Marijuana RAW PALEO style? (not smoking/baking to eat)...thoughts opinoins

[Brother]

Having toxic compounds doesn't necessarily mean something is bad, most shaman highly revere tobacco and believe it is the most important tool they posses.

It should be noted that atleat American natives have apx 300 different kinds of tobacco, probably more. "elephantear" e.g is concidered "tobacco". The vaginia stuff that we smoke. They concidered it poisnous, they used it to punish people to death with. They got wrapped up in tobacco leafes like a cigar and left for dead (nicotine poisoning). I sometoimes wonder if it was payback for the blankets. "oh yeah...thanks for the blankets and fire water sir's, here have some of this shit"

[sabertooth]

what about vaporizers, they heat the herb only enough to vaporize the THC oil and leaves the unburned (a better option?)some people like myself don't use enough to worry about smoke damage, but the hardcore potheads may save themselves from lung damage if they use vaporizers

[Brother]

what about vaporizers, they heat the herb only enough to vaporize the THC oil and leaves the unburned (a better option?)some people like myself don't use enough to worry about smoke damage, but the hardcore potheads may save themselves from lung damage if they use vaporizers

I agree. I think that if people care about health and insist on inhaling the THC at the same time, there are only one other option than vaporizers. water spray (like those you get for colds) containing THC.

Since science time and time again demonstrates that there is a 100% mortality rate on earth. I just dont worry too much. I would rather die in a blaze than wither away in my good health in old age. try and ask an honest elder what it is like to get old (70+). I have never heard another answer than "it sucks. all of it with the exception of the fruits of our loins, what did you expect? Your drive goes away, your face start to sag, you get forgetsome. what part of this is desirable?".

[sabertooth]

Well, plenty of potheads live past 70 and seem to still love life; Willy Nelson, Cheech, and Chong.

From what I have seen marijuana when not used excessively has little effect on overall life span ,when compared to other drugs. Actually most of the older hippies I know, that just use pot seem to be happer and saner than the majority of other senors. The whole killing braincell propaganda  is an outright lie. In most people THC has a preservative effect on the brain,Even if it slows down some mental ability,it does not damage,and by relieving stress it actually prevents stress induced premature aging for those who build up enough THC in the body.They may Be burnedout but they are mellow and less stressed so the pros outweigh the cons ,FROM WHAT I SEE

[Brother]

Well, plenty of potheads live past 70 and seem to still love life; Willy Nelson, Cheech, and Chong.

Good point. I stand corrected. I would love to grow old like any of those men you mention (Except for the fame, I would loathe that. But the rest of it)

Actually most of the older hippies I know, that just use pot seem to be happer and saner than the majority of other senors.

I am not hostile to this idea. But I have never sat down and observed the older smokers I know. But my gut reaction was "yeah...sounds familiar"-

[KD]

setting people straight when they spew the usual horseshit government propaganda or variations thereof, is not being defensive. I find it interresting how people are willing to wholeheartedly accept in dodgy science if it correlates with their pet oppinions.

What is apparent is that you guys can't even comprehend that perhaps people here have actual experience with marijuana, are not puritanical otherwise in their life, likely don't listen to much of what the government says about health and still and actually have legitimate scientific, social, and experiential data to back up their thinking. And my retort to these basically insulting remarks would be how much actual experience do you have of following a diet free of regularly ingested heated foods and substances, to know that it doesn't carry its own advantages or that yours has any detriments? who is the one with propaganda? The claims that people are somehow ignorant and to be dismissed based on conventional ideas, is fairly lame here in this forum. Perhaps have this conversation with mom and dad if you want to feel lofty.

I'm glad you can at least own up to the fact that while we are in the right to choose how we define spirituality, that people largely are divorced from conventional traditional peoples' experiences.

one major note, toxic does not mean injury or death. so you are incorrect there. the leaves on a stalk of celery are mildly toxic, and nearly impossible to ever OD and die from. Does eating them jeopardize my health in any way whatsoever? probably hard to measure, but this does not alter the definition of toxicity or the definition of ideal. Ideal has one meaning and even though sometimes it can be as arbitrary for some their ideal would say celery itself is not healthy or necessary for health. This doesn't change that the leaves scientifically contain known toxins particularly to the liver. Also ironically, despite the fact that people keep referencing the plant w/o smoke, the most vocal are also actually smoking it, which undeniably has more toxic compounds then many other herbs when heated, and with a good ammount of research pointing to more compounds then to conventional tobacco cigarettes.

I also don't see how Rastas have anything to do with anything, as the concept is less than 100 years old and like some folks here tries to place pot as a very naive backlash to western civilization that is anything but. Pot is a drug that makes some people feel good, it can't make you see truth that isnt already there, believe me I tried. You are not a hindu prophet, so that also does not defeat what I said as they do not use the drug casually or indiscriminately divorced of their practice as do not other people in their society that are not prophets to my knowledge. That does not make your uses 'bad', it just falls far closer in the category as to why people use painkillers, and alcohol, and sniff paint than it does communion wafers, sorry. I agree with you it doesn't matter if people are watching TV or making an alter to Betelgeuse because they are still basically getting high.

