# Csac Takes Stance On Medical Marijuana



## j-grif (May 1, 2007)

There has been a lot of controversy over the use of “Medical Marijuana” and how it affects drug testing for mixed martial artists in California.

The California State Athletic Commission recently issued a statement declaring its stance on Medical Marijuana as it relates to drug testing for athletes it licenses.

The Commission made it clear that legal use via Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, in California does not negate disciplinary action due to a positive drug test result in relation to events overseen by the CSAC.

“The California State Athletic Commission's position is that Marijuana is a banned substance pursuant to Rule 303 and that any positive drug test may result in discipline,” read the statement.

The Commission stated that a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Ross v. RagingWire Telecomm “found that an employer may discipline an employee for off-duty medical marijuana use.”

In the case of athletes licensed to compete, an athletic commission isn’t an employer per se. The CSAC, however, argued its case, saying, “Because the Compassionate Use Act only provides a defense to criminal charges, any argument that the Act would allow an athlete to use the drug without consequences to his or her license must fail. If the Court were to take up a similar challenge to discipline of a licensee, it would likely find that the Commission has a legitimate interest in whether or not an athlete uses the drug because marijuana could slow a fighter's reflexes and endanger his or her health and safety in the ring or the cage.”






I have to say that I feel that Medical Marijuana for most people is a load of crap. I do think that a small percentage of the people that have actually need it but the rest are just bending and using the law to their advantage. I am saying this as someone who used to have a medical marijuana card himself. Also I feel that if you are a professional athlete then you should be able to quit a month before your fight. That is not asking a lot, I mean really. If you chose this for a living you need to be able to quit for a whole 30 days, is that really too hard for you (Nick Diaz)? LOL What do you guys think of this ruling?


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

I don't really care, since they aren't about to change the rules for smokers, not when some cough medicines are still banned. In any case, you can beat the tests with a number of over the counter products, I'm baffled that anyone is testing positive or skipping tests out of fear of pissing hot for pot. 

I have been tested by Quest Labs many, many times (for work), they and their contractees do most of the testing on the west coast to my knowledge, and have only failed a test once- and that was because I pretty much did exactly the opposite of what the directions said.


----------



## Darkwraith (Jun 4, 2008)

jcc78 said:


> I think weed should be legalized, and who cares if most medical marijuana card users got them for faking an illness.What are you there parents.Let them do what they want with themselves.


Maybe it should be(that is in another thread on this forum somewhere...), but it isn't. So if they test positive for an illegal substance then they should pay the consequences. I mean come one, some one wants to be a fighter and can't stop smoking that crap in enough time to pass a test?? :confused02:


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

jcc78 said:


> I think weed should be legalized, and who cares if most medical marijuana card users got them for faking an illness.What are you there parents.Let them do what they want with themselves.


making it legal wouldn't remove it from the NSAC's banned substances list. There are all kinds of legal substances on that list.


----------



## Terror Kovenant (Nov 16, 2008)

jcc78 said:


> I don't think they should be penalized over having weed in there system, it provides no benefit at all.Have you ever smoked weed? it slows you down so much.The fact that nick diaz was high when he destroyed gomi makes the win much more impressive.


Slows down your reception of pain responses ergo it does have a benefit and should be banned. Plain and simple.


----------



## j-grif (May 1, 2007)

Jcc78 
No one is saying it matters what the reason is that they have medical marijuana. It also doesn't matter if using it actually enhances your abilities or not(do pain killers enhance your abilities) The point is that if you use then you should be able to quit before your fight long enough for it to get out of your system. It is a banned substance so weather or not you or anyone else agrees to that they have no reason to argue with it. It has always been banned in this sport and the fighters have to abide by it. There are pleanty of other fighter besides Nick that smoke weed and they don't argue about it they simply stop using long enough for it to get out of their system before their fight.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

j-grif said:


> Jcc78
> It also doesn't matter if using it actually enhances your abilities or not(do pain killers enhance your abilities) The point is that if you use then you should be able to quit before your fight long enough for it to get out of your system. It is a banned substance so weather or not you or anyone else agrees to that they have no reason to argue with it. It has always been banned in this sport and the fighters have to abide by it. There are pleanty of other fighter besides Nick that smoke weed and they don't argue about it they simply stop using long enough for it to get out of their system before their fight.


I think it does matter. There should be a real reason for a substance to be banned, not "just because it always has been". If it doesn't affect your fight performance there is no reason to have it banned.


----------



## Darkwraith (Jun 4, 2008)

So kieranm negs me for my post in here, doesn't have the balls to leave his name and then doesn't have the balls to actually make his own post. lolzz...i love the internet! :thumbsup:


----------



## j-grif (May 1, 2007)

HexRei said:


> I think it does matter. There should be a real reason for a substance to be banned, not "just because it always has been". If it doesn't affect your fight performance there is no reason to have it banned.





Why does it matter? Do any pain killers enhance your performance? I'd say no. Most if not all prescription pain killers are banned, and I'd put marijuana in that same category.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

j-grif said:


> Why does it matter? Do any pain killers enhance your performance? I'd say no. Most if not all prescription pain killers are banned, and I'd put marijuana in that same category.


Actually, they do, that's why they are on the banned substances list  They dull your sensitivity to pain. The same reason that they put marijuana on that list.


----------



## MikeHawk (Sep 11, 2009)

Other than the Diaz brothers I don't know anyone who would actually wanna smoke during a training camp. Can't be good for the cardio.


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

j-grif said:


> Why does it matter? Do any pain killers enhance your performance? I'd say no. Most if not all prescription pain killers are banned, and I'd put marijuana in that same category.


