Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List

Here is a link to this page:

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 8081 - 9091 - 100
101 - 110111 - 120121 - 130131 - 140141 - 150151 - 160161 - 170171 - 180181 - 190191 - 200
201 - 210211 - 212
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: Nesta1 Sent: 1/25/2019 12:35:57 PM

Actually what i said was: "This is not really the forum to examine extremely ponderous toxicological considerations such as modality of exposures, mechanisms of toxicity, co-factors, describing & quantifying synergies, dose-response mechanism..." and i will stand firm by that.

The fields of epidemiology and toxicology are very well developed and sophisticated sciences that take people years of education to learn and comprehend. Cutting in snippets of studies from these fields on a website like this one where the audience generally has no background in these fields is not particularly beneficial for the audience (as it can be seriously misinforming), and it does no justice at all to the science involved.

This has nothing to do with free speech or restriction thereof. It has to do with science and what can reasonably and responsibly be addressed and presented in a forum like this one. i am only conversant (not formally educated or expert) in these fields because i spent 37 years working closely with their practitioners and frequently had to integrate their work into the studies that i was performing and compiling. As a scientist and a professional who had to explain science to the public many times over the course of my career, i can testify to the fact that it is unproductive and non-elucidating to try to present scientific data and information of such an esoteric nature to a non-specialist audience as it is likely to be misleading in the absence of a formal background& training in the field(s).

Not everything is about people trying to impinge on people's free speech Sometimes it's about the best approach to communicating useful information while reducing the potential for confounding the conceptualization of the topic at hand.

i know you have a bur in your saddle about me personally and my perspectives, Hemp, but this just has to do with the presentation of science in such a manner that we can do it justice. In the case of detailed toxicological and epidemiological studies we can't do that here, because (to reiterate) to cut and paste cherry-picked papers out of the enormous body of related literature and present it to an audience which has no substantial background in those fields may more likely serve to misinform than to inform. i trust that you can appreciate my sincerity as a professional scientist when i make this argument.

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/25/2019 1:33:43 PM

Most people who smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol do not die either.

Most people who have unprotected sex with a HIV / AIDS infected person do NOT catch the virus. IT DOESNT MEAN YOU SHOULD DO IT. WOULD YOU???? Health behaviour.

I am no longer debating this topic as I tried to say earlier. This is about the half that's never been told. The "ganja is harmless" and "ganja doesn't kill" and "ganja heals glaucoma and asthma and cancer" bullshit has been spread by Rasta for 40 years.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE OTHER HALF I have no intention to stop or debate as I have 40 years of millions of Rasta none evidence based none research based propaganda to fight against not just the words of Nesta.


Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/25/2019 1:41:21 PM


Behavioral factors play a role in each of the twelve leading causes of death, including chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and stroke, which are the major causes of death in the United Statesand other developed countries.

In the broadest sense, health behavior refers to the actions of individuals, groups, and organizations, as well as the determinants, correlates, and consequences, of these actions—which include social change, policy development and implementation, improved coping skills, and enhanced quality of life. This is similar to the working definition of health behavior that David Gochman proposed, which includes not only observable, overt actions but also the mental events and emotional states that can be reported and measured. Gochman defined health behavior as "those personal attributes such as beliefs, expectations, motives, values, perceptions, and other cognitive elements; personality characteristics, including affective and emotional states and traits; and overt behavior patterns, actions, and habits that relate to health maintenance, to health restoration, and to health improvement." Interestingly, this definition emphasizes the actions and the health of individuals.

Report Advertisement

A public health perspective, in contrast, is concerned with individuals as part of a larger community. These perspectives are interrelated, as the behaviors of individuals determine many of the social conditions that affect all people's health.

Gochman's definition is consistent with the definitions of specific categories of overt health behavior proposed by S. Kasl and S. Cobb. In two seminal 1966 articles, Kasl and Cobb define three categories of health behavior:

Preventive health behavior involves any activity undertaken by individuals who believe themselves to be healthy for the purpose of preventing or detecting illness in a asymptomatic state. This can include self-protective behavior, which is an action intended to confer protection from potential harm, such as wearing a helmet when riding a bicycle, using seat belts, or wearing a condom during sexual activity. Self-protective behavior is also known as cautious behavior.Illness behavior is any activity undertaken by individuals who perceive themselves to be ill for the purpose of defining their state of health, and discovering a suitable remedy.Sick-role behavior involves any activity undertaken by those who consider themselves to be ill for the purpose of getting well.

Report Advertisement

It includes receiving treatment from medical providers, generally involves a whole range of dependent behaviors, and leads to some degree of exemption from one's usual responsibilities.

These classic definitions have stood the test of time, and continue to be used by students and public health workers alike. However, the lines between these three categories have blurred somewhat over time, and there are also several categories of behavior that warrant specific definitions.

Behavior versus Lifestyle. Health behavior can be something that is done once, or something that is done periodically—like getting immunizations or a flu shot. It can also be something that one does only to oneself, such as putting on sunscreen, or a behavior that affects others, like putting up a shade cover so that children at a playground are protected from the sun. Other health behaviors are actions that are performed over a long period of time, such as eating a healthful diet, getting regular physical activity, and avoiding tobacco use.

Report Advertisement

It is these latter types of behaviors, which are sustained patters of complex behavior, that are called "lifestyle" behaviors. A composite of various healthful behaviors is often referred to as "healthy lifestyle." However, most people do not practice either healthful or risky behaviors with complete consistency—someone might get regular, health-promoting exercise several times a week but be a cigarette smoker who seldom brushes his or her teeth; or someone might quit smoking, only to begin eating chocolate as a substitute. In the ideal, the person who practices a variety of behaviors in a health-enhancing manner can be described as living a healthy lifestyle. More realistically, though, many people practice some, but not all, lifestyle behaviors in a consistently healthful manner.

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/25/2019 1:46:10 PM

Eleazor - This thread contains articles from both western and African research sources. Using the same methods people use to determine the health risk of tobacco and alcohol. In some studies heavy smoking of cannabis is found to be MORE lethal than the other two you mention.

While this thread also touches on the hazardous effects of ganja generally it does FOCUS on the hazards if SMOKING ganja regularly rather than eating or steaming occasionally.

Live up.

It's interesting how ones are so quick to deny logic and scientific method.

But as said I wont stop. This thread is for the conscious youngling who has been bombarded with information from disingenuous Rastas with addiction problems who say things such as GANJA HEALS ALL DISEASE with NO evidence or logic to back them up outside of foolish belief.

I will continue to provide up to date research articles from research journals and medical journals. These are literallly the articles physicians use for their practice

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/25/2019 1:51:00 PM

Rasta holding onto to their Bible and Ganja in one hand with a crucifix in the other pointed at Garveys Africa hoping I melt away.

Prof I had his locks SHAVED OFF because he believed smoking ganja was wrong. That was 40 years ago. Too long the OTHER HALF has not been told

Messenger: Nesta1 Sent: 1/25/2019 2:41:24 PM

Although it’s not difficult to Google peer-researched journal articles which fail to find any correlation, for example, between ganja use and lung cancer, doing so would only be doing precisely what i argue against, which is cherry-picking esoteric technical articles outside the context of the entire body of potentially relevant scientific literature.

Fortunately, there are groups that do distill scientific information for us, the general population at large, in order to summarize the general thrust of the findings. One of the groups which has done this for ganja is the Committee on the Health Effects of Marijuana, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, Health and Medicine Division, The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. Their 2017 report entitled “The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research” contains a Chapter concerning “Cancer”. The excerpt below is relevant:

“Chapter Highlights”

• “The evidence suggests that smoking cannabis does not increase the risk for certain cancers (i.e., lung, head and neck) in adults.”
• “There is modest evidence that cannabis use is associated with one subtype of testicular cancer.”
• “There is minimal evidence that parental cannabis use during pregnancy is associated with greater cancer risk in offspring.”

One of the problems confounding many of the studies that have been performed to try to assess the correlations of ganja smoking with certain types of cancer (including one prominent study in Africa) is that a majority of the sample/study group members have also smoked cigarettes and/or consumed ganja mixed with tobacco. This makes meaningfully teasing out the effects of ganja by itself doubtful in such studies. Studies where there have been sufficient controls to minimize the effects of this mixing of exposures have led to a finding of no correlation with respect to lung cancer.

i would be the first to point out that this finding does not signify no carcinogenic risk associated with ganja smoking; only that the more reliable epidemiological studies have not been able to document a lung cancer correlation at this point. This underscores the complexity of the mechanisms involved and the importance of not grossly oversimplifying such relationships.

For the average person, like you or me, our own anecdotal knowledge is, in many cases, as or more useful to us for decision-making purposes as highfalutin toxicological and epidemiological studies. Most of us know a range of different types of ganja users (e.g., light users to heavy users) from our own interactions. In my case, i’ve known some of them for 50 years. Most have experienced no serious illnesses. Do I know any ganja smoker who’s died of lung cancer? Yeah, one, but like the problem with most of the epidemiological studies, he also smoked cigarettes.

The take home point, which cannot be reiterate enough, is that most people who use ganja are not gong to develop any chronic or fatal conditions from smoking it. Is it healthy? That’s really a function of what benefits are being derived by an individual from consuming it. Its health effects cannot be examined in a vacuum. That’s why a meaningful health assessment of potential effects of cannabis smoking for every person would be a unique assessment that takes into account all of the relevant variables specific to their case.

So.....if ya enjoy the herb and it brings you spiritual benefits or you enjoy the social ritual of sharing the pipe, don't worry about consuming it. If smoking concerns you, there are other means of ingestion. Enjoy!

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/25/2019 3:12:32 PM

Almost all of the cancer research I have provided makes adjustments and uses people who smoke GANJA only and not tobacco.

Also nothing I have provided is Google searched

Finally, i will continue to provide up to date peer reviewed studies that show the cancerous mild altering psychology altering effects of herbs

You keep saying most people who smoke herbs will not develop any problems. This isnt true. But if you want to say most people who use ganja will not develop cancer specifically then ok. Just as most people who have unprotected sex with AIDS AND HIV infested people will not contract the virus either. Yet it would be retarded to do so

Once again Nesta. This thread will be used to create the OTHER HALF that has never been accepted by Rasta. This isn't pro ganja propaganda.


Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/25/2019 3:28:06 PM

Next I will look at the BLEACH in rolling papers as well as other chemicals as most of unuh use white papers. And the brown paper man is still not safe....

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/25/2019 4:09:13 PM

GANJA and pregnancy???

Developmental consequences of perinatal cannabis exposure: behavioral and neuroendocrine effects in adult rodents.Review article

Campolongo P, et al. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011.

Show full citation


RATIONALE: Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug among pregnant women. Since the endocannabinoid system plays a crucial role in brain development, maternal exposure to cannabis derivatives might result in long-lasting neurobehavioral abnormalities in the exposed offspring. It is difficult to detect these effects, and their underlying neurobiological mechanisms, in clinical cohorts, because of their intrinsic methodological and interpretative issues.

OBJECTIVES: The present paper reviews relevant rodent studies examining the long-term behavioral consequences of exposure to cannabinoid compounds during pregnancy and/or lactation.

RESULTS: Maternal exposure to even low doses of cannabinoid compounds results in atypical locomotor activity, cognitive impairments, altered emotional behavior, and enhanced sensitivity to drugs of abuse in the adult rodent offspring. Some of the observed behavioral abnormalities might be related to alterations in stress hormone levels induced by maternal cannabis exposure.

CONCLUSIONS: There is increasing evidence from animal studies showing that cannabinoid drugs are neuroteratogens which induce enduring neurobehavioral abnormalities in the exposed offspring. Several preclinical findings reviewed in this paper are in line with clinical studies reporting hyperactivity, cognitive impairments and altered emotionality in humans exposed in utero to cannabis. Conversely, genetic, environmental and social factors could also influence the neurobiological effects of early cannabis exposure in humans

Epigenetic Regulation of Immunological Alterations Following Prenatal Exposure to Marijuana Cannabinoids and its Long Term Consequences in Offspring.Review article

Zumbrun EE, et al. J Neuroimmune Pharmacol. 2015.

Show full citation


Use of marijuana during pregnancy is fairly commonplace and can be expected increase in frequency as more states legalize its recreational use. The cannabinoids present in marijuana have been shown to be immunosuppressive, yet the effect of prenatal exposure to cannabinoids on the immune system of the developing fetus, its long term consequences during adult stage of life, and transgenerational effects have not been well characterized. Confounding factors such as co-existing drug use make the impact of cannabis use on progeny inherently difficult to study in a human population. Data from various animal models suggests that in utero exposure to cannabinoids results in profound T cell dysfunction and a greatly reduced immune response to viral antigens. Furthermore, evidence from animal studies indicates that the immunosuppressive effects of cannabinoids can be mediated through epigenetic mechanisms such as altered microRNA, DNA methylation and histone modification profiles. Such studies support the hypothesis that that parental or prenatal exposure to cannabis can trigger epigenetic changes that could have significant immunological consequences for offspring as well as long term transgenerational effects.

Effects of cannabis tetrahydrocannabinol on endocannabinoid homeostasis in human placenta.

Maia J, et al. Arch Toxicol. 2019.

Show full citation


Cannabis use has become a hot topic in several countries due to the debate about its legalization for medical purposes. However, data are limited regarding adverse events, safety and potential impact on reproductive health. Cannabis consumption during pregnancy has been associated with gestational disorders such as preterm birth, intrauterine growth restriction, low birth weight and increased risk of miscarriage, though the underlying biochemical mechanisms are still unknown. Given that the endocannabinoid system (ECS) is involved in several reproductive processes, we tested the hypothesis that the negative outcomes may result from the impact on the ECS homeostasis caused by the main psychoactive compound of cannabis, Δ;9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). We demonstrate that THC (10-40 µM) impairs placental endocannabinoid system by disrupting the endocannabinoid anandamide (AEA) levels and the expression of AEA synthetic and degrading enzymes N-arachidonoylphosphatidylethanolamine-specific phospholipase D (NAPE-PLD) and fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH), respectively. Although, no alterations in cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 expression were observed. Thus, long-term local AEA levels are associated with a shift in the enzymatic profile to re-establish ECS homeostasis. In chronic cannabis users, high AEA levels in placenta may disturb the delicate balance of trophoblast cells turnover leading to alterations in normal placental development and foetal growth

Messenger: Nesta1 Sent: 1/26/2019 1:41:40 AM

You write: "Once again Nesta. This thread will be used to create the OTHER HALF that has never been accepted by Rasta. This isn't pro ganja propaganda."

We don't know what has or hasn't "been accepted by Rasta". Rasta may well be smarter than you think. Nevertheless, only presenting HALF without balance is not science, but is instead propaganda itself and it is misleading. You are working hard to instill a sense of fear regarding scary health outcomes in people without pointing out the totality of the science which should allay any extraordinary concerns.

i was exposed to a lot of this same type of sensational, negative propaganda about ganja when i was a kid and all it accomplished was to impugn the credibility of the people who were publishing it because we (ganja users) knew that what we were being fed was exaggerations, biased information and outright lies. BALANCE IS THE KEY to sound communication of any topic, particularly one of a very technical or scientific nature such as this one.

And, of course, as i've said before, presenting these cherry-picked studies on a piecemeal basis while ignoring the technical background of your audience as well as the complete body of potentially relevant scientific literature isn't really an ethical treatment of topic. Unfortunately, inundating people with impressive-looking, peer-reviewed articles minus the context, limitations or the technical background to interpret their significance is also a time-honored propagandist's approach; it looks authoritative while being misleading nonetheless.

Balance is not propaganda, G.A.. Presenting only half the story is.

Most people know that if you smoke too much ganja you'll get a sore throat and a cough. We don't need cherry-picked summaries for that. Telling people that they are DEFINITELY GOING TO HAVE SERIOUS LONG-TERM HEALTH EFFECTS from smoking some ganja is fallacious and fearmongering.

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 8081 - 9091 - 100
101 - 110111 - 120121 - 130131 - 140141 - 150151 - 160161 - 170171 - 180181 - 190191 - 200
201 - 210211 - 212

Return to Reasoning List

Haile Selassie I