What I find most troublesome is pretty much all folks here are bouncing back and forth between things to find a reason why weed somehow is an exception and can be part of a healthy diet. Without changing a healthy diet to 'whatever works is therefore healthy' (which is certainly ok I guess per the individual) this is not technically correct. If 's a vice plain and simple. Whether many folks in the end will be healthier as a whole person with a few vices is not surprising to me or shatters my puritanical viewpoint.

as for tobacco, I really wouldn't venture there unless you want to bring along opium poppies and the coca plant, which people here have already tried to distance marijuana from despite the fact that yes, they all grow.

[typo]

[Brother]

What is apparent is that you guys can't even comprehend that perhaps people here have actual experience with marijuana

Quite obviously they dont. And those that do, are generally positive towards it. But perhaps I was reading another thread than you are?

And my retort to these basically insulting remarks would be how much actual experience do you have of following a diet free of regularly ingested heated foods and substances, to know that it doesn't carry its own advantages or that yours has any detriments?

I dont see how it is relevant. But quite a bit actually. both as vegan and raw vegan (fad). I just soon realised that it was a clear err because i needed supplements to feel well. it is not the length of the period you spend on gaining knowledge that dictates how well you understand. Some may realise something in mere minutes where others take years.

who is the one with propaganda?

Well lets see. Unbacked claims of toxicity for starters....I did not put that out there.

I'm glad you can at least own up to the fact that while we are in the right to choose how we define spirituality, that people largely are divorced from conventional traditional peoples' experiences.

or overinterpret them. like neoshamanism. It is a completely alien concept that some of our ancestors may just as well have used drugs as boredom relief as much as any spiritual implication the drug may have. Nay say they. I say...absofuckinglutely. Just look at us. We love all highs, but more so, we love to dictate others highs.

one major note, toxic does not mean injury or death. so you are incorrect there.

toxic
1. Of, relating to, or caused by a toxin or other poison: a toxic condition; toxic hepatitis.
2. Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means; poisonous: food preservatives that are toxic in concentrated amounts; a dump for toxic industrial wastes. See Synonyms at poisonous.

The first definition is moot since it attempts at explaining the word with itself. So, we look at number 2.

This doesn't change that the leaves scientifically contain known toxins particularly to the liver. Also ironically, despite the fact that people keep referencing the plant w/o smoke, the most vocal are also actually smoking it, which undeniably has more toxic compounds then many other herbs when heated, and with a good ammount of research pointing to more compounds then to conventional tobacco cigarettes.

This sounds like unadultered nonsense to me (or state propaganda). What hepatotoxic compound are you arguing is found in weed? We agree on the smoking bit except the cigarette comparison. it was a jaded study from the get go. When you set out to "prove something right" instead of setting out to find what is true, you have allready failed before you ever got started.

What I find most troublesome is pretty much all folks here are bouncing back and forth between things to find a reason why weed somehow is an exception and can be part of a healthy diet.

by all means, Ignore Cliff's anecdote. It is as far as i am informed not unique.

as for tobacco, I really wouldn't venture there unless you want to bring along opium poppies and the coca plant

but I do, these drugs most certainly have their uses. Take a good long look at the litterature on it. Then please reconcider the above. While I agree that cocaine is shit and fits the "Is Toxic" bill perfectly, coca, and the coca plant are wonders of chemistry when it comes to the human organism. If I was to take any of the drugs on the above (not that i would) tobacco would be my last choice based on toxicity alone.

Perhaps have this conversation with mom and dad if you want to feel lofty.

was that your high horse that ran off without you there buddy?

[KD]

how can you not see that it is relevant? you have never had any experience whatsoever if what I am talking about, yet you are defying that what you are doing has any problems based on me being unable to convince you with information and statistics or other experiences? basically you are saying that your experiences and those of your peers are enough to make you believe what you want to believe.

as I already stated oxygen is very capable of causing injury or death but is not considered toxic in it of itself, all plants on the other hand carry some manner of toxins and this is wildly agreed upon. People are running in circles with this one. One question: Do you or do you not smoke pot or otherwise use refined drugs not picked and consumed directly from the plant? if you do, then stop arguing about the plants please.

its clear that you arnt really in the community of people here I care to argue with further because you seem to enjoy alot of drugs and dont seem to care much about actual differences in health as a general rule as long as you get yours. The issue for the most part is whether pot gets some kind of pass over other substances, which it doesn't. If your philosophy is that people can do whatever they want and nothing matters, then this isn't proper ground for argument.

as for a high horse, your comment was totally insulting to others intelligence and implying that all other people had to be ignorant or wrong or squares basically, while my previous point was not.

