Minnesota says "Fuck Combustion", strips smoking from medical pot bill, allows vaping and edibles

[pakalolo]

It's widely accepted that inhaling smoke from combusted material is carcinogenic ...some smoke is more carcinogenic than others depending on the material being combusted, as I understand it there is no such thing as safely inhaling smoke from any kind of combustion.

It's also widely accepted that burning cannabis plant matter produces carcinogens.

If we remind ourselves of Gunky's Scientific American article:

The smoke from burning marijuana leaves contains several known carcinogens and the tar it creates contains 50 percent more of some of the chemicals linked to lung cancer than tobacco smoke. A marijuana cigarette also deposits four times as much of that tar as an equivalent tobacco one.

A rational & unbiased person might then conclude there is high probability that inhaling carcinogenic cannabis smoke is cancer causing since that smoke contains carcinogens which are inhaled into the lungs.

The premise that cannabis smoke is excluded from the above and is somehow magically non-carcinogenic on the basis that it's cannabis...is comparatively improbable.

Science say cannabis smoke contains carcinogens, as I understand it that is undisputed, if cannabis smoke does not cause cancer then Science is wrong by definition.

A carcinogen is any substance, radionuclide, or radiation that is an agent directly involved in causing cancer.


One has never been illegal...the other has always been illegal. Collecting the necessary data for one is fairly straight forward...for the other almost impossible.
---------------------------------


Fuck Combustion!

A rational and unbiased person who actually does the research will quickly conclude that counter to intuition (which is all you're going on, you clearly haven't done your homework) inhaled cannabis smoke does not cause cancer. For example, see Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic, Robert Melamede, Harm Reduct J. 2005; 2: 21. He references several studies, some of them locked behind paywalls but also some available as complete articles.

The number of peer-reviewed published studies describing the cancer-mitigating properties of various cannabis compounds is staggering. There's no doubt that inhaled cannabis smoke can have negative effects on the cardiopulmonary system, but just because you can't believe it doesn't cause cancer doesn't make it so. Science isn't "wrong by definition" because it doesn't confirm your intuition. Your jump from "cannabis smoke contains carcinogens" (which isn't denied) is completely unscientific in that you fail to take into account the possibility that it also contains compounds that neutralize any carcinogens.

 

[tuk]

....person who actually does the research will quickly conclude that counter to intuition (which is all you're going on, you clearly haven't done your homework)

That's some mighty big assumptions you're making there Pakalola.

I refer you to Berthiller and colleagues who carried out a study looking at cannabis smoking in North African men which showed a 2.4-fold increase in the risk of lung cancer among men who had smoked cannabis compared with those who had never smoked it, this was after adjustment for age, tobacco smoking, occupational exposures and country or the Aldington study where the authors analysed the smoking habits of people diagnosed with lung cancer and a control group without lung cancer. Their major finding was that smoking cannabis increases the risk of developing lung cancer in young adults. The study also suggests that smoking one cannabis cigarette a day for one year increases the risk of lung cancer by 8 per cent, researchers took variables including tobacco smoking into account when calculating this figure.

Both those studies are backed by the The British Lung foundation.

Did someone mention homework?

The number of peer-reviewed published studies describing the cancer-mitigating properties of various cannabis compounds is staggering.

Maybe so, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the claims that combustion cannabis does not caused cancer, it's like claiming water cannot be dangerous & citing the fact 'we need to drink it to stay alive' + other health benefits as evidence, ...see US Coastguard for further clarification.

Your jump from "cannabis smoke contains carcinogens" (which isn't denied) is completely unscientific in that you fail to take into account the possibility that it also contains compounds that neutralize any carcinogens.

1)I'm making a "jump" by assuming the inhalation of carcinogenic smoke causes cancer? ....think you need look up the definition of Carcinogenic, talking of "jumps" lets move on to your next point.

2)Where is the evidence for: "[cannabis] contains compounds that neutralize any carcinogens".........any carcinogens you say, that is quite an incredible claim, is that valid for every single strain Pakalola? If not can you provide a list of strains that don't allow for cancer-free combustion? If yes, can we have links to this extensive data set.