I don't think it functions exclusively as a painkiller, in fact it's never had that effect on me.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Me neither, but the commissions seem to think so. The NSAC overturned Diaz' win against Gomi on the pretext that Diaz' extremely high levels of THC prevent him from being hurt by Gomi's punches.


----------



## Terror Kovenant (Nov 16, 2008)

j-grif said:


> Why does it matter? Do any pain killers enhance your performance? I'd say no. Most if not all prescription pain killers are banned, and I'd put marijuana in that same category.


Pain killers in an environment where you're getting punched in the face. If you can't see the advantage then even having this conversation is pointless.



swpthleg said:


> I don't think it functions exclusively as a painkiller, in fact it's never had that effect on me.


Not exclusively but it is prescribed as a pain killer. I don't know why considering theres a ton of different pain medications out there that are a lot less harmful.



HexRei said:


> Me neither, but the commissions seem to think so. The NSAC overturned Diaz' win against Gomi on the pretext that Diaz' extremely high levels of THC prevent him from being hurt by Gomi's punches.


This goes for the both of you, different people react differently to the same stimuli. If my father takes a pain killer they make him hyper active and itchy, for some reason... if I take the same pill it puts me to sleep. While someone who takes THC may not have any feeling of pain change, another person may have a drastic difference in his reception to painful stimuli.


----------



## UrbanBounca (Sep 13, 2009)

jcc78 said:


> Your either joking or incredibly ignorant; I think its the later.
> 
> Cannabis is non toxic, meaning non harmful, you cannot possibly overdose.The amount of THC in your blood to cause an overdose is physically inpossible to consume, its equivilant to smoking 1000 fat blunts within an hour, and somehow keep all of the THC from escaping from exhaling.
> 
> ...


You must pride yourself in your marijuana knowledge. Bravo!

... Except, you're wrong...



> *Effects on the Lungs*
> Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. *In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50–70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke.* Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer; however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers. Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.





> *Addictive Potential*
> Long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction; that is, compulsive drug seeking and abuse despite its known harmful effects upon social functioning in the context of family, school, work, and recreational activities. Long-term marijuana abusers trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit. These withdrawal symptoms begin within about 1 day following abstinence, peak at 2–3 days, and subside within 1 or 2 weeks following drug cessation.


[ Source ]


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

I was just going to go rummage around in the basement looking for the special tupperware. This information is disquieting, but I think I'm not going downstairs more b/c I don't feel like it.

I don't do it much any more, mostly because in my case, I get the hungries.


----------



## Terror Kovenant (Nov 16, 2008)

jcc78 said:


> Your either joking or incredibly ignorant; I think its the later.
> 
> Cannabis is non toxic, meaning non harmful, you cannot possibly overdose.The amount of THC in your blood to cause an overdose is physically inpossible to consume, its equivilant to smoking 1000 fat blunts within an hour, and somehow keep all of the THC from escaping from exhaling.


Non-toxic does not mean non harmful. Just because you can't overdose doesn't mean it isn't bad for you.




> Secondly its non addictive, you cannot possibly get addicted to it.


Yes you can, you can get addicted to anything. While it may not be chemically addictive, there are plenty of habitual users who can't kick the habit. 



> Meanwhile you got substances like Vicodine, morphine, ect. that are pain killers, can form addictions easily, and can cause death by overdose.


Naproxen sodium. Pain killer. Non habit forming, hard to OD with, even harder to die with, may but rarely cause circulatory issues. But thats the same thing with Motrin. Two very safe pain killers. Acetaminophin is safe for every day use. Tramadol is pretty safe as well. 

All of those are safer than marijuana use, as the negative effects of marijuana are well known. 



> You are extremely ignorant and know nothing about cannabis.Please, stop posting.Don't embarrass yourself further.


You are just too quick to insult someone who has a dissenting opinion. I am a well educated man and I do my own research and form my own opinions.


----------



## UrbanBounca (Sep 13, 2009)

jcc78 said:


> my responses are in bold


There is no debating you. You turn your own belief into your own truth, although opposing proof is sitting right in front of your face.

With that being said, I'm done responding to your nonsense.


----------



## Redrum (Jan 30, 2008)

"Cannabis may be bad for the lungs, but the active ingredient in marijuana may help combat lung cancer, new research suggests.

In lab and mouse studies, the compound, known as THC, cut lung tumor growth in half and helped prevent the cancer from spreading, says Anju Preet, PhD, a Harvard University researcher in Boston who tested the chemical."

source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/17/health/webmd/main2696726.shtml

"Question: Study: Smoking Marijuana Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk

I heard that smoking marijuana will not cause lung cancer. Is this true? Does smoking marijuana increase my risk for lung cancer?
Answer: According to a recent study by the University of California Los Angeles, there is no increased lung cancer risk in smoking marijuana."

Source:

http://cancer.about.com/od/smokingandcancer/f/marijuana.htm

It seems like for every negative study about marijuana, there is a competing positive study. The issue is political now, and it's hard for me to tell who is telling the truth, and who is not.

One thing I know for sure about my life is that one day I am going to die. Until that day comes, I am going to enjoy a fat, stank bowl or two of incredibly high quality MJ about every 2 months or so, because it really helps takes the stressful, sharp edges off of life in general. I am not going to feel guilty about it, and if this indulgence is what finally does me in, then so be it.


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

I'm so torn now. I've been thinking about going and finding the one-hitter since I first read this thread, TBH.

Anyway I'd rather not see any more members insult other members in this thread.


----------



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

Nick Diaz does not approve of many of the comments in this thread.


----------



## Terror Kovenant (Nov 16, 2008)

jcc78 said:


> my responses are in bold


"The only drawbacks are short term memory loss and this only occurs if your smoking multiple times every day.I can tell you this from first hand experience"

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. 

As you are clearly blinding supporting your recreational activity regardless of the facts, this will be my last response to you as you probably have the IQ of a baked potato, without toppings, you're not good enough for the toppings. 

It is well documented that marijuana use impairs judgment and critical thinking as well as slowing your reaction time. On top of that marijuana use can easily increase underlying or present mental conditions. Those suffering from depression can have their condition worsened, just as one example. Memory loss is obvious. Not to mention the drug's worst side effect is the massive impact it has on your perceptions.

Now lets take your short term memory loss comment. You do admit to memory loss damage, although you severely underwhelm it. How do you think a human being learns? Well in simple terms a person receives information into the short term memory, which can be manipulated with the working memory (which THC also damages). Then the information can be processed and transfered to long term memory through rout rehearsal as one example. Well if the primary two links in the chain are damaged, the the end of the chain suffers as well. And guess what? You're ability to learn is negatively and substantially impacted. 

Long story short, you're making yourself even more stupid.



And for anyone who thinks that the government purposely orchestrates a smear campaign against marijuana to keep it illegal, your logic is terribly flawed. The government would make BILLIONS, yes BILLIONS, off of the legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana. The government as a whole wants to legalize it but they struggle with law making and public morality concerns. If anything, I'd be more concerned to see if the government is funding the positive marijuana articles and research.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

IM RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG!!!!!!


Screw you and your scientific research:sarcastic12:


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Well, I do agree that NIDA is not exactly an unbiased source. They are a government agency and they do have an agenda. It's hard to dispute that it's bad for you lungs though.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

The 50-70% as compared to tobacco is actually low compared to many statistics that have put the number as high as 300% worse.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

I could look up studies that show much worse numbers but this was done to death after a Nick Diaz interview a few months back and Im not bothering going through it again, certainly not with somebody who has never used a single source to back up anything he has said but merely acts like a little kid who screams up and down he is right and everyone else is wrong despite a complete lack of anything resembling proof to back up his argument.


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

This is making me think I have to try to remember how to make specia brownies, until there are reliable studies re: whether pot smoke is worse than tobacco smoke or not.

I've only had them two or three times, but I loved the controlled-release effect they seemed to have.


----------



## Terror Kovenant (Nov 16, 2008)

jcc78 said:


> responses, in bold




"You clearly have no idea how information is processed and have no idea what you're talking about."

The quality of the input into working memory and of the operations that go on there determine the quality of learning and problem solving. There are three critical phases in the effective use of working memory: (1) getting information correctly into this short-term area, (2) handling the information appropriately while it is there, (3) moving information correctly from working memory to long-term storage, and using the information in working memory to generate some kind of output.

First, it is necessary to get information correctly into the working memory. As the previous section stated, we move information from the sensory register and short term to the working memory by focusing attention on it.

Yeah looks like I do know what I'm talking about. As I said before, I'm a well educated man. You were just beaten worse than the citizens of Nanking.


----------



## MikeHawk (Sep 11, 2009)

This is the best site to look up information on any drug.
http://www.erowid.org/
If you look up your information on a .gov site you're just retarded.

Also, someone said Cannabis is 50-70% more carcinogenic than cigarettes and I can tell you that is 100% bullshit without needing any source. Thousands of people die everyday from long term use of cigarettes while amazingly people do not die from marijuana.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

And the fact that most weed smokers also smoke ciggerettes and weed is typically smoked by younger crowds wouldnt have anything to do with that?


----------



## Terror Kovenant (Nov 16, 2008)

MikeHawk said:


> This is the best site to look up information on any drug.
> http://www.erowid.org/
> If you look up your information on a .gov site you're just retarded.
> 
> Also, someone said Cannabis is 50-70% more carcinogenic than cigarettes and I can tell you that is 100% bullshit without needing any source. Thousands of people die everyday from long term use of cigarettes while amazingly people do not die from marijuana.


Its actually hard to look at a damaged lung and say "well that came from cigarettes, and that one over there came from marijuana." It doesn't really work that way. Also, a lot of people smoked both. Either way, smoking anything is bad for you, as smoke is destructive to the lung tissue and fibers. Easy as that.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

jcc78 said:


> which is why they invented vaporizers.


I've got a Volcano sitting in a box because I'm too lazy to use it


----------



## Redrum (Jan 30, 2008)

Terror Kovenant said:


> The quality of the input into working memory and of the operations that go on there determine the quality of learning and problem solving. There are three critical phases in the effective use of working memory: (1) getting information correctly into this short-term area, (2) handling the information appropriately while it is there, (3) moving information correctly from working memory to long-term storage, and using the information in working memory to generate some kind of output.
> 
> First, it is necessary to get information correctly into the working memory. As the previous section stated, we move information from the sensory register and short term to the working memory by focusing attention on it.


Full context of the document that you copy and pasted from without bothering to source can be found here.

http://education.calumet.purdue.edu/vockell/EdPsyBook/Edpsy6/edpsy6_working.htm

I'll tell you my opinion based upon 22 years of experience with marijuana. When you stop smoking it, the effects go away quickly, including any effects on memory function. I expect that if one smokes before going to class, one is not going to get the full benefit of that class. Using any substance at an inappropriate time can result in such a negative consequence. Abusing a substance, i.e. smoking all day, every day can result in negative consequences. Being responsible and exercising self control can alleviate many of these sort of negative consequences.

