentine."
Here is the beginning of my post. And here is the rest of it.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
EFFin’ Unsound » Blog Archive » Another Round
EFFin’ Unsound » Blog Archive » Another Round: "Thehim Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 11:10 am
OK, let’s count the misrepresentations in this comment:
1. Lee, for some reason, keeps bringing the issue up ind oiscussions of other matters. (the current thread in email he refers to is a disagreement over whether doctos should prescribe reefers, ie smoked marijuana. Le favors this and I do not.)
No, the disagreement is not over whether doctors should prescribe reefers, it’s over whether or not there’s a medical need for marijuana. The difference is that one can ingest marijuana in a number of different ways other than reefers. This has been explained to you several times, yet you continue to lie.
2. While I honestly do not know why the Haq story is important to Lee
That’s clearly a lie. You know exactly why this is important to me. It’s because I think it’s wrong to accuse the Islamic Center of the Tri-Cities of teaching Haq to hate Jews without any proof whatsoever.
Lee,
You may want t look at the post I just placed at SJ ans HA clarifying the facts on marijuana. There is, to the best of my knowledge=, no evidence that marijuan is a better drug than THC and THC is legal. The only reason to use marijua as a dleivery vehicle is to provide it as an areodol anmd doing so in a a likley carcoinogenic smoke wis NOT a good idea.
Somehow I find it hard to imgine that the Islamic Center is goinf to get excited about a post that is now two years old but go ahead.
If I need a spell checker, you need a dose of logu=ic, viz.
"4. Returnoing to Mr. Haq, the real issue ought to be whether he is a symptom of a larger problem. Lee does not think so
That’s lie #4. I certainly believe that animosity towards Jews because of Israeli foreign policy is a large problem."
And the lie is????? Or are you saying you do not think Islam has a long history of antisemitism?
As for going after my job, shall we trade blows? Lets see, I am protected bny my rigrts of free speach and by academci freedom. Your use of pot is protected by? You use of slander is protecte by? Oh well, last time I saw two makes playing thast game one 3=ws a dalmatian and the other poodle. They pee-ed on a lot of trees and then on someone's
July 13th, 2008 at 11:10 am
OK, let’s count the misrepresentations in this comment:
1. Lee, for some reason, keeps bringing the issue up ind oiscussions of other matters. (the current thread in email he refers to is a disagreement over whether doctos should prescribe reefers, ie smoked marijuana. Le favors this and I do not.)
No, the disagreement is not over whether doctors should prescribe reefers, it’s over whether or not there’s a medical need for marijuana. The difference is that one can ingest marijuana in a number of different ways other than reefers. This has been explained to you several times, yet you continue to lie.
2. While I honestly do not know why the Haq story is important to Lee
That’s clearly a lie. You know exactly why this is important to me. It’s because I think it’s wrong to accuse the Islamic Center of the Tri-Cities of teaching Haq to hate Jews without any proof whatsoever.
Lee,
You may want t look at the post I just placed at SJ ans HA clarifying the facts on marijuana. There is, to the best of my knowledge=, no evidence that marijuan is a better drug than THC and THC is legal. The only reason to use marijua as a dleivery vehicle is to provide it as an areodol anmd doing so in a a likley carcoinogenic smoke wis NOT a good idea.
Somehow I find it hard to imgine that the Islamic Center is goinf to get excited about a post that is now two years old but go ahead.
If I need a spell checker, you need a dose of logu=ic, viz.
"4. Returnoing to Mr. Haq, the real issue ought to be whether he is a symptom of a larger problem. Lee does not think so
That’s lie #4. I certainly believe that animosity towards Jews because of Israeli foreign policy is a large problem."
And the lie is????? Or are you saying you do not think Islam has a long history of antisemitism?
As for going after my job, shall we trade blows? Lets see, I am protected bny my rigrts of free speach and by academci freedom. Your use of pot is protected by? You use of slander is protecte by? Oh well, last time I saw two makes playing thast game one 3=ws a dalmatian and the other poodle. They pee-ed on a lot of trees and then on someone's
Monday, February 09, 2009
MJ in Seattle .. Cancer of Testicles?
Marijuana use may increase the risk of developing testicular cancer, in particular a more aggressive form of the disease, according to a U.S. study published on Monday.
............
The risk appeared to be highest among men who had reported smoking marijuana for at least 10 years, used it more than once a week or started using it before age 18, the researchers wrote in the journal Cancer.
Stephen Schwartz* of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, one of the researchers, said the study was the first to explore marijuana's possible association with testicular cancer.