3)Can you quote me saying 2) is impossible and/or where I dismissed 2) as "possible"....otherwise this might qualify as a straw man argument...in a debate this is usually a sign that straws are being clutched at.
---------------

A mod defending combustion on a forum called fuck combustion...interesting.

 

[Gunky]

The Berthiller study showed a significantly increased risk of lung cancer among tobacco smokers who also inhaled Cannabis. This is significantly different from what you are claiming. Other studies, by the way, suggest the opposite of Berthiller's conclusions. If you quit doubling down on your wrong assumptions (and let's be frank, posting misleading shit) you will eventually realize the strong preponderance of evidence shows pot smoking does not cause cancer.

 

[Gunky]

From wikipedia British Lung Foundation entry:

In June 2012 the British Lung Foundation released a report looking at the health impacts of smoking cannabis. In one section, the report claimed "each cannabis cigarette increases the chances of developing lung cancer by as much as an entire packet of 20 tobacco cigarettes".[1][2][3] The report referenced a 2008 study, “Cannabis use and risk of lung cancer: a case-control study” (Aldington et al.), published in the European Respiratory Journal, to support the claim,[4] which was repeated by the charity's then chief executive, Dame Helena Shovelton, in media interviews. This study was refuted 7 months later in the European Respiratory Journal, long before the BLF's claim.[5] In a BBC radio interview,[6] Kevin Williamson, author of "Drugs and the Party line", said that there was "no scientific basis to the claim", citing an earlier study of 2200 people published in Cancer Epidemiological Biomarkers and Prevention that had found "that the association of these cancers with marijuana, even long-term or heavy use, is not strong and may be below practically detectable limits". It is unknown why these findings were omitted in the BLF's claim of "one joint is as bad as 20 cigarettes".[7] Williamson then asked the charity's representative, to cite the research that supported the charity's claim. When he declined to do so, Williamson accused the charity of "putting out bogus information" for "headline grabbing". Online journalist Keelan Balderson [8] accused the charity of peddling "a long debunked myth" (claiming that it was not the first such incident, citing an earlier BLF claim that "3 joints are equal to 20 cigarettes", taken from a report published in 2002, before the publication of the European Respiratory Journal study.). Peter Reynolds, leader of the political party Cannabis Law Reform (Clear), described the report as a "dangerously irresponsible mix of conjecture, extremist opinion and scaremongering". The British Lung Foundation’s responded by asserting that the report was based on sound research, and that "the report references over 80 peer-reviewed research papers, is the most comprehensive report of its kind yet compiled, and has itself been peer-reviewed by independent experts".[9]

So the British Lung Foundation are purveyors of drug war propaganda.

 

[grokit]

So was the Berthiller study adjusted for tobacco use or not?
I have not seen any references posted either way, just opposing assertions.
So from my own web search:

"All cannabis smokers were tobacco users. Adjusting for country, age, tobacco smoking, and occupational exposure, the odds ratio (OR) for lung cancer was 2.4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-3.8) for ever cannabis smoking. The OR adjusted for intensity of tobacco smoking (cigarette/d) among current tobacco smokers and never cannabis smokers was 10.9 (95% CI: 6.0-19.7) and the OR among current tobacco users and ever cannabis smokers was 18.2 (95% CI: 8.0-41.0). The risk of lung cancer increased with increasing joint-years, but not with increasing dose or duration of cannabis smoking.
CONCLUSION:
Our results suggest that cannabis smoking may be a risk factor for lung cancer. However, residual confounding by tobacco smoking or other potential confounders may explain part of the increased risk."

To me this conclusion means that this study was inconclusive in regards to mj smoke and cancer.

 

[Snappo]

...take into account the possibility that it also contains compounds that neutralize any carcinogens.

Would it then be a stretch to consider that such anti-carcinogenic compounds could be artificially introduced/bred into other products such as tobacco in order to neutralize tobacco's carcinogenic compounds; and further, to increase, either by artificial insertion or specific breeding modifications, into cannabis those carcino-protective compounds to increase such health safety margins?