[Brother]

how can you not see that it is relevant? you have never had any experience whatsoever if what I am talking about, yet you are defying that what you are doing has any problems based on me being unable to convince you with information and statistics or other experiences? basically you are saying that your experiences and those of your peers are enough to make you believe what you want to believe.

re-read the thread as many times as you need to.

Do you or do you not smoke pot or otherwise use refined drugs not picked and consumed directly from the plant? if you do, then stop arguing about the plants please.

Because if you ever eat refined sugar, you have no right to an oppinion on apples. Ok....works for me.

as for a high horse, your comment was totally insulting to others intelligence and implying that all other people had to be ignorant or wrong or squares basically, while my previous point was not.

if you say so

[cliff]

Meet Fulla Nayek-


She lived to 120 and smoked a fat ass marijuana joint pretty much everyday of her life, along with strong palm wine.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article73930.ece

Doesn't prove much but interesting none the less.

[KD]

maybe you could actually answer the questions seriously. and perhaps acknowledge your own hypocrisy here, and your referencing of rastas in context of traditional peoples and other wormy semantic arguments. please actually for once provide the hard evidence in what you are saying before labeling everything as propaganda and conventional thought, as refraining from doing so is definitely fulling my lazy babylonian-minded stereotype. I don't think there is in fact a person here who's single variable in removal from a otherwise 100% healthy diet is marijuana, so I believe that experience does not count as a data comparison even anemically.

Because if you ever eat refined sugar, you have no right to an oppinion on apples. Ok....works for me.

no, in fact people that eat refined sugar have no idea what is like usually to not eat refined sugar and to experience another kind of fuel processing or health. I'm certain of this because i've experienced both. Seems like everyone here wants to turn this conversation into some kind of perfectionism thing which it isn't.

I already said:

What I find most troublesome is pretty much all folks here are bouncing back and forth between things to find a reason why weed somehow is an exception and can be part of a healthy diet. Without changing a healthy diet to 'whatever works is therefore healthy' (which is certainly ok I guess per the individual) this is not technically correct. If 's a vice plain and simple. Whether many folks in the end will be healthier as a whole person with a few vices is not surprising to me or shatters my puritanical viewpoint.

clearly you do not see weed as an exception and embrace all manner of substances and foods as long as they support what you want and therefore there us no ground to criticize these things or decide officially what is right. (not only have I read all of this thread but have read and remembered other threads with these same 'perfectionism' type arguments) How can I cater any more to this concept? There needs to be a resolution as to whether something is conducive to health or is not. You can add whatever subjective stuff up to make a whole, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the substance is in itself harmful, particularly when people are clearly using it AS a substance, and not medicinally or in traditional and very occasional circumstances.

If people want to have a conversation strictly about unheated plants as temporary treatments for various ailments (which probably was the intent of the OP) then that is worth pursuing. However, the fact that people want to rationalize all kinds of behaviors and cut corners yet claim 'all natural' as part of that conversation, just proves that these things go way beyond any indigenous use and into modern addictions and abuse.

[majormark]

lol

marijuana's bad, mkay!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCUkNTH0vqc&feature=related

[Brother]

maybe you could actually answer the questions seriously.

what questions. Your postulates are not questions and unlike you I give refference to starting points (such as an entry on canabinoid receptors etc) when I have them avaible. what more exactly do you feel i should do?

please actually for once provide the hard evidence in what you are saying before labeling everything as propaganda and conventional thought, as refraining from doing so is definitely fulling my lazy babylonian-minded stereotype. I don't think there is in fact a person here who's single variable in removal from a otherwise 100% healthy diet is marijuana, so I believe that experience does not count as a data comparison even anemically.

Then how come you keep refering to completely outdated propaganda?

You can add whatever subjective stuff up to make a whole, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the substance is in itself harmful, particularly when people are clearly using it AS a substance, and not medicinally or in traditional and very occasional circumstances.

based on what findings exactly? The chemical profile of the plant, even including THC does not suggest harm in the sense that harm is usually used in the context. When you evaluate harm, you have to have something to compare that harm to. What is your point of compare?

However, the fact that people want to rationalize all kinds of behaviors and cut corners yet claim 'all natural' as part of that conversation, just proves that these things go way beyond any indigenous use and into modern addictions and abuse.

I both agree and disagree with this. I agree because obviously it is true! I disagree because it is not the whole picture IMO. I think it was never anything else and a few got something extraordinary out of it. The large majority just got off their face for a handfull of hours. Then as well as now. Im starting to suspect that our disagreement may stem from a situation in which we do not take starting position for the conversation at the same place. I dont think we really disagree that much. Thank you for clearing this up.