My position is that adults should be able to make this decision about marijuana in particular, and whether or not use of it benefits or harms them individually.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

I always felt like pot allowed me to focus more easily. May not be the same for others.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Alot of the pro-weed posts in this thread illustrate the real reason weed will never be legalized, the pro-marijuana groups use "facts" with no scientific basis to push there agenda instead of concentrating on realistic science. Weed should be legal, I mean who gives a crap really and to much time and money is spent on dealing with petty possession charges but until they admit the heath risks and addiction factors it will never happen, the tobacco industry has been forced to admit its short falls, the alcohol industry has as well but the people fighting for the legalization of marijuana typically use either blatantly false or extremely questionable information to make there case which makes them appear unintelligent.


----------



## Redrum (Jan 30, 2008)

I can't honestly say that smoking helps me focus. I'm not sure that anything can help me focus, because I have had ADD for my entire life.

I will list the ways that I think smoking benefits me personally, and what I like to do when I smoke.

Firstly, smoking takes the edge off of my stress level and temper. I don't drink, or smoke cigs, or use any other form of drugs (although many years ago I did). So weed is my only form of chemical release at this point and I do not do it often. I have a bad temper, and anytime I lose it, I regret it. Smoking from time to time seems to elevate my general mood for a period of time, and it helps me to maintain a pleasant disposition.

Secondly, regarding what I like to do while smoking. I like to watch a really good movie at home while catching a buzz. I also like to put my stereo or headphones on and basically fly away with some nice music. I also enjoy smoking while playing a good video game as it seems to help me slip into a fantasy state of mind a bit easier.

I also really like to enjoy natural beauty when I smoke. Sometimes I ride my mountain bike down the forest trail to a very remote, deep in the country, stunningly beautiful area of Florida. I park my bike, sit down, pack my glass, and enjoy the zen. Other times I will drive down to the beach, park the car, walk to a remote area, smoke, then surf or snorkel depending on conditions.

That's basically it. Of these activities that I have described, I can't see how my behavior is affecting anyone other than myself. Doing things like this gives me a lot of peace and relaxation in my life, and to be honest, I do not care if the government tells me its bad, or illegal, or whatever.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Toxic said:


> Alot of the pro-weed posts in this thread illustrate the real reason weed will never be legalized, the pro-marijuana groups use "facts" with no scientific basis to push there agenda instead of concentrating on realistic science. Weed should be legal, I mean who gives a crap really and to much time and money is spent on dealing with petty possession charges but until they admit the heath risks and addiction factors it will never happen, the tobacco industry has been forced to admit its short falls, the alcohol industry has as well but the people fighting for the legalization of marijuana typically use either blatantly false or extremely questionable information to make there case which makes them appear unintelligent.


There are pro-marijuana groups out there that argue using facts with citable sources, NORML is a good example. I hope you're not equating jcc78 and "pro-marijuana groups". He's just one guy. And it's not like a government agency's facts are right just because they are the government. Inaccurate and biased information is disseminated by government agencies pretty regularly.


----------



## MikeHawk (Sep 11, 2009)

Toxic said:


> And the fact that most weed smokers also smoke ciggerettes and weed is typically smoked by younger crowds wouldnt have anything to do with that?


And you know this how? Where is your source?


> Alot of the pro-weed posts in this thread illustrate the real reason weed will never be legalized, the pro-marijuana groups use "facts" with no scientific basis to push there agenda instead of concentrating on realistic science. Weed should be legal, I mean who gives a crap really and to much time and money is spent on dealing with petty possession charges but until they admit the heath risks and addiction factors it will never happen, the tobacco industry has been forced to admit its short falls, the alcohol industry has as well but the people fighting for the legalization of marijuana typically use either blatantly false or extremely questionable information to make there case which makes them appear unintelligent.


Who's denying it's bad for your lungs? Any person with a brain knows putting smoke into your lungs is harmful. People were saying cannabis makes you at higher risk for cancer when there has been 0 hard evidence linked to cancer and cannabis.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html(Article)
You must not follow anything the "pro-marijuana" group does either if you think the people posting in this forum are a good representation of it.


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

Terror Kovenant said:


> Slows down your reception of pain responses ergo it does have a benefit and should be banned. Plain and simple.


It also in some cases increases your focus by dilluting outside distractions. I'm currently 45-2 in rolling while stoned off my ass. I focus so much harder and I never panic at all - and I'm usually pretty calm during sparring so it's like a supercalm.



HexRei said:


> I think it does matter. There should be a real reason for a substance to be banned, not "just because it always has been". If it doesn't affect your fight performance there is no reason to have it banned.


It can certainly affect your fight performance. Negative for some, positive for others, maybe no affect for a few, but I'm sure it's enough to matter. I'd be mad if my favorite fighter lost to someone who was stoned off their ass.



MikeHawk said:


> Other than the Diaz brothers I don't know anyone who would actually wanna smoke during a training camp. Can't be good for the cardio.


Doesn't hurt your cardio at all...? I definitely love smoking up before I do hard circuits. It relaxes my muscles and lets me go harder for longer. It has zero affect on your lungs. 

But really, a bottle of detox formula is like $15.00-$40.00. Say you can't quit for a few days before the test, that's maybe what... 100 bucks a year tops?



edit: smoking was also the main reason I was able to move up to 170 - the amount of protein/carbs I had to consume to gain the necessary weight in just under 5 months while still working out full time was enormous. I'd toss my food up consistently without weed.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

MikeHawk said:


> And you know this how? Where is your source?
> 
> Who's denying it's bad for your lungs? Any person with a brain knows putting smoke into your lungs is harmful. People were saying cannabis makes you at higher risk for cancer when there has been 0 hard evidence linked to cancer and cannabis.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html(Article)
> You must not follow anything the "pro-marijuana" group does either if you think the people posting in this forum are a good representation of it.


 I don't have a source, really didn't think one was necessary its a pretty clear cut observation like saying grizzly bears are big. I mean seriously probably 98% of the people who smoke weed I either know now or used to know smoke cigarettes.

Secondly, no, I dont follow any pro-majuana groups I don't care that much but I do watch the new and read the paper and everytime there is a protest I find myself thinking the guy interviewed is a complete burn out pylon because he repeating the same line of BS that users here have been attempting to sell as facts.


----------



## Jimdon (Aug 27, 2008)

Anyone with some time to kill who is actually interested in learning the facts about marijuana prohibition in the USA should check out this documentary called _The Union: the business of getting high_.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9077214414651731007# 

I think most people would be surprised to learn about the lies and cover ups that the American government uses to gain support for their war on marijuana, its kind of pathetic actually. 

And no offence but people like the gentleman who posted above me who "watch the news and read the papers" need to wake up and realize that the reason that they tell you these things on the news and in the papers is because they know that you'll believe them without trying to find out the truth on your own, seriously, instead of allowing the mostly government controlled media to make your opinion for you, try doing some honest research and making your own.

And finally:
Myth: Marijuana's Harms Have Been Proved Scientifically. In the 1960s and 1970s, many people believed that marijuana was harmless. Today we know that marijuana is much more dangerous than previously believed.

Fact: In 1972, after reviewing the scientific evidence, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded that while marijuana was not entirely safe, its dangers had been grossly overstated. Since then, researchers have conducted thousands of studies of humans, animals, and cell cultures. None reveal any findings dramatically different from those described by the National Commission in 1972. In 1995, based on thirty years of scientific research editors of the British medical journal Lancet concluded that "the smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health.

Oh, by the way, here's some highlights of your favorite governments *official* stand on marijuana:
*Highlights of Nixon comments on marijuana:*

*Jews and marijuana:* "I see another thing in the news summary this morning about it. That's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I suppose it's because most of them are psychiatrists . . ."
*Marijuana and the culture wars:* "You see, homosexuality, dope, immorality in general. These are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing the stuff, they're trying to destroy us."
*Marijuana compared to alcohol:* marijuana consumers smoke "to get high" while "a person drinks to have fun." Nixon also saw *marijuana leading to loss of motivation and discipline but claimed*: "At least with liquor I don't lose motivation."
*Marijuana and political dissent:* ". . . radical demonstrators that were here . . . two weeks ago . . . They're all on drugs, virtually all."
*Drug education:* "Enforce the law, you’ve got to scare them."

I guess i'm just like the Jews, the blacks, and the homosexuals, i'll leave you with one question to ponder, how many people have smoked too much weed and gone home and beat their wife/kids?


----------



## Machida Karate (Nov 30, 2009)

Terror Kovenant said:


> Non-toxic does not mean non harmful. Just because you can't overdose doesn't mean it isn't bad for you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah if you think weed is bad because "there are plenty of habitual users who can't kick the habit" How does that make it Addictive? Your view on things is WAY to fucked up, Yeah there are plenty of Habitual people doing ummm EVERYTHING ******* THING, now does that mean EVERYTHING is wrong? OK lets not use the super habitual poeple that it takes to get addicted to weed to the point where u CANT quit not I DONT WANT TO, but CANT.... YEAH those people are now doing CRACK because they get addicted to Everything and if thats why weed is bad because there are Habitaul people in this world?.... Thats retarded


----------



## Chileandude (Jan 17, 2008)

I think that Marijuana should be legalized, but its still should be banned from MMA Competition, it has the potential to work as an unfair advantage for some as a couple of guys have mentioned and it could also be dangerous for some people as well.


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

Anyone with a shred of common sense can see that the whole pot being illegal thing is pretty darn silly, but I can see the CSAC's point when it comes to having it banned from competition. Whether or not it gives you some kind of advantage is debatable, but as long there is room for debate, they should just go with the safe choice and keep it banned.


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

The last two posts summed it up nicely without spazzing off.

Thanks guys.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Jimdon said:


> And no offence but people like the gentleman who posted above me who "watch the news and read the papers" need to wake up and realize that the reason that they tell you these things on the news and in the papers is because they know that you'll believe them without trying to find out the truth on your own, seriously, instead of allowing the mostly government controlled media to make your opinion for you, try doing some honest research and making your own.


I think you misunderstood, my point was anytime I see anyone talking to the media trying to make a case for the legalization of marijuana they use blatantly false information, kinda like you saying smoking weed has no negative heath effects, I was believing your case when you said the negative heath effects were overstated and exagerated during the 70's, but smoking ANYTHING has negative heath effects, come on smoke kills you regardless of the source. Tar is a bi-product of the burning of any organic matter (soot in your chimney, the resin in your pipe) so why exaggerate your case? The minute I read that my mind instantly discredits everything else you wrote.


----------



## wukkadb (Jan 1, 2007)

Toxic said:


> I think you misunderstood, my point was anytime I see anyone talking to the media trying to make a case for the legalization of marijuana they use blatantly false information, kinda like you saying smoking weed has no negative heath effects, I was believing your case when you said the negative heath effects were overstated and exagerated during the 70's, but smoking ANYTHING has negative heath effects, come on smoke kills you regardless of the source. Tar is a bi-product of the burning of any organic matter (soot in your chimney, the resin in your pipe) so why exaggerate your case? The minute I read that my mind instantly discredits everything else you wrote.