 

[grokit]

This article about a review of studies regarding the "Respiratory Effects of Marijuana"
seems to reek of propaganda:
http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/respiratoryeffects.htm

But it does say that more research into the benefits of vaporization in this regard is needed.

 

[nopartofme]

Would it then be a stretch to consider that such anti-carcinogenic compounds could be artificially introduced/bred into other products such as tobacco in order to neutralize tobacco's carcinogenic compounds; and further, to increase, either by artificial insertion or specific breeding modifications, into cannabis those carcino-protective compounds to increase such health safety margins?

Whoa, now there's something I never imagined. Genetically engineered tobaccabis…

 

[grokit]

Would it then be a stretch to consider that such anti-carcinogenic compounds could be artificially introduced/bred into other products such as tobacco in order to neutralize tobacco's carcinogenic compounds; and further, to increase, either by artificial insertion or specific breeding modifications, into cannabis those carcino-protective compounds to increase such health safety margins?

I would think that this could be largely be negated by the lack of an entourage effect?

 

[Snappo]

I would think that this could be largely be negated by the lack of an entourage effect?

Perhaps once the entourage effect is much better understood given the specific compounds active synergistically, they can be optimized in combination through hybridization or some such method. This is what I am also suggesting can be done once the anti-carcinogenic compounds found in cannabis and our lung's use of them are better understood. Such is the future of medicine...

 

[Gunky]

The New York Times, 7/30/2014: "There is little evidence that it causes cancer."

 

[grokit]

The Greatest Story Never Told:
Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer
Marijuana smoking —“even heavy longterm use”— does not cause cancer of the lung, upper airways, or esophagus, Donald Tashkin, MD, reported at the 2005 meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society.

 

[pakalolo]

That's some mighty big assumptions you're making there Pakalola.

I refer you to Berthiller and colleagues who carried out a study looking at cannabis smoking in North African men which showed a 2.4-fold increase in the risk of lung cancer among men who had smoked cannabis compared with those who had never smoked it, this was after adjustment for age, tobacco smoking, occupational exposures and country or the Aldington study where the authors analysed the smoking habits of people diagnosed with lung cancer and a control group without lung cancer. Their major finding was that smoking cannabis increases the risk of developing lung cancer in young adults. The study also suggests that smoking one cannabis cigarette a day for one year increases the risk of lung cancer by 8 per cent, researchers took variables including tobacco smoking into account when calculating this figure.

Both those studies are backed by the The British Lung foundation.

Did someone mention homework?


Maybe so, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the claims that combustion cannabis does not caused cancer, it's like claiming water cannot be dangerous & citing the fact 'we need to drink it to stay alive' + other health benefits as evidence, ...see US Coastguard for further clarification.



1)I'm making a "jump" by assuming the inhalation of carcinogenic smoke causes cancer? ....think you need look up the definition of Carcinogenic, talking of "jumps" lets move on to your next point.

2)Where is the evidence for: "[cannabis] contains compounds that neutralize any carcinogens".........any carcinogens you say, that is quite an incredible claim, is that valid for every single strain Pakalola? If not can you provide a list of strains that don't allow for cancer-free combustion? If yes, can we have links to this extensive data set.

3)Can you quote me saying 2) is impossible and/or where I dismissed 2) as "possible"....otherwise this might qualify as a straw man argument...in a debate this is usually a sign that straws are being clutched at.
---------------

A mod defending combustion on a forum called fuck combustion...interesting.

I'm not defending combustion. I think it's disgusting. I'm just opposing the spread of misinformation. For someone who engages in debating tactics you seem to have no problem misrepresenting my position.

Speaking of homework, clearly you didn't read or simply chose to ignore the refutations of the Aldington study. As @grokit pointed out, you also seem to be misrepresenting the conclusions reached by Berthiller et al. as well. I also don't know why you cite the British Lung Foundation as though they're some kind of unbiased authority on cannabis. As @Gunky showed, they are anything but. The rest of your post is simply more misrepresentation of my statements with the ironic claim that I'm using straw man arguments. I'm done here.

