My weed article in school's paper

[RichiRich]

Sorry DUDE big ass Fail unless you are trying to impress a goverment agency that is against this plant.

It sounds like you got your facts directly from the goverment pamphlet. PLease do your self and the population a favor and head over to MPP.oorg and get a REAL EDUCATION

You keep typing "lie" at everything you don't agree with...Is that some form of maturity or am I missing something here. And then you always go off topic when you actually do type a sentence.

Thanks for the dis btw, I'm surely an ass hat, eh?

Later dude,

-Rich

 

[Knickers]

As said, the article contains more than a couple of errors, is the same old rhetoric, it's just like any pamphlet you'd get at a school/medical centre... Except poorly written.

 

[dukeofbaja]

Dude, you have proven yourself to be an ass hat, 100%

I don't need a scientist to tell me weather smoking weed is going to be dangerous, it's pretty damn obvious that any smoke is dangerous.

So you, a college student, would like to shun science in favor of anecdotal opinions? I tried to be constructive initially, but your attitude towards valid criticisms is belligerent at best. Your writing is even worse, I would give you a C- on this personally.

Do yourself a favor and do more research before you open your mouth. Watch a few documentaries, read some peer-researched papers, and re-write your article. A good starting point is 'The Union: The Business Behind Getting High'. That will raise enough questions for you to write a decent article. One that doesn't do us a disservice.

You seriously have short-term memory issues two weeks after getting high? How is that even possible?

Sorry for the flame, beer lets the anger flow easier than weed...

 

[dukeofbaja]

And dude, learn the difference between 'weather' and 'whether'. That is a 7th grader's mistake. Are you writing an article for junior high? Or college?

 

[tnrtinr]

Your article is terrible. Not only is it written terribly - it lacks direction - is factually inaccurate - and fails to answer the question it asks or inform the reader of anything substantial.

Start over. You don't even answer the question that you posed. "Cannabis: How safe is it?" "So to sum it all up, what does this mean? Well, it means that in 2010, no one can say for sure how dangerous cannabis really is... so obviously, it’s always better to be on the safe side, kids..."

You would do everyone a service to do some research before you pass your opinion off as fact. In 2010 we KNOW that Cannabis IS safer than alcohol.
http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/
http://www.amazon.com/Marijuana-Safer-Driving-People-Drink/dp/1603581448

To name a few glaring errors:
You don't even know what cannabis is. Dried leaves? Really?
Cannabis does NOT cause lung cancer. HEAVY joint smokers have a lower lung cancer rate than NON-SMOKERS.
Driving high is not more dangerous than driving drunk. People that are high compensate for impairment by driving more carefully, slowing down and increasing following distances. People that are drunk do the opposite.

I realize this is for a high-school paper so the expectations are VERY low. However, You should take more pride in your writing if you are going to sign your name on the byline.

 

[klmmicro]

I think that you missed the mark with the article. While you may cultivate and such, your article reads like a typical DARE pamphlet. Also, with the spelling and grammar errors, it will be a hard sale. Hopefully there is a proof read and correction before it gets published.

I know it is hard to get anything positive printed about marijuana, even in these days. I have written several letters to the local newspaper regarding legalization, but they have either ignored or dismissed them out of hand. I think it a mistake to assume that everyone that will read your article will be a pot head. If someone that reads it is on the fence, then it is your journalistic duty to give them the latest information. Just my take, FWIW.

 

[blaze1camp]

yeah man to be real that paper sucks not trying to be rude but...the paper reads like the drug czar 12 yr old child wrote that shit...nothing positive is pointed out about MJ but you manage to state a lot of BS from the 50's propaganda videos...

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fYn2OoyxE2Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fYn2OoyxE2Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[poplars]

I mean common. anyone who truly knows their shit about cannabis is going to talk about the ELEGANT cannabinoid receptor system.