How about when using a vaporizer?


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Haven't seen enough studies to know, long term marijuana abuse use has been linked to many mental heath issues by studies to explain the extremely high number of mental heath issues in reported in Holland since there non enforcement policy took effect (contrary to popular belief Weed is technically illegal in Amsterdam and the rest of the Netherlands.), but the reality is that some issues like that are gonna be hard to prove either way as there is issues with the studies due to the fact Holland has become a bit of a drug haven and the accuracy of which drug(s) actually are responsible is hard to prove since long term controlled studies are impossible. 

That said Im sure the negative effects as far as effects on the lungs anyway are much lower with a vaporizer. (as they would be for tobacco to I imagine)


----------



## MikeHawk (Sep 11, 2009)

wukkadb said:


> How about when using a vaporizer?


Very good point. Vaporization produces 0 combustion bi-products like carbon monoxide or the tar that Toxic was talking about. The smoke is also considerably cooler making it much easier on the lungs.

But, to say that it has 0 negative effects is just ridiculous. I'm sure it's way better than any other form of smoking but you're still putting smoke into your lungs which can never be healthy.


----------



## wukkadb (Jan 1, 2007)

For sure. I don't have as much of a problem with weed being illegal as I do with alcohol being legal, and prescription meds being shoved down people's throats in the USA. Those two things effect humans much more negatively than marijuana, for sure.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

wukkadb said:


> For sure. I don't have as much of a problem with weed being illegal as I do with alcohol being legal, and prescription meds being shoved down people's throats in the USA. Those two things effect humans much more negatively than marijuana, for sure.


See this is my issue with the anti Marijuana movement instead of concentrating on facts,1. Weed is _less addictive_ then alcohol or tobacco, that is a fact, 2.its heath risks are also either _less severe or comparable_ to that of alcohol and tobacco. 3. Millions of dollars are wasted prosecuting petty possession charges every year when millions could be made from legalization and taxation. Those are the 3 things they should concentrate on not trying to remove every negative stigma even when scientific research contradicts what they are saying.


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

wukkadb said:


> For sure. I don't have as much of a problem with weed being illegal as I do with alcohol being legal, and prescription meds being shoved down people's throats in the USA. Those two things effect humans much more negatively than marijuana, for sure.


That is where the hypocritical American drug laws shine the brightest. I can go down to the grocery store by my house, buy some 151 and kill myself with alcohol poisoning for less then tweenty dollars. I can simply take all of whatever pills ive been described at one time and do it just as easily (take your pick of the pills, there are plenty that can do it) yet pot, which it is physically impossible to overdose on, is illegal. This makes zero sense. It seems like the government could find some way to turn this into a positive revenue stream, adding ridiculous taxes to it like they do with cigarettes, but that kinda stuff is mostly over my head, im just saying what common sense would lead me to believe.


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

Chileandude said:


> I think that Marijuana should be legalized, but its still should be banned from MMA Competition, it has the potential to work as an unfair advantage for some as a couple of guys have mentioned and it could also be dangerous for some people as well.





joshua7789 said:


> Anyone with a shred of common sense can see that the whole pot being illegal thing is pretty darn silly, but I can see the CSAC's point when it comes to having it banned from competition. Whether or not it gives you some kind of advantage is debatable, but as long there is room for debate, they should just go with the safe choice and keep it banned.


Sweet, I don't even need to type a response. 

I will anyways though 

If any athletic commission wants to ban a substance, they need to, IMO, prove that that substance benefits the user. The whole, "it is banned because it is illegal", argument is pure crap IMO. You are not the police, so stay out of it. And, if a drug is detrimental and not beneficial to a fighter, then who gives a shit really? 

In short, prove that it is beneficial to a fighter, however, keep it banned until you do.

I don't smoke weed, but any argument as to keeping week illegal is pure crap IMO. But hey, so are the arguments opposing gay marriage and those get thrown out every day and nobody seems to mind. Who am I to argue for common sense


----------



## wukkadb (Jan 1, 2007)

joshua7789 said:


> That is where the hypocritical American drug laws shine the brightest. I can go down to the grocery store by my house, buy some 151 and kill myself with alcohol poisoning for less then tweenty dollars. I can simply take all of whatever pills ive been described at one time and do it just as easily (take your pick of the pills, there are plenty that can do it) yet pot, which it is physically impossible to overdose on, is illegal. This makes zero sense. It seems like the government could find some way to turn this into a positive revenue stream, adding ridiculous taxes to it like they do with cigarettes, but that kinda stuff is mostly over my head, im just saying what common sense would lead me to believe.


Common...sense...?


----------



## MikeHawk (Sep 11, 2009)

Toxic said:


> See this is my issue with the anti Marijuana movement instead of concentrating on facts,1. Weed is _less addictive_ then alcohol or tobacco, that is a fact, 2.its heath risks are also either _less severe or comparable_ to that of alcohol and tobacco. 3. Millions of dollars are wasted prosecuting petty possession charges every year when millions could be made from legalization and taxation. Those are the 3 things they should concentrate on not trying to remove every negative stigma even when scientific research contradicts what they are saying.


The biggest arguing point for pro-marijuana groups is the medical benefits you can gain from it. While there are many many people who take advantage of medical marijuana it can really help a lot of people who need it.

Here's a recent video of a kid with autism who's parents give him marijuana to calm down his aggressive behavior and help him relax.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6VlmzIDCUs


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

wukkadb said:


> Common...sense...?


Common sense, not a factual knowledge of how these things work. Im that guy that doesnt know much about anything, so I try to use ignorant logic (im not sure if that makes any sense either). Ive confused myself again and im not sure what common sense is telling me to do now...quick, back to simple thoughts...the couch is red...my hair is blonde...slowly gaining sanity back...


----------



## MLD (Oct 15, 2006)

It is amazing how many strong opinions come out on this topic. Clearly it is near and dear to many people's hearts. Seems like fighters would struggle to make weight if they were smoking pot and getting the munchies all the time. Unless they follow it up with an appetite suppressant. There is also the chance of losing some level of motivation.

One thing is for sure, as I read the arguments posted here...I am reminded not to try to use reason to get someone off a point they didn't use reason to get on to. Not everything is black and white, some things are gray. A substance can be both beneficial in some ways, while harmful in others.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

wukkadb said:


> For sure. I don't have as much of a problem with weed being illegal as I do with alcohol being legal, and prescription meds being shoved down people's throats in the USA. Those two things effect humans much more negatively than marijuana, for sure.


Completely agreed on the prescription meds part. It's so funny to hear shrinks and pharma company's bribed quacks in this country peddling off "cures" to made up conditions like ADD aka "I can't concentrate on boring crap". Or giving fake chemical highs like prozac to counter real life issues like depression instead of actually tackling the moral and personal issues that cause these depressions. It's just as bad as doctors prescribing Cocaine for every life problem back in the 20s. 

On the Alcohol though I have to disagree... I think when used moderately and responsibly it can be quite a blessing. I can't remember how many people I've bonded to over a nice cold brewski. It's just when it's abused that's the problem.

Personally I'm not sure which category marijuana falls into ... generally I tend to think the somewhat natural ones like Marijuana and Alcohol are far more benign when used responsibly. Whereas chemical crap like pharma, LSD, Meth etc. are inherently horrible and there's no such thing as responsible use. 

On the original topic though yeah, I think obviously you shouldn't be allowed to be high IN an mma fight any more than you're allowed to be drunk or smoke a cig during the round breaks, legal or not. Just fighter safety. As for merely testing positive for it in the last months... I think the rule is stupid, but as long as it's there it has to be enforced otherwise people can be encouraged to break it with more dangerous and game changing stuff like roids and painkillers.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

jcc78 said:


> LSD is non toxic, cannot overdose, and no side effects or addiction.


But it causes permanent brain changes and damage, and deposits in your tailbone for decades after you stop using it. Essentially you could hallucinate at ANY TIME during the rest of your life (it's called Flashbacks). And not happy rainbow la-la land hallucinations, like crazy freaking the **** out, what are these creepy shadows grabbing me why is everyone's face melting off hallucinations. It can even drive you to psychosis and make you unfit to live a normal life FOREVER. Not always, but many times.

Shrooms are a far more natural and short term alternative to crap like LSD. When they're done, they're done.

Also the very statement "no side effects" is patently absurd for artificial chemicals. All artificial chemicals have side effects, usually proportional to how powerful their effect is, some just have long term ones instead of easy to see short term ones. Even aspirin has long term side effects, it just takes a lot for it to be significant. It's funny people never catch on to the whole pharma shtick .. pharma cos always market the next generation things as medicine or harmless and label the older stuff as bad. Back when Heroin first came out, it was marketed over the counter by Bayer as a "safe, non-addictive alternative" to morphine. Thing turned out to be twice as addictive as morphine and destroyed millions of lives. Still does today. Not that I'm saying one shouldn't take any meds ever, but only like actual cures like antibiotics or whatnot for actual physical diseases or conditions. Not for lifestyle issues or problems.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

MikeHawk said:


> The biggest arguing point for pro-marijuana groups is the medical benefits you can gain from it. While there are many many people who take advantage of medical marijuana it can really help a lot of people who need it.
> 
> Here's a recent video of a kid with autism who's parents give him marijuana to calm down his aggressive behavior and help him relax.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6VlmzIDCUs


Shit like this is not helping there cause its hurting it, quit comparing it to medicine because its never gonna be recognized in the same light instead you need to look at it as a recreational drug like alcohol and tobacco. (Im honestly surprised if child services never picked that kid up after that aired.) That is comparable to giving a kid vodka to make them quit crying (one an accepted practice that we now know causes permanent damage)


----------



## Jimdon (Aug 27, 2008)

Toxic said:


> Shit like this is not helping there cause its hurting it, quit comparing it to medicine because its never gonna be recognized in the same light instead you need to look at it as a recreational drug like alcohol and tobacco. (Im honestly surprised if child services never picked that kid up after that aired.) That is comparable to giving a kid vodka to make them quit crying (one an accepted practice that we now know causes permanent damage)


Marijuana has more medicinal uses than any other naturally occuring substance in the world, that is not my opinion, that is a fact, and i encourage you to do some research on this.

The reason marijuana will probably never be legalized in the US is because pharmaceutical companies control the largest percentage of political lobby groups, and basically, if everyone starts growing their own medicine, they won't make any money. You can't patent and sell something that grows in the dirt.

... and not to be a dick Toxic, but next time you fill your post with 'facts' could you please post a source, because a lot of what your writing is flat out not true, and if you're serious about educating yourself on the subject, i would be happy to direct you to government reports and medical journals that explain exactly what the positive and negative effects are. Trust me its not that they haven't been studying it enough, they've been doing studies regularly since the 1940's, but it's funny how when the studies don't show what the government wants them to, nobody hears about them.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

swpthleg said:


> I don't think it functions exclusively as a painkiller, in fact it's never had that effect on me.


