Re: virus: Pot

XYZ Customer Support (
Mon, 16 Dec 1996 19:41:16 -0700

> From:

> > >I'd heard that there is, but I'd heard that it was something along
> > >the lines of 16 ounces of THC in the blood at any one time. Man, if
> > >you can take that much, let alone afford to, you deserve to die ;)

> > Hehehe. Nope, 16 ounces won't do it either. No dosage will (unless
> > you take a dose SO BIG that it bursts your stomach open).

> OK, in an attempt to get the facts straight, I consulted some well
> knowledged people in this field:

What supposedly "knowledgable people in the field are they? Now if you
want to say that Robert M Julien, M.D. and the references he gives in
his book "A Primer of Drug Action" is wrong, I would like to see
scientific proof that matches his that would prove that.

> 1) There *is* a lethal dose of THC (that's *pure* cannabis, not
> just the stuff you buy), but it runs at about 56 ounces. Now that
> is a fuck of a lot of THC.

> 2) The British Home Office has commissioned a number of medical
> research facilities to investigate the long and short term effects
> of cannabis. This would include research into Cancer.

What were their conclusions? Have their results been reproduced by
any other reputable scientific institutions in the world yet?

> 3) When THCs are burnt, they oxidise, and produce a carcinogenic
> substance. Therefore, cannabis itself is *not* carcinogenic, but
> smoking it causes it to become so.

That is true of all burnt and smoked foods as well. But how much more
dangerous is pot than BBQ steak? Not much. Tobbacco smoke has
chemicals that produce a carcinogenic effect because of the natural
effect of certain chemicals present in it. It is those chemicals, and
not the ones caused by oxidation, that present the magnified effect
of causing cancer that tobacco is so well known for.

> > >>Now that is definitely a very good definition of what constitutes a
> > >>safe drug:
> >
> > >If we know for sure the effects.
> >
> > Which are: none.
> We don't know what the long term effects really are for sure. There
> needs to be research.

It has been researched. See "A Primer of Drug Action"

> > >>but I can tell you that even if you have asthma you can smoke
> > >>pot.
> >
> > >It relaxes the muscles in the chest, making it easier to breath.
> >
> > Isn't tobacco supposed to be relaxing as well?
> Yeah, but it relaxes the mind, and relieves stress more than anything
> else. Also, because you're inhaling smoke into your lungs, there is
> a reaction by the lungs, causing coughing, and a shortness of breath
> due to lack of Oxygen. It's not very good for people with Asthma, as
> far as I know.

That doesn't happen with pot and that is why one experimental use of
pot *has* been used to help those with asthma.