I mean, you guys realize that the ONLY reason cannabis is as safe as it is, is because of our cannabinoid receptor system right?

and all the amazing reactions we get out of it, is all based around the cannabinoid receptor system being one of the top receptor systems in the body (most populated, moreso than opioid receptors.)

people who truly know their shit about cannabis, talk about the cannabinoid receptors first.

 

[sarah22]

if pot was dangerous in ANY way...dont you think in thousands of years of human use there would be deaths?

i think that it was a good try...i think that you need to do some research from sources NOT related to the government. they will always say its bad for you because they have an agenda and need to keep pharmaceutical companies happy. perhaps you should put some information in your article about all the benefits of pot...like how THC causes brain cancer cells to kill each other off. http://www.worldhealth.net/news/thc_initiates_brain_cancer_cells_to_dest/ if you need any help researching actual facts about pot (as opposed to old school government propaganda that has been debunked several times over) just let us know, im sure we'd all be glad to help! i would be

i'd like to add, that there is also no definitive proof that pot causes psychosis in generally mentally healthy individuals. people who are predisposed to psychotic disorders are advised to not smoke pot because it can cause an on-set of symptoms. but it will not cause a mentally "normal" person to develop psychosis.

 

[poplars]

if pot was dangerous in ANY way...dont you think in thousands of years of human use there would be deaths?

i think that it was a good try...i think that you need to do some research from sources NOT related to the government. they will always say its bad for you because they have an agenda and need to keep pharmaceutical companies happy. perhaps you should put some information in your article about all the benefits of pot...like how THC causes brain cancer cells to kill each other off. http://www.worldhealth.net/news/thc_initiates_brain_cancer_cells_to_dest/ if you need any help researching actual facts about pot (as opposed to old school government propaganda that has been debunked several times over) just let us know, im sure we'd all be glad to help! i would be

this is also tied directly into the cannabinoid receptors.

see if people truly understood how it worked, they could truly realize how cannabis can cure cancer with it's cannabinoids.

cancer cells, because they are a mutation from us, will be relatively based on us, just having enough difference to mutate and be it's own being, feeding off of us.

they are so similar, that they even share our cannabinoid receptor system (in over 90% of possible mutations, based on our biology and population of cannabinoid receptors.)

in fact, I believe the only way a cancer cell could mutate against cannabinoid receptors is if the specific gene that controlled this was broken off.

but anyways, most cancer cells express CB2 receptors on the outside of the cell.

what happens when cannabinoids bind to these receptors on the cancer cells? the cannabinoid binds to the receptor, activating its antagonist function, shutting off the MAIN blood vessel in the cancer cell.

certain cannabinoids activate this receptor better than others.

and some more elegance to our system . . . . CB2 receptors basically found on the defense cells of our system. I find it very elegant that they are expressed on cancer cells and have a negative effect on them when activated.

this is truly why cannabinoids are the most therapeutic substance known to man. the cannabinoid receptor system.

 

[sarah22]

this is also tied directly into the cannabinoid receptors.

see if people truly understood how it worked, they could truly realize how cannabis can cure cancer with it's cannabinoids.

cancer cells, because they are a mutation from us, will be relatively based on us, just having enough difference to mutate and be it's own being, feeding off of us.

they are so similar, that they even share our cannabinoid receptor system (in over 90% of possible mutations, based on our biology and population of cannabinoid receptors.)

in fact, I believe the only way a cancer cell could mutate against cannabinoid receptors is if the specific gene that controlled this was broken off.

but anyways, most cancer cells express CB2 receptors on the outside of the cell.

what happens when cannabinoids bind to these receptors on the cancer cells? the cannabinoid binds to the receptor, activating its antagonist function, shutting off the MAIN blood vessel in the cancer cell.

certain cannabinoids activate this receptor better than others.

and some more elegance to our system . . . . CB2 receptors basically found on the defense cells of our system. I find it very elegant that they are expressed on cancer cells and have a negative effect on them when activated.

this is truly why cannabinoids are the most therapeutic substance known to man. the cannabinoid receptor system.

i havent looked to much into the cannabinoid receptor system to be honest, i know a little bit about it. so basically, pot is medicinally effective for people because our brains are hardwired that way? doesnt in any way surprise me

 

[poplars]

i havent looked to much into the cannabinoid receptor system to be honest, i know a little bit about it. so basically, pot is medicinally effective for people because our brains are hardwired that way? doesnt in any way surprise me

yep, none of the effects of cannabinoids are possible (except for maybe antioxidant, neuroprotective properties possibly) without the cannabinoid receptor system.

and what baffles me even more, is supposidly the cannabinoid receptor system was around BEFORE the plant.

shit like that is the ONLY reason I consider myself agnostic....

 

[tnrtinr]

and what baffles me even more, is supposidly the cannabinoid receptor system was around BEFORE the plant.

Why does that baffle you?

 

[poplars]

Why does that baffle you?

because that basically suggests that the plant has a mind of its own and decided to evolve the perfect cannabinoids to fit into our cannabinoid receptor system so it could be cultivated...

honestly it doesn't make any sense that it happened at random to me . . . . of course it's logical that it did, but it just is so unlikely and for how elegant this is, I just can't accept it as random.

 

[tnrtinr]

because that basically suggests that the plant has a mind of its own and decided to evolve the perfect cannabinoids to fit into our cannabinoid receptor system so it could be cultivated...

honestly it doesn't make any sense that it happened at random to me . . . . of course it's logical that it did, but it just is so unlikely and for how elegant this is, I just can't accept it as random.

Or, it is cultivated because it has those cannabinoids? Your body naturally produces endogenous cannabinoids and that is why the system is in place. Someone figured out that when you consume cannabis they felt good; so they started looking for it to repeat the feeling - then someone had the grand idea to cultivate it with the characteristics they desired (smell/taste/yield). Fast forward thousands of years and you have a plant that is familiar to us. The fact that cannabis utilizes that system is the reason it is cultivated - not because the plant evolved to serve us.

Just like the brain has Opioid receptors - it is not because of the poppy plant, nor did the poppy "mutate" so that we could cultivate it. Someone ate the resin and found out that they felt good afterward. If the resin did not serve us; we would not cultivate it and it would be just another wild-flower.

Have you seen PBS's "The Botany of Desire?" It talks about how humans have cultivated cannabis, apples, tulips, and potatoes and how we have selectively bred them to benefit us; and the plants have benefited because we carefully tend them and keep reproducing good genetics.

 

[poplars]

that really isn't why I'm baffled. I"m baffled by the mere existence of it. it doesn't make sense that someone just 'tried it' one day and it was suddenly amazing. the only way for it to work is for those receptors to be in tact.

it just doesn't make any sense that something like that came out of nowhere. it's all too elegant . . . . .

cultivated because of it's cannabinoids? sure, but how did the cannabinoids occur in the plant in the first place?

it's almost like suggesting the plant decided to grow cannabinoids so humans would harvest it.

 

[JN811]

i havent looked to much into the cannabinoid receptor system to be honest, i know a little bit about it. so basically, pot is medicinally effective for people because our brains are hardwired that way? doesnt in any way surprise me

love the avatar sarah!

 

[RichiRich]

Wow I'm loving the flaming here.

I don't know about you chaps but time zones are different over here in Europe and when you write an article at 3am it's surely going to have some spelling mistakes.

I do not go to an English speaking college, it's a French college in a German speaking country. This is exactly why I have to simplify sentence structures, words and phrases for people to understand what I'm talking about.

No need to blow my own horn but my dad has seen my academic work over and over (for corrections and suggestions). He has 2 PhDs in Political Science and teaches at an American university. He assured me that my English language skills are far better than 3/4 of his American post grads, so I don't see how a bunch of stoners on RIU are going to contradict that.

Anyway as for the content of the article, no shit I'm more on the anti-weed side - what kind of a college would publish the article if I was pro weed? I haven't put marijuana to shame or said anything prepostrious about it - most of the info I got was from the UN Anti Drugs office. If there is any world leading authority on drugs, I'm pretty damn sure it's them.