Oficially it can be used for mild pain management for chronic pain. Its odd to me because pain caused in a fight is not chronic its acute.

FYI there are very few substances that have a "masking" effect for THC but even then the ones that do mask it are banned and tested for as well.

You can fool a stick test but if they send it to a lab they will find the "Adulterants" so its still a risk as most positive tests get send to a lab.



Toxic said:


> Shit like this is not helping there cause its hurting it, quit comparing it to medicine because its never gonna be recognized in the same light instead you need to look at it as a recreational drug like alcohol and tobacco. (Im honestly surprised if child services never picked that kid up after that aired.) That is comparable to giving a kid vodka to make them quit crying (one an accepted practice that we now know causes permanent damage)


Because giving them Ritalin is sooo much better for them right? alcohol and tobacco are recreational drugs because they have no medical benefit from consumption, pot clearly dose and unlike alcohol pot wont make you shit you paints a jump around a room because you think your a Gorilla with pertinent brain damage. It dose change neural receptors but they have not found that it kills cells. 

Sometimes I struggle with your posts, obviously it is and will be seen in the same light as any other drug because its already seen that way by a large amount of health professionals in many states and that is why they prescribe it.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

slapshot said:


> Oficially it can be used for mild pain management for chronic pain. Its odd to me because pain caused in a fight is not chronic its acute.
> 
> FYI there are very few substances that have a "masking" effect for THC but even then the ones that do mask it are banned and tested for as well.
> 
> You can fool a stick test but if they send it to a lab they will find the "Adulterants" so its still a risk as most positive tests get send to a lab.


Like I said, I've tested for the common illegal drugs by Quest Labs many times and out of the whole bunch only been caught once, and I blatantly disregarded the directions. The labs and the companies making the masking/cleansing products play a constant game of one-upsmanship, the key is to stick with an outlet that is switching up their product in reponse to improvements in testing.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

And my point is still correct, if they dont test for it it wont be found. It matters where they send it as well. All in all its a risk, like here they send it to the state crime lab and they always do a full test.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

slapshot said:


> And my point is still correct, if they dont test for it it wont be found. It matters where they send it as well. All in all its a risk, like here they send it to the state crime lab and they always do a full test.


They test for marijuana in every test I've taken, this thread is about marijuana, ergo...

And you're correct that it matters who is doing the testing, but to my knowledge most commercial testing on this side of the country is handled by Quest or one of its contracted subsidiaries. Certainly it's a risk, but it's not as big a risk as some people think. I have two friends who are delivery drivers and have used methods like clean piss with a fake penis , warmed by the inner thighs, to pass the tests.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

HexRei said:


> They test for marijuana in every test I've taken, this thread is about marijuana, ergo...


Im sure they do but they dont test for every Adulterant under the sun in most labs, like you said some labs only test for a few of the more popular ones but we here in Missoula host the freeking state crime lab so quit a few UA company's just contract with them. 

Personally, I dont think its my employers business if I smoke the stuff or not as long as Im not high at work so I wont take UA tests. 

Its funny to me how ppl have such hardline opinions on both sides of the issue but for the most part keep themselves willfully ignorant of merits in the oppositions argument.

If you smoke pot do yourself a favor and get a "herbal vaporizer" cancer issue solved. :thumb02:


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

Terror Kovenant said:


> Not exclusively but it is prescribed as a pain killer. I don't know why considering theres a ton of different pain medications out there that are a lot less harmful.


Just re-reading a couple pages in this thread and saw this? hahaha I've never heard anything more ignorant. I would say weed is as damaging as drinking a glass of water, but unfortunately if you sit there and drink enough glasses of water in a row it will kill you, and pot will not.


----------



## Terror Kovenant (Nov 16, 2008)

xeberus said:


> Just re-reading a couple pages in this thread and saw this? hahaha I've never heard anything more ignorant. I would say weed is as damaging as drinking a glass of water, but unfortunately if you sit there and drink enough glasses of water in a row it will kill you, and pot will not.


The negative side effects on the brain are well noted, some people just refuse to believe them, especially those who want to justify their actions.


----------



## YOURMOMWASHERE (Sep 20, 2009)

I do it all and nobody is going to stop me. You only live once anyway. And weed does not make you "dumber", EVER. Look up carl sagan.


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

Please keep the discussion civil.


----------



## Jimdon (Aug 27, 2008)

Marijuana does not kill brain cells, in fact studies have shown it has the exact opposite effect.


taken from womens health:
http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/news/20050913230228_health_news.shtml


> _Marijuana Boosts Brain Cell Growth_
> Most illicit drugs like opiates, alcohol and cocaine decrease the generation of new neurons in the brain, but marijuana appears to have the opposite effect on this process. Researchers from the University of Saskatchewan have published their findings on marijuana's effects on the brain in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. On top of the drug's promotion of brain cell growth - called neurogenesis - marijuana also appeared to have antidepressant and anti-anxiety properties.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

Terror Kovenant said:


> The negative side effects on the brain are well noted, some people just refuse to believe them, especially those who want to justify their actions.


Well i'll tell you what I'll call you're bluff. Give me evidence on the effects on the human brain. I've looked at over 200 case studies on such an effect. And they all produced the same result. Give me any credible evidence or shut the **** up. 

I prefer alcohol but im not so ignorant to say that marijuana isn't 100 times less damaging.


----------