*Lee .. this is not SJ.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
A Pot in Every Cookie
The marijuana issue is one of the most irritating stupidities in this nation. Let me help confuse matters:
1. Periodically i review the literature almost in the hope that someone will fu8nd something as "bad" about pot as ... well say, coffee. No way Jose. The worst I can find is this:
a. some possible loss of reflexes after years and tears of use with no evidence that this loss has any functional significance. Certainly less than the effects of getting older.
b. a reasonabkle suspicion that joints geenrates oem cola tars, like any other smoled vegetable matter, and therefore might contribute to cancer (no evidence just might).
c. when raised over one's head, a heavy bail of MJ, can .. whehn suddenly released, be lethal. (true story).
So, my best guess, as a scientist whose expertise makes it possible to read this literature, is that MJ is great in brownies. BTW fine chocolate also has THC so next time valentines day, ..
2. Given our many other arbitrary laws ... against prostitution, polyandry and polygamy, use of FUCKPISSSHIT but not HATEGUNSKILL on TV, public nudity, spanking kids, breast feeding, display of lingerie, trespassing on waterfront properties, consumption of horse meat, suicide, tits on the tube, foot tapping in public restrooms, hate speech,
and given our laws that PERMIT
Tobacco, Nyquil, Nodoze, motorcycles, guns, religious obsession, symbolic eating of divine flesh (funny this is OK but "devil worship" is not), mountian climbing, professional boxing and football, FAUX TV, sitcoms, Reilly, pro wrestling, Limbaugh, loud music, excess perfume .....
I guess a law against marijuana is pretty consistent with the rest of it.
.
PSSSSST ...please keep the THC content of chocolate a SECRET. My wife wold kill me if anything I did led to her vitamin C becoming illegal!
"Christian Felder at the National Institute of Mental Health estimates that a 130-pound person would have to eat 25 pounds of chocolate at one time to get any marijuana-like effect. "
Friday, July 17, 2009
Judge to pot farmer: 'What did you tell your kids?'
Judge to pot farmer: 'What did you tell your kids?': "Judge to pot farmer: 'What did you tell your kids?'
Attorney questions usefulness of 7-year prison term
By LEVI PULKKINEN
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF
The accused leader, Jerry R. Berkey, 36, had pleaded guilty in April to running a series of marijuana grows in Snohomish County. The grows made him a good living, according to prosecutors, affording him a home and a recreational vehicle.
Describing their product as the 'pollution (they) spread in the community,' (Judge) Pechman hectored Berkey for drawing others into his business.......
(She sentenced him to seven years in fed prison) Had he been prosecuted under state law having pleaded guilty to the same crime -- conspiracy to manufacture marijuana -- he would likely face no more than six months in jail, Ressler told the court. The likely maximum sentence would have been five years.
(His attorney} disputed how a lengthy sentence would promote respect for the law.
'Persons involved in growing marijuana in the United States receive sentences that run the gamut,' Ressler said in court documents. 'Whether any of these sentences promote respect for the law is unknown. Counsel assumes that it would be difficult to establish any statistical relationship between the sentence imposed and respect that persons might feel for the law.'
Attorney questions usefulness of 7-year prison term
By LEVI PULKKINEN
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF
The accused leader, Jerry R. Berkey, 36, had pleaded guilty in April to running a series of marijuana grows in Snohomish County. The grows made him a good living, according to prosecutors, affording him a home and a recreational vehicle.
Describing their product as the 'pollution (they) spread in the community,' (Judge) Pechman hectored Berkey for drawing others into his business.......
(She sentenced him to seven years in fed prison) Had he been prosecuted under state law having pleaded guilty to the same crime -- conspiracy to manufacture marijuana -- he would likely face no more than six months in jail, Ressler told the court. The likely maximum sentence would have been five years.
(His attorney} disputed how a lengthy sentence would promote respect for the law.
'Persons involved in growing marijuana in the United States receive sentences that run the gamut,' Ressler said in court documents. 'Whether any of these sentences promote respect for the law is unknown. Counsel assumes that it would be difficult to establish any statistical relationship between the sentence imposed and respect that persons might feel for the law.'
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Marijuana Cornucopia
Wired Science - Wired Blogs: "Some Proof that Marijuana is a Powerful Medicine
By Aaron Rowe EmailJune 29, 2008 | 4:31:40 PMCategories: Chem Lab, Chemicals, Chemistry, Drugs & Alcohol, Food and Drink, Medicinal Chemistry, Natural Product Chemistry, Neuroscience
Bud
Marijuana contains an amazing chemical, beta-caryophyllene, and scientists have thoroughly proven that it could be used to treat pain, inflammation, atherosclerosis, and osteoporosis.