You can go ahead and play the conspiracy violin and tell me about how world governments are plotting 24/7 to keep weed off the streets because "it ain't safe".

Weed has good and bad sides to it just like any thing you consume, from alcohol to burgers. The "it's natural" excuse doesn't prove much - there are thousands of poisonous plants out there that are also "natural".

Your article is terrible. Not only is it written terribly - it lacks direction - is factually inaccurate - and fails to answer the question it asks or inform the reader of anything substantial.

Start over. You don't even answer the question that you posed. "Cannabis: How safe is it?" "So to sum it all up, what does this mean? Well, it means that in 2010, no one can say for sure how dangerous cannabis really is... so obviously, it’s always better to be on the safe side, kids..."

You would do everyone a service to do some research before you pass your opinion off as fact. In 2010 we KNOW that Cannabis IS safer than alcohol.
http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/
http://www.amazon.com/Marijuana-Safer-Driving-People-Drink/dp/1603581448

1. I did answer the question. I stated that there is not enough evidence to prove that Cannabis is as dangerous as people make it out to be. I added that in 2010, we do not know much about the plant's effects on the brain, so we should leave it to future generations to find out if it really does pose a mental health risk.

2. I said that Marijuana is potentially dangerous.
I never said it is as dangerous or even close to being as bad as alcohol.

You don't even know what cannabis is. Dried leaves? Really?
Cannabis does NOT cause lung cancer. HEAVY joint smokers have a lower lung cancer rate than NON-SMOKERS.
Driving high is not more dangerous than driving drunk. People that are high compensate for impairment by driving more carefully, slowing down and increasing following distances. People that are drunk do the opposite.

I realize this is for a high-school paper so the expectations are VERY low. However, You should take more pride in your writing if you are going to sign your name on the byline.

Yes, cured flowers or dried leaves, for the people I'm addressing, this kind of accuracy is not a problem. If I said flowers they would think I'm talking about dasies... I grow and smoke weed, I know what it is...

I never said that marijuana smoke is as bad as tobacco smoke... I said it is beyond a doubt carcinogenic. How carcinogenic is another question. Anyway, for the sake of pleasing you, or "being factual", I will change it to say that "heavy marijuana smoking can lead to lung cancer in some cases".

I think that you missed the mark with the article. While you may cultivate and such, your article reads like a typical DARE pamphlet. Also, with the spelling and grammar errors, it will be a hard sale. Hopefully there is a proof read and correction before it gets published.

I know it is hard to get anything positive printed about marijuana, even in these days. I have written several letters to the local newspaper regarding legalization, but they have either ignored or dismissed them out of hand. I think it a mistake to assume that everyone that will read your article will be a pot head. If someone that reads it is on the fence, then it is your journalistic duty to give them the latest information. Just my take, FWIW.

Thank you for understanding my position. You had hard luck with your local paper? Well this is a college, I can't do shit.


Anyway to make all of you feel better.

The article will not be published for another week or so and of course this was the 1st copy. Like I said I wrote it in the early hours of the morning. We live in a politically correct world so I have to say more bad than good about pot, no matter how messed up that is.

Since you all feel so passionate about the plant, go right ahead and tell me what positive things YOU would say about MJ and I'll gladly put it in - (and please, without making it look like I'm a raving legalization activist).

-Rich

P.S.

I really found the all the grades kinda funny. I never knew RIU was so full of teachers... I've edited the article now - hopefully it's good enough for your "academic standards", eh?

P.P.S

Please save the flaming for another person. I can't be arsed to fight over a fucking forum with people I'll never meet. If you want to add something to the article, just tell me. Crucifying me is not going to help prove your point lol.

 

[chitownsmoking]

lol i just repped like half the people in this thread so i can rep who i wanted to rep tommorow!!!! lol i hate that.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

To me this report sounds very anti-cannabis. Like it was written by some government study guy