In article <p58171tu69kp09239aq71a8ekkj5rns53q@4ax.com> phil@stovell.org.uk writes:
>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:46 +0100 (BST) in uk.politics.drugs, Claude@aol.com
>(Claude) wrote:
 
[vbcol=seagreen]
>We ran through that one a six weeks ago. It'll still be on Google. About th
e
>only difference in the analysis of the combustion products of tobacco and
>cannabis is that, surprisingly, cannabis contains cannabinoids which tobacc
o
>doesn't and tobacco contains nicotinoids(sp?) which cannabis doesn't. Unles
s
>you'd like to point to research proving that cannabinoids are more carcinog
enic
>than nicotinoids than please stop saying "cannabis has all the carcinogenic
>harms of tobacco and then some!" because it is NOT true.

Note also that no study has found a higher incidence of ANY cancer among
marijuana-only smokers than among non-smokers.  However, certain cancers
seem to occur more among those who smoke both tobacco and marijuana (but
the total cancer rate of those who smoke both seems to be lower than the
total cancer rate of those who smoke only tobacco).

As a matter of fact, some studies seem to indicate that marijuana-only
smokers have a slightly lower cancer rate than non-smokers.

-Pete Zakel
(phz@seeheader.nospam)

"A sine curve goes off to infinity or at least the end of the blackboard."

-Prof. Steiner

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

tj wrote:
> Edmund Lewis wrote: 
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc..r />
59998%235
91211!&_cdi=5152&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3fde474c4fb
ace9c2d0cbe316f986d9a>[vbcol=seagreen] 
Joseph[vbcol=seagreen] 
Campus[vbcol=seagreen] 
phrase[vbcol=seagreen] 
with[vbcol=seagreen] 
that[vbcol=seagreen] 
>
>
>
> Not believing that mental illness exists is like believing that women

> never menstruate .
>
> --
> To email me add [newsgroups]to subject line

Right, let's elaborate:

Menstruation is a physical process that has a clear evolutionary
background, ie the use and production of eggs in order to breed. Nature
has provided Homo Sapiens Sapiens with the ability to manipulate
menstruation in order to prevent overpopulation.


The concept of "Mental Illness" has no evolutionary background, but has
been invented by people who think Nature intended everyone to be the
same. Which is not the case, otherwise there would be no genetic
diversity, and hence no resistance to infection. Nature has provided
Homo Sapiens Sapiens with diversity beyond anyone's wildest dreams, yet
still a few maverick humans cling to the belief that acting differently
to them, if only by means of a few words, makes someone "ill" and a
"criminal".

Edmund

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dja171to7qc28bjr49tnn6ifcg61dcgt9g@4ax.com..
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:55:28 +0000 (UTC) in alt.drugs.pot, Shroomer
> <Shroomer@SPAMNOTJointIntelligenceCommittee.com> wrote:
> 
>
> It's rule #43 in the prohibitionists handbook - if you repeat a lie often
> enough it'll become true, the classic argumentum ad nauseum fallacy.

Phallus-ey, even.


Shaun aRe

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

http://www.gwpharm.com/research_pipeline.asp

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Phil Stovell wrote:
> "The findings do not support a causal link between cannabis use and
schizotypal
> traits".
>
> Looks like we're back to square one on cannabis's relationship with
mental
> health. Has anyone seen this in the press? A subscriber to a mental
health
> mailing list I'm on found this - it wasn't on DailyDose or Google
news alerts.
>
>
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc..r />
59998%235
91211!&_cdi=5152&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3fde474c4fb
ace9c2d0cbe316f986d9a>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cqhsd
>
> Symptoms of schizotypy precede cannabis use
>
> Jason Schiffmana, , , Brad Nakamuraa, Mitchell Earleywineb and Joseph
LaBriec
>
> aDepartment of Psychology, university of Hawaii at Manoa, 2430 Campus
Road, 110
> Gartley Hall, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
> bDepartment of Psychology, university of Southern California, SGM
501, Los
> Angeles, CA 90089-1061, USA
> cDepartment of Psychology, Loyola Marymount University, One LMU
Drive, Los
> Angeles, CA 90045, USA
>
> Received 11 March 2004;  revised 25 October 2004;  accepted 25
January 2005.
> Available online 10 March 2005.
>
> Abstract
>
> The current investigation uses a large non-clinical sample of
undergraduate
> college students (N=189) to investigate schizotypal traits among
cannabis and
> non-cannabis users, as well as the temporal order of the onset of
these traits
> and cannabis use. Findings suggest that regular cannabis users are
> significantly more prone to cognitive and perceptual distortions

as well as
> disorganization, but not interpersonal deficits, than non-regular
users and
> those who have never used. Additionally, the onset of schizotypal
symptoms
> generally precedes the onset of cannabis use. The findings do not
support a
> causal link between cannabis use and schizotypal traits.
>
> Keywords: Schizotypal traits; Marijuana; Causality
> --
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, United Kingdom
>
> I do not reply to usenet posts containing ad hominems.
> Except in uk.politics.misc, of course, which is nothing but.


The key argument here is not whether cannabis should be banned

It is:

What the heck are "schizotypal traits"? Sounds like yet another phrase
invented by mediaeval leeches in order to find something "wrong" with
people.
Believing in "psychatry" and "mental illness" is like believing that
people are hunting Yetis on Pluto as I speak.

Edmund

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:46 +0100 (BST) in uk.politics.drugs, Claude@aol.com
(Claude) wrote:

>well done! But there is no evidence at all for this silly statement
>(extract) is there! cannabis has all the carcinogenic harms of tobacco and
>then some!