Jürg Gertsch, of ETH Zürich, and his collaborators from three other universities learned that the natural molecule can activate a protein called cannabinoid receptor type 2. When that biological button is pushed, it soothes the immune system, increases bone mass, and blocks pain signals -- without causing euphoria or interfering with the central nervous system.
Gertsch and his team published their findings on June 23 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.They focused on the anti-inflammatory properties of the impressive substance -- testing it on immune cells called monocytes and also in mice.
Since beta-caryophyllene seems to be powerful, occurs naturally in many foods, and does not get people high, it could turn out to be a nearly ideal medication. The organic compound is also phenomenally cheap. Sigma Aldrich sells it, in kosher form, for forty-two dollars per kilogram.
Unfortunately, big pharmaceutical compan"
Here is the beginning of my post. And here is the rest of it.
By Aaron Rowe EmailJune 29, 2008 | 4:31:40 PMCategories: Chem Lab, Chemicals, Chemistry, Drugs & Alcohol, Food and Drink, Medicinal Chemistry, Natural Product Chemistry, Neuroscience
Bud
Marijuana contains an amazing chemical, beta-caryophyllene, and scientists have thoroughly proven that it could be used to treat pain, inflammation, atherosclerosis, and osteoporosis.
Jürg Gertsch, of ETH Zürich, and his collaborators from three other universities learned that the natural molecule can activate a protein called cannabinoid receptor type 2. When that biological button is pushed, it soothes the immune system, increases bone mass, and blocks pain signals -- without causing euphoria or interfering with the central nervous system.
Gertsch and his team published their findings on June 23 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.They focused on the anti-inflammatory properties of the impressive substance -- testing it on immune cells called monocytes and also in mice.
Since beta-caryophyllene seems to be powerful, occurs naturally in many foods, and does not get people high, it could turn out to be a nearly ideal medication. The organic compound is also phenomenally cheap. Sigma Aldrich sells it, in kosher form, for forty-two dollars per kilogram.
Unfortunately, big pharmaceutical compan"
Here is the beginning of my post. And here is the rest of it.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Great Ideas From Small Pots Can Grow
Popular Science: "A Synthetic Solution for a Legal 4:20
Synthetic marijuana brand Spice may still technically be legal in the United States, but it’s quickly getting banned around the world
By Joel Barnard Posted 04.20.2009 at 3:21 pm 0 Comments
Legal-ish alternatives to marijuana exist, you just need to know where to look…er, smell. Apparently that’s what someone learned when they put the herbal incense brand “Spice” in their pipe and smoked it. The results were, like, totally rad, dude. It turns out Spice contains the synthetic substance JWH-018, which is incredibly similar to the main active component of marijuana. Although sold legally in many countries, governments around the world are lining up to put the kibosh on the Spice party."
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Who is me? Liberal?
Today, it seems to me that far more valid than liberalism or conservatism is "rationalism." The Republicans and the conservatives have abandoned rationality as well as the great American traditions of tolerance.
Liberals have their failings too.
From my POV here are a few mutual examples of irrationality: (I chose13 since both groups are superstitious)
On the LEFT
1. third term abortion by choice.
2. anti Catholic bigotry.
3. commitment to newspeak in re marriage.
4. belief in pacifism and isolationism
5. faith in the non genetic basis of intellect.
6. the all children can learn philosophy of dumbing down schools
7. health foods
8. marijuana is a medicine
9. the Prius is a green car
10. We can stop using oil w/o changing our living standards.
11. Cubans get better health care than Americans
12. we should tolerate Islamic intolerance
13. Israel is an oppressor of Arabs
Does my non belief in these things make me a non liberal?
Of course this list pales when compared to
On the Right
1. creationism
2, newspeak use of 'socialism'
3. beleif that same sex folks must be kliving in sin
4. marijuana is a drug.
5. global warming denial
6. atheism is BAD
7. we have a free enterprise system.
8. Glonn Beck is sane, GW Bush is intelligent
9. Marx was evil.
10. God will always make more oil
11. Cubans live worse than Mexicans
12 Mohamed was evil.
13 The US needs to outspend the whole world to defend our interests.
Trouble is I find it difficult to figger out whether my own heroes would be libs or cons .. remember wmy motto is 'WWJ*D'
what would Jefferson do."
Friday, February 27, 2009
U.S. to yield marijuana jurisdiction to states
U.S. to yield marijuana jurisdiction to states: "Asked at a Washington news conference Wednesday about Drug Enforcement Administration raids in California since Obama took office last month, Holder said the administration has changed its policy.
