The problem is that there isn't any congruence between smoking weed and testicular cancer. Until there is a peer-reviewed study linking marijuana and testicular cancer, this is pure coencidence. ChogaWrong again, congruence is merely a time-order. The fact that X proceeds Y. Those that have gone through X present more likelyhood to develop Y. Thus, an increased risk. This is basic statistisc for crying out loud. FACT: Marijuana increases chances of testicular cancer. Just because you don't like the findings doesn't mean you can ignore them. And there HAVE been peer reviewed sources like an article from Bandolier Medical Journal, Edition 8 Issue 2; 'Smoking marijuana led to an increase of tar delivery, mroe cellular changes in sputum, damage to alveolar microphages, and increased abnormalities and bronchial biopsies, with increased surrogates for cancer'.
cigs worse then weed
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Choga"]The problem is that there isn't any congruence between smoking weed and testicular cancer. Until there is a peer-reviewed study linking marijuana and testicular cancer, this is pure coencidence. VandalvideoWrong again, congruence is merely a time-order. The fact that X proceeds Y. Those that have gone through X present more likelyhood to develop Y. Thus, an increased risk. This is basic statistisc for crying out loud. FACT: Marijuana increases chances of testicular cancer. Just because you don't like the findings doesn't mean you can ignore them. And there HAVE been peer reviewed sources like an article from Bandolier Medical Journal, Edition 8 Issue 2; 'Smoking marijuana led to an increase of tar delivery, mroe cellular changes in sputum, damage to alveolar microphages, and increased abnormalities and bronchial biopsies, with increased surrogates for cancer'.
fact: the more i read about toking can cause testicular cancer the more my left nut hurts... :(
yeah im not trying to start any arguments here and you could be completely right or maybe i would be right but what i always thought is that if it was legal it would be atleast somewhat cheaper then as it is now@spliffstar12
I'm not trying to be d***. i just think that if the government is the one in control of the pricing that i don't believe the prices would decrease by much if at all because of the taxing. sure different grades would be different prices, but it wouldn't be much lower because of a supply/demand. there is plenty of supply now, and demand is always there. all we can do is hope that one day it is legalized, and then we will see what the prices are. you may be right in the long run or i may be right. we may never know.
zmbi_gmr
[QUOTE="zmbi_gmr"]yeah im not trying to start any arguments here and you could be completely right or maybe i would be right but what i always thought is that if it was legal it would be atleast somewhat cheaper then as it is now@spliffstar12
I'm not trying to be d***. i just think that if the government is the one in control of the pricing that i don't believe the prices would decrease by much if at all because of the taxing. sure different grades would be different prices, but it wouldn't be much lower because of a supply/demand. there is plenty of supply now, and demand is always there. all we can do is hope that one day it is legalized, and then we will see what the prices are. you may be right in the long run or i may be right. we may never know.
spliffstar12
although i don't use any more it would be nice to see it come down in price. since my teen age years i've seen the price literally double, and what i've noticed is more ppl use harmful cheap ways to catch a buzz. imo that's just not cool.
[QUOTE="Choga"]The problem is that there isn't any congruence between smoking weed and testicular cancer. Until there is a peer-reviewed study linking marijuana and testicular cancer, this is pure coencidence. VandalvideoWrong again, congruence is merely a time-order. The fact that X proceeds Y. Those that have gone through X present more likelyhood to develop Y. Thus, an increased risk. This is basic statistisc for crying out loud. FACT: Marijuana increases chances of testicular cancer. Just because you don't like the findings doesn't mean you can ignore them. And there HAVE been peer reviewed sources like an article from Bandolier Medical Journal, Edition 8 Issue 2; 'Smoking marijuana led to an increase of tar delivery, mroe cellular changes in sputum, damage to alveolar microphages, and increased abnormalities and bronchial biopsies, with increased surrogates for cancer'.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc? You're argument is just a logical fallacy. Just because X preceeds Y does not mean X CAUSED Y.
EDIT: And the peer-reviewed study you quoted does not link marijuana to cancer, rather the SMOKING of marijuana to cancer. If you use a vaporizer there is no smoking involved.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc? You're argument is just a logical fallacy. Just because X preceeds Y does not mean X CAUSED Y. ChogaOnce again, this is all based on statistical frameworks. To say that there is an increased risk is merely to say that those who exhibit X are proportionally more likely to produce Y. Thus, taking part in or showing symptoms of X will thus, in turn, increase risk. These are all statistical terms. Go read a statistics book or something. EDIT; And the name of the freaking paper I linked is "DOES MARIJUANA CAUSE CANCER?" What the crap you think it was referring to, payote?