 

[GeekyGodiva]

... all over a duck...

I try to be more courteous to ducks and so while I may offer a hit, I do not blow anything over, nor under them.

 

[CarolKing]

Cannabis Supporters Take One Final Shot at Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton

By William Breathes in News
Friday, October 31, 2014 at 12:20 pm

As the television camera lights shine on Pat McLellan's face, he holds up a set of four sheets of paper, each a signed pledge from a gubernatorial candidate saying that they support expanding Minnesota's medical cannabis laws.


He takes a breath, then spreads the papers out across the podium in front of him. They're all here, he says. GOP candidate Jeff Johnson. The Independence Party's Hannah Nicollet. Libertarian Chris Holbrook and Grassroots Party candidate Chris Wright. But one's missing: incumbent Mark Dayton.

Read More >>

 

[MinnBobber]

Cannabis Supporters Take One Final Shot at Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton......

He takes a breath, then spreads the papers out across the podium in front of him. They're all here, he says. GOP candidate Jeff Johnson. The Independence Party's Hannah Nicollet. Libertarian Chris Holbrook and Grassroots Party candidate Chris Wright. But one's missing: incumbent Mark Dayton.

Read More >>

Thanks for sharing. This is why we need to look at individual candidates and what they support or do not support. I see many just using party designation/ stereotypes and basing their MMJ status on that.

Gov Dayton is a democrat and he does not support expanding Minnesota's extremely narrow MMJ law.
Keep that in mind when you vote.

Minn Bobber

 

[JJ420]

If you're really believing that Jeff Johnson, Mike McFadden, or Stewart Mills (ahem - the third) or any of these other GOPers will expand Marijuana laws in Minnesota... then buddy you've clearly been smoking off the crack rock pipe!

 

[MinnBobber]

All of the candidates for gov except Dayton, signed a written pledge to try to expand MMJ in MN.
Gov Dayton did not, and he was a cowering wimp as MMJ moved forward---he wanted to wait until law enforcement supported it and we had more studies---clearly not MMJ friendly which is too bad as
it would probably benefit him personally if he tried it

 

[KidFated.]

Kidfated for governor

Edit:I'm Mary friendly!

 

[MinnBobber]

Kidfated for governor

Edit:I'm Mary friendly!

Yes, what's your slogan---a vape on every table Mary Jane as your running mate

 

[grokit]

Doctors will have little say in Minn. medical pot program
They can confirm patients’ eligibility, but dosing duties will fall to the pharmacist.


Samples that show what the final Minnesota Medical Solutions medicinal cannabis will look like.

Minnesota doctors are counting down the weeks to the launch of the state’s medical marijuana program with the same mix of hope, curiosity or concern as many of their patients.

Unlike their patients though, doctors will be watching from the sidelines this summer. They won’t write the prescriptions or decide how strong a dose of cannabis a patient will receive. In Minnesota, a doctor’s only role is to confirm that a patient has a qualifying condition — a yes or no answer on a Health Department form — before they send their sickest patients off to try their luck with the newly legalized drug.

“Then they’re out of the picture,” said Dr. Gregory Plotnikoff, an internal medicine specialist at Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis. “Someone else is then actually prescribing and adjusting the dose, and it’s not a physician with clinical experience. … It’s literally a pharmacist following an algorithm.”

(more...)

 

[tepictoton]

I cannot but feel...

the lies continue, the deceit continues, most of us keep on sleeping...

They call it progress, most of us also do. All I personally can see is an entity, in this story governments in general, creating a false image over and over again, us following them without question.

Now I feel they are switching their tactics, if we cannot control it, then at least we can take our cut of the pie...Or should it be, if we cannot control it 'legally', then maybe we can 'medically'? Because most legislation is only leading to more money being made for our governments, restricting access to more and more people by hitting even harder on our 'neigbourhood' growers, and clearing the way for big corp to get a stronger hold on things...

In these days, it is getting easier for us to see that this whole drug war has been a scheme from day one, a scheme to protect the market for thos who allready had an invested interested in them. Now that they are loosing more and more control over it because the reasons behind it are getting exposed(racism and simple control over the population) they are just switching their tactics.

Furthermore, I truly believe most of the harmfull effects we see comming from the use of certain drugs is skillfully put in scene. They are mostly no more then a direct result of the laws put in place to prevent these things from happening. But too many of us are on these drugs to even realize anymore what the fuck is going on LOL...

But as long as we keep on rejecting to face the core of this problem, namely responsibility by each and every individual walking on this planet, we will keep on 'not seeing the forest because of the many trees'...

We are meant to focus on certain things, and loose sight of the bigger picture. Yes, get yourself involved in little tiny subjects that truly do not matter, as is the subject of drugs, and blow it up and make it seem important...

I can only dream of the day we can start our lives again, without the need to fill our heads with tiny little things that do not matter, waking up, feeling what we would like to do, and going out to do it...But hey, we are made to believe that we are lazy bastards, and that if we do not get stimulated to do things by POVERTY, then nothing gets done. Well here is an idea...let's focus on fighting POVERTY, and truly freeing people, creating a society where WORK is only done out of choice, not out of necessity, and we focus on the only true enimy we as humans all share, POVERTY...

Remember this used to be partly the idea of having governments in the first place? Oh yeah, there is also the security aspect, but I guess it must be clear by now that the one thing we need to protected from nowadyas is, well, governements? So we are back to fighting poverty...

Who here remembers the stories of our governments fighting poverty? Remember, right after those world wars? Oh waith, that is before we got blasted(or brain washed) with stuff like cold war, and then drug war, terrorism...

Sorry for the long post, but the news lately has been driving me nuts. I really want to be positive about al this, but I cannot stop being vigilant and remind myself of the history, the mistakes that have been made over and over again, the lies, the distractions.

Solve the drug problem: those that want to use them, use them, those that do not, do not. Everybody happy and we can once again focus on what needs to be done, fight poverty! But waith, that means we cannot produce arms anymore because they would be kinda useless...that means we cannot have the same priciples of greed ruling us anymore because we would easily recognize how the wealth of some is build on the poverty of others...and so on and so on...

Sorry, hope you can still see some positive things in this post...

 

[MinnBobber]

Yes, the Minnesota mmj program is super restrictive and super pricey. I see that CO charges a reasonable $15 to enroll.
Not MN, the land of 10,000 taxes. Our program is $200 to register for mmj card and saw that one of the limited distributors said the monthly costs for herb would be about $1000 +.
WTF---bend over med patients....

 

[CarolKing]

By Minnesota Public Radio News
Why medical marijuana is off to a slow start in MN
Published 10:13am Monday, July 20, 2015

Jessica Blake has been battling a potentially deadly brain tumor for months. The former Esko high school teacher lives in Duluth, where her parents have moved in to help care for her.

It’s been tough lately. Blake can’t keep most medicine down, and the conventional drug she got from her doctor didn’t work.

“It actually gave me hallucinations,” she said.

“When Jessica said that was two lost days, that’s very difficult,” said her mother, Kathleen Blake. “Because she is not sure how much time she has.”

Jessica Blake and her parents want to try easing her symptoms with medical marijuana. But her doctor in Duluth won’t put her on the registry of patients approved for the drug.

“He has been unable to prescribe it, because Essentia Health has not solidified their policy,” Blake said. “So even though I qualify, I haven’t been able to use the system.”

Doctors must be registered and authorized before they can certify patients. So far, fewer than 300 practitioners have received such authorization. No list of those doctors’ names is publicly available.

There are anecdotal reports about other patients who, like Blake, are finding it difficult and expensive to get approval for medical marijuana despite last year's law making it legal.

Sarah Wellington, a St. Paul middle school teacher with multiple sclerosis, is among the small number of Minnesotans taking medical marijuana. She's also a patient representative on the state's medical cannabis committee. Her regular doctor wouldn't put her on the cannabis registry, so she got certified by another provider at a pain management program. She said the marijuana is helping her.

 

[KidFated.]

@CarolKing Essentia is a fucked up corporation.