*)A couple of funny links in the context of "natural or not".
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Animals-on-Drugs-41500.shtml
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/06/25/80825_fun-weird-news.html

**)A new take on risk assessment in relation to drugs in the ABC class system. Alcohol and tobacco being the point of compare;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16393904/How-Bad-Are-Illegal-Drugs-Lancet-Study I obviously do not agree in its entirety because I tend to look more at the chemistry involved and less on such aspects as loss of social life, since i believe they have deeper drivers and in those cases the drugs are the symptom. What I feel "the other" side is arguing, is that this is always the case. But if that is so, then this line of reasoning should apply equally to all kinds of boredom relief that to some or all have some potential for hazard, even if it is not directly but as a byproduct.  It is however refreshing and I know it is only meant as a point of entry for a debate that needs to be taken betwen the legal and health branches of government.

[KD]

what questions. Your postulates are not questions and unlike you I give refference to starting points (such as an entry on canabinoid receptors etc) when I have them avaible. what more exactly do you feel i should do?

how can you not see that it is relevant? you have never had any experience whatsoever if what I am talking about, yet you are defying that what you are doing has any problems based on me being unable to convince you with information and statistics or other experiences? basically you are saying that your experiences and those of your peers are enough to make you believe what you want to believe.

I don't think this is postulating. I'm coming from both sides of experience and have no connection to any governing body or enterprise that would profit from any of this, so my question was what other than my experiences and basic facts (many of which you have already conceded to) are needed to convince you of the possibility that from a purely chemical and biological level -and discounting any lifestyle bonuses - that ingesting marijuana (smoking in particular) produces as at least slightly negative 'ash' on the bodies health. Seeing since you want to use your own definition of toxic that is different than mine, if you care to you would need to convince me that any amount of the substance could be ingested without any negative effects not needing to include death, and please no jokes about choking on meats or crapping to death from fruits.

because I said all plants have toxins, and heat causes more toxins this is some kind of governmental propaganda? I don't understand what propaganda you are referring to. The hypocrisy is you've already admitted that applying heat causes cancerous compounds, yet you claim to do it anyway and are still trying to make a credible argument in discussing differences between a completely healthy diet, and one that takes a subjective direction despite only having experience of the latter. This in addition to typical casual criticism of diet that just about all non-interested people make that everyone gets old and dies and why bother with the little stuff or whatever, distorts any sincere  discussion of how even minor kind of heat related toxins would slow or stop productive healing on a raw food diet.

Like with ALL the other conversions on this forum, citing HGs or any other modern person that 'does just fine' is totally unacceptable when discussing the minutia of these kinds of things as we can prove or disprove pretty much any concept or persons experience by citing any other person who happens to do whatever or the opposite. The yogis in particular are a very impressive 'people' but that doesn't mean we follow what they do with diet to a T or at all, or support the idea that if we did we would get their results.

Similarly, as for whether these same 'ancient' people also abused substances, I have doubts but that doesn't help your argument, as generally according to raw food type theories...most behaviors after cooking/heating/agriculture and lock-and-key type ownership have many fundamental flaws in character and in turn create new problems. artificial situations, and poor habits.

[KD]

**)A new take on risk assessment in relation to drugs in the ABC class system. Alcohol and tobacco being the point of compare;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16393904/How-Bad-Are-Illegal-Drugs-Lancet-Study I obviously do not agree in its entirety because I tend to look more at the chemistry involved and less on such aspects as loss of social life, since i believe they have deeper drivers and in those cases the drugs are the symptom. What I feel "the other" side is arguing, is that this is always the case. But if that is so, then this line of reasoning should apply equally to all kinds of boredom relief that to some or all have some potential for hazard, even if it is not directly but as a byproduct.  It is however refreshing and I know it is only meant as a point of entry for a debate that needs to be taken betwen the legal and health branches of government.

It really doesn't matter if it is 'always the case', because as as you say all manner of activities have the potential to be destructive. Its still proper to say that alcohol is not healthy, that computers and cell phones aren't healthy, that staying up late is not healthy, that loud music is not healthy, that mixing food is not healthy and even certain kinds of exercise is detrimental long-term and on and on. Its up to the individual to decided how much this stuff matters TO THEM and what they ultimately enjoy and can navigate their life the best, but as you point out there is no arguing with the chemistry and observed effect of these things on the body and this is independent of lifestyle and easier to debate conclusively.

[Brother]

how can you not see that it is relevant? you have never had any experience whatsoever if what I am talking about, yet you are defying that what you are doing has any problems based on me being unable to convince you with information and statistics or other experiences? basically you are saying that your experiences and those of your peers are enough to make you believe what you want to believe.

I saw this, but I am not sure what you are on about. What information and statistics is it that has been presented that should have convinced me? We have all shared anecdotes. Only good samaritan, Kurite and I, have entered anything into the debate that were not our own opinions. Even if we shared those opinions.