[QUOTE="Choga"]Post hoc ergo propter hoc? You're argument is just a logical fallacy. Just because X preceeds Y does not mean X CAUSED Y. VandalvideoOnce again, this is all based on statistical frameworks. To say that there is an increased risk is merely to say that those who exhibit X are proportionally more likely to produce Y. Thus, taking part in or showing symptoms of X will thus, in turn, increase risk. These are all statistical terms. Go read a statistics book or something. EDIT; And the name of the freaking paper I linked is "DOES MARIJUANA CAUSE CANCER?" What the crap you think it was referring to, payote?
Again, there is nothing to suggest that marijuana is the major factor in the contraction of testicular cancer. It's just a coincidence that these men smoked weed and had cancer until it is shown to be a reoccuring theme. You cannot draw these kinds of conclusions and generalizations from just one study.
And I don't think you understood my edit. They linked the SMOKING of marijuana to an increased risk of pulmonary cancer, but there are other ways to get high. You can vaporize the marijuana which is 100% safe since there is no combustion of the plant involved.
Again, there is nothing to suggest that marijuana is the major factor in the contraction of testicular cancer. It's just a coincidence that these men smoked weed and had cancer until it is shown to be a reoccuring theme. You cannot draw these kinds of conclusions and generalizations from just one study.And I don't think you understood my edit. They linked the SMOKING of marijuana to an increased risk of pulmonary cancer, but there are other ways to get high. You can vaporize the marijuana which is 100% safe since there is no combustion of the plant involved. ChogaOnce again, the mere fact that people who smoke marijuana are proportionally more apt to develop testicular cancer was shown in such a research. I didn't think I would have to, but Let me explain how risk assessment works. It is a STRICTLY statistical approach which takes into analysis the ratio between the preponderance of a certain variable with a suceeding outcome. The more the variable presents itself, the more likely the outcome will occur. When this relationship is established, by statistics, it is enough to say there is an increased RISK. That is how statistics work. Risk is a measurement based on statistics, provided by the study given, which clearly show that there is an increased risk of developing testicular cancer if you smoke marijuana.
[QUOTE="Choga"]Again, there is nothing to suggest that marijuana is the major factor in the contraction of testicular cancer. It's just a coincidence that these men smoked weed and had cancer until it is shown to be a reoccuring theme. You cannot draw these kinds of conclusions and generalizations from just one study.And I don't think you understood my edit. They linked the SMOKING of marijuana to an increased risk of pulmonary cancer, but there are other ways to get high. You can vaporize the marijuana which is 100% safe since there is no combustion of the plant involved. Vandalvideo
Once again, the mere fact that people who smoke marijuana are proportionally more apt to develop testicular cancer was shown in such a research. I didn't think I would have to, but Let me explain how risk assessment works. It is a STRICTLY statistical approach which takes into analysis the ratio between the preponderance of a certain variable with a suceeding outcome. The more the variable presents itself, the more likely the outcome will occur. When this relationship is established, by statistics, it is enough to say there is an increased RISK. That is how statistics work. Risk is a measurement based on statistics, provided by the study given, which clearly show that there is an increased risk of developing testicular cancer if you smoke marijuana.
These statistics are deceiving. Just because more people who have cancer smoke marijuana compared to those who don't have cancer does not equal causation. For the fifth time, it's pure coincidence.
This is going nowhere, so I'll give you the last word.
These statistics are deceiving. Just because more people who have cancer smoke marijuana compared to those who don't have cancer does not equal causation. For the fifth time, it's pure coincidence.This is going nowhere, so I'll give you the last word. ChogaYou're wrong, again. I'll explain this for the upteenth time; Risk is a purely STATISTICAL measurement based on the mere fact that marijuana smokers represented a larger portion of the sample of people with testicular cancer. As such, since variable X was more prevalent, it increases risk as a management factor. This is how risk assessment works. If you don't like it , tough cookies, but this is it.
from my own personal experience you can be very willing to let go and still be caught in a bad trip. it's not neccesarily that the trip was bad, but while entering your awareness you may need to have a good cleaning done on your personal being, and that may be thought as a bad trip. your very right though. if a person can't let go then marijuana, acid or shrooms probably should not be used. nothing worse than someone fighting the effects.zmbi_gmr
from my own personal experience you can be very willing to let go and still be caught in a bad trip. it's not neccesarily that the trip was bad, but while entering your awareness you may need to have a good cleaning done on your personal being, and that may be thought as a bad trip. your very right though. if a person can't let go then marijuana, acid or shrooms probably should not be used. nothing worse than someone fighting the effects.zmbi_gmrAnd if you enter that scenario, you have to be willing to let it hurt. It will hurt less if you go through with it. An emotional cleansing is good for you in the end anyway, even if it hurts in the beginning.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment