What medicinal cannabis can do for you

[Latrinsorm]

Because I am talking about Marijuana and schizophrenia, not cancer. Cancer is a nebulous term for a disease caused by an uncontrolled division of abnormal cells in a part of the body. Anyone is capable of getting cancer if exposed to enough carcinogens. Are you honestly trying to say that schizophrenia is as prevalent and inducible as cancer? If you believe in the data as you do, you wouldn't try to stretch it beyond the bounds of its meaning just to not be wrong on a message board.

The comparison is not schizophrenia:cancer, but marijuana:schizophrenia::cigarettes:cancer. Thus, the analogy is "Anyone is capable of getting schizophrenia if exposed to enough schizogens." There is no one at 0% risk for cancer/schizophrenia, therefore there is no one for whom the use of cigarettes/marijuana presents no increased risk of cancer/schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia is certainly more prevalent than lung cancer. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by inducible: certainly marijuana's schizogenic effect is less potent than tobacco's carcinogenic effect, if that's what you're asking. I'm afraid that is missing the point entirely, though, which is to subject your acceptance of the latter to your arguments against the former. Do you honestly not see the one-to-one correspondence between your objections and those of Dr. Little?

Yawn. 33% of them do. Next tortured analogy.

This is what drives me crazy about you and Thondalar. You find sources and then absolutely refuse to take them seriously. Your source said that cohort studies in and of themselves provided unequivocal proof. Your source. I give you what you declared to be unequivocal, and you equivocate. This in turn is unequivocal evidence that you're rationalizing. No matter what you ask for in terms of proof, when provided it you'll just ask for something else.

Compare with me! I asked for two things: a longitudinal study of 1k+ sample size that showed no link between marijuana use and schizophrenia, and a pharmaceutical with 50%+ increase risk of schizophrenia. I've asked for these for months, and no one's managed to provide them(, and even more evidence has appeared to support my side). Why should I change my mind, because you people still can't come to grips with your biases? That wouldn't be very scientific.

[Androidpk]

Shut up, latrin.

[Fallen]

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by inducible: certainly marijuana's schizogenic effect is less potent than tobacco's carcinogenic effect, if that's what you're asking.

It was.

[Latrinsorm]

It was. [/COLOR]

Okay... but the point is whether there is one at all. Dr. Little et al didn't say "40x is a real stretch! The increased risk of lung cancer is like 15x tops.", they said there was none at all. In the same way, my distinguished opponents haven't said "50% is a real stretch! The increased risk of schizophrenia is like 25% tops.", they've said there is none at all. And they've even used the same excuses, chief among them that people developing either disease had a genetic predisposition as an occluded cause, and it was that predisposition that correlated with the drug use so it had no causal power.

So I'll ask again: if that argument is a good one, why do you believe tobacco use causes cancer? Neither of the tobacco studies controlled for family history. (That my studies explicitly did so should have prevented this discussion entirely but, alas, reading them is apparently for nerds.)

[Androidpk]

It was. [/COLOR]

Stop encouraging him already.

[Fallen]

I've admitted in this thread and in others that marijuana could negatively affect your neurochemistry. If heavy marijuana use increased the risk of schizophrenia by 100%, I still wouldn't be against legalizing it. The risk of your average person developing schizophrenia is quite small. We both can agree on that. Doubling a negligible risk is still negligible. We assume these increased risks all the time, by flying, using an Xray machine, drinking alcohol, etc.

I believe cigarettes cause cancer because it is filled with known carcinogens. Carcinogens are mutagenic, a property which can be readily tested by directly examining a chemical's effect on DNA.

[Fallen]

Stop encouraging him already.

I'm pretty much about to give up. He's blowing the risks, which are still actively being assessed, in part because they are small enough to be difficult to measure, taking periods of time involving decades of regular MJ usage in length, far out of proportion.

[Androidpk]

I'm pretty much about to give up. He's blowing the risks, which are still actively being assessed, in part because they are small enough to be difficult to measure, taking periods of time decades in length, far out of proportion.

This thread is coming up on almost 60 pages now because WB and Thondalar are trying to debate with a troll.

[Warriorbird]

Your source said that cohort studies in and of themselves provided unequivocal proof.

This is exactly not what it said. It represents your continued blindness to general hypotheses when you can seize on something, anything to try to make your case.

It also represents you actively choosing to ignore history, again, for your personal moral imperatives. Next thing you know events will come unstuck in time like Billy Pilgrim.

I'm pretty much about to give up. He's blowing the risks, which are still actively being assessed, in part because they are small enough to be difficult to measure, taking periods of time involving decades of regular MJ usage in length, far out of proportion.

Me too. The shovel broke when he tried to compare data to the wrong disease. The funny bit here is I certainly don't think that marijuana is a cureall for all diseases either.

[Androidpk]