Seeing since you want to use your own definition of toxic that is different than mine

Is there another dictionary I should use?

I don't understand what propaganda you are referring to.

I thought you reffered to this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071217110328.htm
These findings come and go and dependent on whom you ask and what their own interrests are, it is one or the other. The supposed hepatotoxicity of weed. The cancer link is from smoking alone, but I have agreed the whole time that heat changes everythings structure, it is no longer the same thing.

The hypocrisy is you've already admitted that applying heat causes cancerous compounds, yet you claim to do it anyway and are still trying to make a credible argument in discussing differences between a completely healthy diet, and one that takes a subjective direction despite only having experience of the latter.

It would be hyporisy if I did not openly admit it. I agree entirely that smoking is a bad idea, regardless of what is in the pipe. In this case i argue that the smoking itself, is far more harmfull than the substance itself.

This in addition to typical casual criticism of diet that just about all non-interested people make that everyone gets old and dies and why bother with the little stuff or whatever, distorts any sincere  discussion of how even minor kind of heat related toxins would slow or stop productive healing on a raw food diet.

you got that upside down. Diet is a pretty major fact in your health. A basic concern. I think you can get away with a lot of silly stuff if you have the basics nailed down. Also, i think there is a cultural misunderstanding going on here. When someone say that there is in fact a 100% mortality rate, why assume anything else than tongue in cheek? Did you actually think that I would eat raw meat and at the same time not give a shit?

Like with ALL the other conversions on this forum, citing HGs or any other modern person that 'does just fine' is totally unacceptable when discussing the minutia of these kinds of things as we can prove or disprove pretty much any concept or persons experience by citing any other person who happens to do whatever or the opposite.

This is what I dont understand. I agree with you on this, but I have been providing everybody with starting points to the science of this particular drug (how it interacts with the brain, its actual toxicity). So it is not just anecdotes from old. My argument is this. Drugs is a natural part of the world. Organisms will use any means to expand their pleasure. Metabolisms are not alike. A cow can eat 50 pounds of weed in a setting and be just fine. In fact, they like it. I think any of us would be rendered comatose given the same amount of THC. So when we see animals do something genuinely odd, and apparently at odds with the idea of self preservation, it may be because they are just tripping balls and wasting time simply because it is available.  

Similarly, as for whether these same indigenous people also abused substances, I have doubts but that doesn't help your argument, as generally according to raw food type theories...most behaviors after cooking/heating/agriculture and lock-and-key type ownership have many fundamental flaws in character and in turn create new problems. artificial situations, and poor habits.

When animals time and time again seek out dope why is that? Would reason not dictate that if the animal felt bad, it would never go near eg. poppies again? Why do they keep comming back for more once they have found a spot where it is available? I know that in a natural setting there would never be so many poppies in one place, but it does not change that the animals, once it is made available to them, go on a binge. Sled dogs will willingly eat a poisonous shark when it is catched. Fucks them right up. In parts of Africa there is "the drunk season" in which certain fruits ferment. Apes, Elephants and everything in between go on an alcohol fuelled craze. One time is accident, two times coincidence, three times and you know there is something to it or the enemy is in the camp.

*)McKenna, suggested that drugs played a key role in our development of language and perception of social justice. I am not buying into that wholesale, but I can see some reason in it and i think the following situation is hilarious;

very early man out eating whatever could be plucked or killed, eats shrooms or some vine and states ;"holy shit Bob, this stuff here is just....pheeeeew" and thus language was born.

[KD]

I saw this, but I am not sure what you are on about. What information and statistics is it that has been presented that should have convinced me? We have all shared anecdotes. Only good samaritan, Kurite and I, have entered anything into the debate that were not our own opinions. Even if we shared those opinions.

Is there another dictionary I should use?


It would be hyporisy if I did not openly admit it. I agree entirely that smoking is a bad idea, regardless of what is in the pipe. In this case i argue that the smoking itself, is far more harmfull than the substance itself.

you got that upside down. Diet is a pretty major fact in your health. A basic concern. I think you can get away with a lot of silly stuff if you have the basics nailed down. Also, i think there is a cultural misunderstanding going on here. When someone say that there is in fact a 100% mortality rate, why assume anything else than tongue in cheek? Did you actually think that I would eat raw meat and at the same time not give a shit?