'What the president said during the campaign, you'll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing here in law enforcement,' he said. 'What he said during the campaign is now American policy.'"
'What the president said during the campaign, you'll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing here in law enforcement,' he said. 'What he said during the campaign is now American policy.'"
Sunday, September 21, 2008
HorsesAss.Org » BlMedical Fuck Initiative
HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » When a Judge Becomes a Doctor: "I suspect it is unlikely that the judge made her decision without referring to someone with expertise.
I wonder if there may not be a different tack for the MJ evangelists? I would make an analogy between FUCK and marijuana.
When I was growing up we used FUCK as a normal part of language. “Fuck you” was even a pleasantry .. about like the contemporary use of “Nigger” as an affectionate term in the black community. As I have gotten older, the censorship of this useful explication has become very annoying to me.
Like marijuana bans or America’s censorship of porn, fuck bans are very much a cultural phenomenon. When I was first in Sweden I was struck by the huge and open distribution of rather tasteless porn. In Sweden, a country that has a public standard of morality far higher than our own, porn is as accepted as candy bars are here.
I asked a friend his thoughts on this and he told me that despite the general atheism of Swedes, they consider sex normal BUT abhor blasphemy! I asked about swear word using sex or feces and he told me Swedish lacks such terms. Goran then taught me the functional equivalent of FUCK. The Swede faced with a similar verbal need uses, FANN. The Swedish “fann”, however, means devil!
I later discovered that this"
Here is the beginning of my post. And here is the rest of it.
I wonder if there may not be a different tack for the MJ evangelists? I would make an analogy between FUCK and marijuana.
When I was growing up we used FUCK as a normal part of language. “Fuck you” was even a pleasantry .. about like the contemporary use of “Nigger” as an affectionate term in the black community. As I have gotten older, the censorship of this useful explication has become very annoying to me.
Like marijuana bans or America’s censorship of porn, fuck bans are very much a cultural phenomenon. When I was first in Sweden I was struck by the huge and open distribution of rather tasteless porn. In Sweden, a country that has a public standard of morality far higher than our own, porn is as accepted as candy bars are here.
I asked a friend his thoughts on this and he told me that despite the general atheism of Swedes, they consider sex normal BUT abhor blasphemy! I asked about swear word using sex or feces and he told me Swedish lacks such terms. Goran then taught me the functional equivalent of FUCK. The Swede faced with a similar verbal need uses, FANN. The Swedish “fann”, however, means devil!
I later discovered that this"
Here is the beginning of my post. And here is the rest of it.
Monday, November 16, 2009
span.fullpost {display:none;}
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sunil Aggarwal, a UW MD PhD student is arguing that inhaled marjuana is aafe.
First, let me state again that no responsible scientist is going to advocate inhaling mj smoke given the simple fact that mj smoke has a very high content of known carcinogens.
Tashkin’s study is a good study. So how does one account for Tashkin’s study? Could there be some surprise in inhaled MJ, something wonderful that prevents cancer? The answer is yes, but …
The but is part of the basic tools of modern science. Tashkin’s study does not prove that mj is safe and certainly did not “prove” that it prevents cancer. No association analysis can prove a specific hypothesis.
I would hope, given Sunil’s PhD in the social sciences that he would have taken a course in causal analysis? For those who might care, the difference between causal analysis and association is HUGE.
For example, studies have shown that children of parents with hi IQ do better on exams. This association s valid but not causal because IQ scores are confounded by other variables, eg inherited wealth. When there is a surprising association, good scientists never decide on causality, they design hypothesis testing experiments to determine if the surprise is correct.
Justifying such studies is difficult because they are very expensive. A friend of mine owns and runs a drug company that exploits traditional Chinese medicine t find new drugs. Perhaps Sunil would like to try t convince that company to spend money on marijuana?
Sunil would have trouble convincing my friend t spend this money because there is so much evidence that inhaled mj SHOULD cause cancer. Sunil, however, is devoted to the naturopathic idea that complex extracts from plants, have better therapeutic outcomes than the effects of pure ingredients. This would be similar to Lilly saying it is no longer going to sell “pure” insulin because there is some other useful ingredient in pig pancreatic extract. As a diabetic patient, I am very glad that genetic engineering now allows Lilly to synthesize pure insulin.
For now let me point out that nothing in Tashkin’s study suggests that such a wonderful effect is due to the properties of marijuana. Suggesting that folks be encouraged to inhale benzpyrene, one of the carcinogens in mj smoke, is irresponsible and forcing children to do so at Hempfest may be a criminal act.
Cross Posted at SJ