We ran through that one a six weeks ago. It'll still be on Google. About the
only difference in the analysis of the combustion products of tobacco and
cannabis is that, surprisingly, cannabis contains cannabinoids which tobacco
doesn't and tobacco contains nicotinoids(sp?) which cannabis doesn't. Unless
you'd like to point to research proving that cannabinoids are more carcinoge
nic
than nicotinoids than please stop saying "cannabis has all the carcinogenic
harms of tobacco and then some!" because it is NOT true. It has about the sa
me
and there are caveats on quantities smoked, but I won't repeat those here.

Here is the table I posted on 09/03/2005 in reply to you gibberish one:

A.Cigarettes
Units 		Marijuana 	Tobacco
(85mm) 		(85mm)
Average Weight  	(mg) 		1115 		1110
Moisture  		(%) 		10.3 		11.1
Pressure Drop  		cm 		14.7 		7.2
Static Burning rate  	mg/s 		0.88 		0.80
Puff Number  				10.7 		11.1


B.Mainstream Smoke
I. Gas Phase 		Units 		Marijuana 	Tobacco
Carbon Monoxide  	% 		3.99 		4.58
mg 		17.6 		20.2
Carbon Dioxide  	% 		8.27 		9.38
mg 		57.3 		65.0
Ammonia  		mcg 		228 		199
HCN  			mcg 		532 		498
Cyanogen (CN)2 		mcg 		19 		20
Isoprene  		mcg 		83 		310
Acetaldehyde  		mcg 		1200		980
Acetone  		mcg 		443 		578
Acrolein  		mcg 		92 		85
Acetonitrilebenzene  	mcg 		132 		123
Benzene  		mcg 		76 		67
Toluene  		mcg 		112 		108
Vinyl chloride  	ng 		5.4 		12.4
Dimethylnitrosamine  	ng 		75 		84
Methylethylnitrosamine 	ng 		27 		30
pH, third puff  			6.56 		6.14
fifth puff  				6.57 		6.15
seventh puff  				6.58 		6.14
ninth puff  				6.56 		6.10
tenth puff  				6.58 		6.02


II. Particulate phase 	Units 		Marijuana 	Tobacco
Tl particulate - dry  	mg 		22.7  		39.0
Phenol  		mcg 		76.8  		138.5
o-Cresol  		mcg 		17.9  		24
m- and p-Cresol  	mcg 		54.4  		65
Dimethylphenol  	mcg  		6.8  		14.4
Catechol  		mcg  		188  		328
Cannbidiol  		mcg  		190 		-
D9 THC  		mcg  		820 		-
Cannabinol  		mcg  		400 		-
Nicotine  		mcg   		-		2850
N-Nitrosonornicotine  	ng  		-		390
Naphthalene  		mcg  		3.0  		1.2
1-Methylnaphthalene  	mcg  		6.1  		3.65
2-Methylnaphthalese  	mcg  		3.6  		1.4
Benz(a)anthracene  	ng 		75  		43
Benzo(a)pyrene  	ng  		31  		21.1

--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, United Kingdom

I do not reply to usenet posts containing ad hominems.
Except in uk.politics.misc, of course, which is nothing but.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Phil Stovell <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote:

>We ran through that one a six weeks ago. It'll still be on Google.

Ah but, dude, belief is far more important than all that messy,
inconvenient data..

Shroomer

www.BogusFocus.com - online electronica, trance, relaxation and chilled, eup
horic vibes.
** Site now includes merchandise and electronic publication of quality liter
ature for the open-minded (OK, it's a bit subversive, sorry). **

STOP PRESS - new Binar CD "Project Poltergeist" available now, like today, w
eeee.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:55:28 +0000 (UTC) in alt.drugs.pot, Shroomer
<Shroomer@SPAMNOTJointIntelligenceCommittee.com> wrote:

>Phil Stovell <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote:
> 
>
>Ah but, dude, belief is far more important than all that messy,
>inconvenient data..
>
>Shroomer

It's rule #43 in the prohibitionists handbook - if you repeat a lie often
enough it'll become true, the classic argumentum ad nauseum fallacy.
--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, United Kingdom

I do not reply to usenet posts containing ad hominems.
Except in uk.politics.misc, of course, which is nothing but.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:10 +0100 (BST) in uk.politics.drugs, Claude@aol.com
(Claude) wrote:

<nothing>

I agree 100% with you there, David!

:-)
--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, United Kingdom

I do not reply to usenet posts containing ad hominems.
Except in uk.politics.misc, of course, which is nothing but.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

In article <p58171tu69kp09239aq71a8ekkj5rns53q@4ax.com> phil@stovell.org.uk writes:
>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:46 +0100 (BST) in uk.politics.drugs, Claude@aol.com
>(Claude) wrote:
 
[vbcol=seagreen]
>We ran through that one a six weeks ago. It'll still be on Google. About th
e
>only difference in the analysis of the combustion products of tobacco and
>cannabis is that, surprisingly, cannabis contains cannabinoids which tobacc
o
>doesn't and tobacco contains nicotinoids(sp?) which cannabis doesn't. Unles
s
>you'd like to point to research proving that cannabinoids are more carcinog
enic
>than nicotinoids than please stop saying "cannabis has all the carcinogenic
>harms of tobacco and then some!" because it is NOT true.

Note also that no study has found a higher incidence of ANY cancer among
marijuana-only smokers than among non-smokers.  However, certain cancers
seem to occur more among those who smoke both tobacco and marijuana (but
the total cancer rate of those who smoke both seems to be lower than the
total cancer rate of those who smoke only tobacco).

As a matter of fact, some studies seem to indicate that marijuana-only
smokers have a slightly lower cancer rate than non-smokers.

-Pete Zakel
(phz@seeheader.nospam)

"A sine curve goes off to infinity or at least the end of the blackboard."

-Prof. Steiner

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]