This is what I dont understand. I agree with you on this, but I have been providing everybody with starting points to the science of this particular drug (how it interacts with the brain, its actual toxicity). So it is not just anecdotes from old. My argument is this. Drugs is a natural part of the world. Organisms will use any means to expand their pleasure. Metabolisms are not alike. A cow can eat 50 pounds of weed in a setting and be just fine. In fact, they like it. I think any of us would be rendered comatose given the same amount of THC. So when we see animals do something genuinely odd, and apparently at odds with the idea of self preservation, it may be because they are just tripping balls and wasting time simply because it is available.  

jeez man, again, just answer the questions at hand. the definition of toxicity is not correct with how raw food folks use it in the very least. go look up the term 'raw' and see what it specifies in the dictionary that would meet our standards...really. get over the semantics and just prove to me that the same individual before and after ingesting weed is either exactly the same or better, hence no toxic effects. What statistics do I need to present that people will actually read? Plants have toxins, this information is everywhere.

it isn't hypocrisy exactly that you smoke yet cite the problems of smoking, this could be true of any person that doesn't conform 100% to any system. The hypocrisy is I'm discussing something very specific (how smoking effects someone on a raw paleo diet) and you are going with your opinions on health from already voicing the perspective that these things do not matter.

we can agree to disagree about what constitutes health, but again, you still arn't the one on both sides of having the experience. perhaps maybe you could do an extended trial. Not everyone that eats raw meat even believes in detox, so you could eat all the raw meat and hash in the world and still disagree with my concept, probably quite a few sober people here do.

the issue entirely would be availability and regular consumption as with the same way fruits and other things are indeed discussed int he forum. virtually no difference there. Just like you can argue animals will gorge on fruits or whatever, just doesn't work. Weed is entirely unnecessary for humans and animals to function, everything else is purely fantasy and opinion on what life's meaning is an other unquantifiable stuff.

its like with your processed sugar. Its completely unnecessary for life, but might bring pleasure to someone and one can -sorta- find it in nature. Its always bad for you no matter even if you can moderate it into your diet, have the ability to go without it for periods of time, or can lace indecipherable amounts in someones food and they might never tell the difference.

[Brother]

get over the semantics and just prove to me that the same individual before and after ingesting weed is either exactly the same or better, hence no toxic effects.

http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/2009/04/thc_gives_cancer_cells_the_mun.php

etc..

There are a lot of possitive effects of THC, and there are some that has the potential, in some people, to cause dorment psychological problems to manifest. This is not bad in itself. But panicking and getting people on heavy GABA depressants only seem to prolong this state. IF we go by the way you say toxic is used here, then I still do not find any real concern beyond the one allready expressed and a potential (again in some people) for dependency. but this is not an indicator of toxicity by itself and it should be seen in the light that, all substances has the potential to cause anaphylactic shock in the right setting.

it isn't hypocrisy exactly that you smoke yet cite the problems of smoking, this could be true of any person that doesn't conform 100% to any system

The human creature can be so irrational. However there is no direct link between understanding something and conforming entirely to it. So your observation is sharp, and correct. I do not. I am not a subscriber to ultimate truths.

we can agree to disagree about what constitutes health, but again, you still arn't the one on both sides of having the experience. perhaps maybe you could do an extended trial

I am open to suggestions. I love discovering. I will say though, that I have a slight problem with this line of reasoning since taken to its logical conclusion it suggest that for an example "a detective can't fully understand his proffession unless he himself becomes a murderer/criminal" I dont believe that direct experience and understanding are always connected. Prove me wrong, what should I do?

Weed is entirely unnecessary for humans and animals to function, everything else is purely fantasy and opinion on what life's meaning is an other unquantifiable stuff.

hold your horses pardner. I have never claimed that weed or any drug is a vital part of existance. I use tems such as boredom relief, you used medicine, im down with that too.

ts like with your processed sugar...

I buy the analogy, but I do not think it apply like that.

[KD]

well, ironically you are venturing into the psychological and social, i'm talking purely physical. Like I said, even celery leaves can be toxic to the liver. here is a non-reputable source with other herbs that are damaging to the liver and some 'folk' remedies which have the same effect. http://www.liverdisease.com/harmfulherbs_hepatitis.html
There is no way marijuana eaten in any quantity does not have a negative physical affect on the body - cellularly in the body or the brain - so I'll just stop baiting you on that. Certainly as you admit smoking it can easily be carcinogenic, far more than burning sage or other herbs which without any other Google click leads me to believe there are more toxic compounds to begin with in weed than sage.

its not about the detective being a murderer, its about the detective actually having solved a crime before. Its not the person watching Mystery on PBS throwing out ideas from the armchair. how is it even remotely possible to have ideas about the importance of including or excluding things from your diet based on something you've read or thought about alone? How is holding on to weed or a small amount of this or that any different from someone who sees no reason of giving up any other vice or comfort if they feel ok? How would they know how they would feel without it? The analogy speaks to that quite well I believe as one can argue about the benefits of moderation till the cows come home off your secret stash. I already agreed very much about the validity of choosing vices, and agree with Daniels' opinions on tradition as a solution for most folks. Unfortunately, when discussing the absolute of it, it really is similar to sugar or any other thing we can opportunistically reach at for our own pleasure.

I didn't mean to imply that you thought weed was an essential part of life, I just said it is entirely un-essential and therefore unnecessary for regular use, in much the same way we describe other things that exist in nature that might not be necessary components of health, despite their 'persistent' occurrence.

[Hans89]

What a bunch of bullshit.

No, your post is. This actually happened. He didn't have any history of psychological problems. There is no way of telling who is predisposed to this and who isn't.

Weed is an ok substance imo,

Of course, that is undeniable evidence that it is harmless.

defand it can probably be used like other hallucinogens to overcome personal/psychological problems.

Ridiculous. It destroys peoples life. Many become apathetic and spend their days at home playing videogames and TV. I've seen it happen enough.

[yuli]

Why is there not so much bitching about people who once in a while eat some cooked food?
KD you consume cooked food on occasion, as do many others, why is that....it's not ideal, obviously there is reasons why healthy, raw-eating people decide why or why not a certain substance, whether perceived toxic or not by the community, the propaganda, or science is of value to them.

Why would you try so hard to prove that its of no beneficial value to anyone whatsoever unless you have some personal gripes with people who have different experiences...alternately I am not saying weed is beneficial for everyone and everyone should smoke it to at least some degree.

Saying that drugs are drugs, and a toxic substance is a toxic substance is like saying food is food. Yes but clearly there are differences.

The fact that some people develop psychological problems, that it may cause hepatitis or some other fear has no effect when you make your own educated decision. There are too many other reasons people will get psychological issues and hepatitis etc. and some of those things are worth avoiding but some, are beneficial to healthy people. So who cares?
 
Obviously there is a way that someone can learn to enjoy these so-called "vices" at an accepted level for their system and still have remarkable health.

The original question was if there is a way to consume weed that is less toxic then smoking it, and the answer is yes there are ways. The answer has been answered. Whether that substance that can be consumed in a least toxic way should be taken is completely up to the individual, and if they want to base their answer on simple generalizations thats their issue.

Hans I am sorry for what happened but saying that "Many become apathetic and spend their days at home playing videogames and TV. I've seen it happen enough." is not a good reason, I could similarly say "Many I know who use it are intelligent and very involved people, I have seen it enough"....Just because someone didn't have a history of psychological problems doesn't really prove anything either. No there is no way of telling who is predisposed to what, that does not mean that the substance that apparently is the cause is actually going to have the same effect on everyone. There are many example even with diets that what is beneficial for one individual causes or exasperates certain problems in another.

Talking about overall health and well-being on a purely "physical" level is pointless in this thread because we already know that it is not consumed for its vitamins and nutrients. We all know there are other aspects to well-being then purely physical, people here are mentioning the nice calming and mind-clearing effects of raw meat etc. so you could say it releases substances that are affecting your mental state as well as physical, anything can then be termed a drug, and intelligent people will know the difference between whether they are abusing something or using it for a benefit.

PS. And KD, if you are going to once again say that I am sounding too baby like or overly liberated in my posts, or in any other way attack me personally due to how I choose to express myself, then watch out because I may then do it to you. From your tone sometimes it is now evident that you have your own mental issues & you are in no position to give me your useless pointers on how I should come across as sounding "appropriate". Anyone who chooses to attack someone on that level, when the subject or what I am writing has it own merits whether you believe it or not, has already made themselves look stupid anyways. So now we have exchanged "pointers", after all it is unfair that I get such nice advice from you and not give you any back.

[KD]

Why is there not so much bitching about people who once in a while eat some cooked food?
KD you consume cooked food on occasion, as do many others, why is that....it's not ideal, obviously there is reasons why healthy, raw-eating people decide why or why not a certain substance, whether perceived toxic or not by the community, the propaganda, or science is of value to them.

yeah the reason is they acknowledge that it is bad and don't make excuses for it

I mentioned I ate some cooked food as a controlled experiment, in my journal... recently acknowledging the entire time that there were indeed other benefits to doing less than ideal things sometimes. I've mentioned 3-4 times now that people can have superior health even doing traditional things that go completely contrary to many RPD principles we would discuss here as having importance, but we need to make distinctions about what is healthy and what is not otherwise there is no point in having discussions here.

the issue of whether people can tolerate vices is not under question by myself, as I've made the point many times. you've been here like 1 month and have felt the need to bring up this perfectionism thing into just about every thread. Just because I pointed that out doesn't mean you have to get defensive as I don't think that makes you a crazy person. Please take a second and maybe realize that this is partly true., You should be able to separate these issues from yourself, and admit that on that physical level, it is just another toxic substance that can be used in any which way. I don't see what else this has to do with me as all the users seem to concede more and more ground that the use is indeed merely to get high and has little to do with a healthy lifestyle even if you believe it compliments one. I never said it had no beneficial value, I saiid it had net detrimental physical effects.

[yuli]

yeah the reason is they acknowledge that it is bad and don't make excuses for it

OK...and I will not acknowledge that it is "bad", so get over it already, and the fact that I use it and get benefits from it is not an excuse for using it, it's my reason for doing it, thats just my opinion. Just because I have formulated my own opinion on something that is perceived as bad does not officially make everything I say about it an excuse, my reasoning might be wrong to you and others but again that is just a personal decision so lets just leave it at that. If others disagree with my own distinction then I am fine with it too.

Even if this board makes a unanimous agreement that weed is bad in any amount or form (which won't happen anyway) doesn't take away my right make my own distinction, we don't have to agree on every GOOD vs. BAD distinction and none of us do anyway. There are members of this board that do not agree all cooked food is bad, that some cooked food is even helpful in certain situations, who have been on this forum for a long time, and that should be fine as well if its discussed in the proper thread and it has been.

Its not that I am going into a topic that discusses the benefits of raw meat, or how one should formulate their raw diet, and bringing up weed or cooked food in those threads. I have once done so, and it was pointed out, and after that I had apologized & acknowledged for breaking the rule of that particular forum/thread. I am only going to bring it up in the threads where the subject is appropriate, in this case the subject was weed use, and I voiced my own reasoning for using it, as did others, AFTER it was voiced that it was bad, thats all...

You've been here like 1 month and have felt the need to bring up this perfectionism thing into just about every thread. Just because I pointed that out doesn't mean you have to get defensive as I don't think that makes you a crazy person.

I am not bringing up perfectionism, quite the opposite, that we do not need to attain perfectionism. I believe in eating a mostly raw paleo diet but I do not believe in trying to obtain any kind of perfectionism with it, everyone already knows that thats where I stand. It doesn't matter how long I have been here, why would I care about that, I am here because I enjoy the benefits of a raw paleo diet and that is ENOUGH criteria to be a part of this forum and for me to enjoy and learn from the interesting dietary topics and discussions...I am bringing something YOU have pointed out because you have felt the NEED to bring up my other posts and how I express myself in other threads. No it doesn't mean I HAVE to get defensive but I will, now you know

Please take a second and maybe realize that this is partly true., You should be able to separate these issues from yourself, and admit that on that physical level, it is just another toxic substance that can be used in any which way.

No I will not realize this is "partly true" just because you or some other people want me to. I did say that it does have some toxic properties, I already "admitted" that, how else would you like me to admit it, lol, and I DID say I am not just talking about it on a physical level, I said that many times...

I am not asking you anymore to realize anything positive about weed, so asking me the opposite is now just a waste or you valuable time...

Can we please stop talking about this, if you think my posts are so idiotic with absolutely no useful, factual information or reasoning feel free to either ignore me or get moderators to do something about it. I don't know how else you can go about this really. But trying to make me realize these things is useless from the way you have presented your information, perhaps if you want to try and present it to me differently to make me realize something go ahead but why would you want to spend time on an apparent minority such as me, I have no idea. If you believe I have no grounds just simply pretend I am not posting anything, because it is useless to argue with me on this matter as it currently stands...

[sabertooth]

I don't consider it a vice I think of it as spiritual medicine
Many people are altered long before they try marijuana I was fed MSG laced food, caffeine, cheap grains,vegtables and sugars from an early age and perhaps many people of the neolithic and modern age are altered beyond repair and have used herbal remedies to help cope with being less than perfect. Look at the history of herbal medicine and how medicine men through the ages Have tryed to correct problems with herbs; problems that were caused by eatting the wrong vegtable matter or other circumstances beyond our understanding.



Maybe god the almighty created marijuana for those who benefit from it to enjoy. so what is rastas Have only been around 100 years , I am  only 27 and will be dead and gone and  none  of my beliefs will be remembered ,but that doesn't mean they are not just as valid as some more credited scholar. The spirit sees much further beyond the limits of human understanding. marijuana use is only one of many ways to experience existence it is neither right or wrong

[Brother]

well, ironically you are venturing into the psychological and social, i'm talking purely physical. Like I said, even celery leaves can be toxic to the liver. here is a non-reputable source with other herbs that are damaging to the liver and some 'folk' remedies which have the same effect. http://www.liverdisease.com/harmfulherbs_hepatitis.html
There is no way marijuana eaten in any quantity does not have a negative physical affect on the body - cellularly in the body or the brain - so I'll just stop baiting you on that.

If your point of compare for the supposed toxicity of weed is celery. Ill bite. But then I dont think you have much of a point to begin with.

Certainly as you admit smoking it can easily be carcinogenic, far more than burning sage or other herbs which without any other Google click leads me to believe there are more toxic compounds to begin with in weed than sage.

well, then certainly it must be true. Are there any other information you get channeled to you while you sit there?

how is it even remotely possible to have ideas about the importance of including or excluding things from your diet based on something you've read or thought about alone

For how long do I have to have eaten raw to qualify for an opinion?