if tokers ruled the world (imagine that)

Total Head said:

this is just a single aspect of the point i was making against your ludicrous statement that it's okay for a surgeon to be stoned in the OR. then you proceed to bash the study that YOU requested i produce in an continued effort to defend an absurd statement. science aside, it's common sense. science included, it's obvious. no, doctors, fighter pilots, criminal defense lawyers, and several other professions have absolutely NO BUSINESS being high on anything while on the job, for reasons that are varied WAY beyond simple memory loss, and if you need me to find "just the right study" to prove it you are not worth having this debate with.

Click to expand...

I knew you were going to pull that debate style.

I was only making the point that cannabis doesn't impair your actions to the point of not being able to work. that was ALL I was saying. YOU are talking about ethics and morals, to which I don't give a FUCK.

I stick by what I said, that looks like a bullshit study, and you can't find one that tells EXACTLY how it did the study, and how it found the results.

I'm sorry YOU"re pissed at my argument style . . . . I don't take bs bro, I don't let people win with bs. you have to prove it to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, otherwise you will be doubted.

no one said being high makes you not able to work, but "being able to work" while high doesn't cut it when you are a surgeon. that's something i would say in high school to justify being slit eyed when i worked at the supermarket. maybe if you work at a gas station or in an office. to compare the two makes no sense and not simply because of "ethics and morals" lol . i would also call into question the integrity of a doctor that has gone through several years of school and is entrusted with the lives of the sick and took a particular oath, and then practices medicine with such a laxidasical attitude. He may as well not wear gloves because the room looks clean. Maybe some hendrix and a laser light show playing in the OR. this debate is laughable.

Total Head said:

no one said being high makes you not able to work, but "being able to work" while high doesn't cut it when you are a surgeon. that's something i would say in high school to justify being slit eyed when i worked at the supermarket. maybe if you work at a gas station or in an office. to compare the two makes no sense and not simply because of "ethics and morals" lol . i would also call into question the integrity of a doctor that has gone through several years of school and is entrusted with the lives of the sick and took a particular oath, and then practices medicine with such a laxidasical attitude. He may as well not wear gloves because the room looks clean. Maybe some hendrix and a laser light show playing in the OR. this debate is laughable.

Click to expand...

so you automatically assume that someone using cannabis on the job doesn't give a fuck about their job or is lackadaisical ?

this debate is laughable indeed.

you may feel like cannabis inhibits your brain somehow, but I don't, and many others feel the same. I'm sure a confident surgeon could do surgery while high and not have any issues.

the fact that you don't like it is definitely a moral issue.

so again, yes, this debate is laughable.

poplars said:

so you automatically assume that someone using cannabis on the job doesn't give a fuck about their job or is lackadaisical ?...

Click to expand...

Ummm...yes. anyone who knows they are doing something that could get them fired or sued on the job and publically does it anyway is not only unprofessional but a fucking moron. again we are not talking about the guy that mows the lawn. we are talking about the guy who puts a camera down someone's throat and cuts and burns human tissue for the purpose of extending someone's life. there is a certain level of integrity that must be displayed by people in certain positions, and choosing to be high on anything while performing certain tasks shows very poor judgment and a great deal of immaturity. if i was to guess i would guess you just turned twenty and see no value in professionalism on its own, which is a whole other discussion. dicing up "degrees of impairment" when discussing the integrity of a surgeon is really all the argument you need to make. it speaks for itself.

Total Head said:

Ummm...yes. anyone who knows they are doing something that could get them fired or sued on the job and publically does it anyway is not only unprofessional but a fucking moron. again we are not talking about the guy that mows the lawn. we are talking about the guy who puts a camera down someone's throat and cuts and burns human tissue for the purpose of extending someone's life. there is a certain level of integrity that must be displayed by people in certain positions, and choosing to be high on anything while performing certain tasks shows very poor judgment and a great deal of immaturity. if i was to guess i would guess you just turned twenty and see no value in professionalism on its own, which is a whole other discussion. dicing up "degrees of impairment" when discussing the integrity of a surgeon is really all the argument you need to make. it speaks for itself.

Click to expand...

I'm seriously JUST being technical here . . .

not like I'm gonna go out and look for a pot smoking doctor to go do surgery on me . . . common. I was merely talking about the impairment issue, that was ALL. I do respect professionalism.

that's the only thing I've ever been arguing, the fact that a doctor is capable of performing just fine with cannabis. not that I would want it, or recommend it, or condone it in any way, just saying it's POSSIBLE. THAT IS IT.

you are the one trippin balls about professionalism and moral shit.

Total Head said:

Ummm...yes. anyone who knows they are doing something that could get them fired or sued on the job and publically does it anyway is not only unprofessional but a fucking moron. again we are not talking about the guy that mows the lawn. we are talking about the guy who puts a camera down someone's throat and cuts and burns human tissue for the purpose of extending someone's life. there is a certain level of integrity that must be displayed by people in certain positions, and choosing to be high on anything while performing certain tasks shows very poor judgment and a great deal of immaturity. if i was to guess i would guess you just turned twenty and see no value in professionalism on its own, which is a whole other discussion. dicing up "degrees of impairment" when discussing the integrity of a surgeon is really all the argument you need to make. it speaks for itself.

Click to expand...

I think the point he is trying to make is that people are going to get loaded on the job, no matter what the profession.... sure, surgeons SHOULD be sober, but not all are, and he would much rather a stoner than the morphine junkie cutting his brain open....

gogrow said:

I think the point he is trying to make is that people are going to get loaded on the job, no matter what the profession.... sure, surgeons SHOULD be sober, but not all are, and he would much rather a stoner than the morphine junkie cutting his brain open....

Click to expand...

FINALLY someone gets it.

+rep

gogrow said:

I think the point he is trying to make is that people are going to get loaded on the job, no matter what the profession.... sure, surgeons SHOULD be sober, but not all are, and he would much rather a stoner than the morphine junkie cutting his brain open....

Click to expand...

yes, and i would rather a functional alcoholic than a meth head. you are missing my point. like i already stated, it's not about the comparison of the danger involved between different levels of intoxication, it's about whether someone who chooses to be high on anything has any business cutting anyone. the "everyone does it" argument has no place in an operating room.

i don't refute the notion that he "can do the job while high". my position is that if he does his judgement is such that i would not want him cutting me. if i work at home depot and get high, i get fired. that's it. i can find another "McJob". if a doctor gets caught doing this, he gets fired/suspended, could possibly lose his licience, and then gets sued because he took a legally binding oath. all those years and money gone. his reputation in the field, gone. anyone who would risk so much because he "just had to get high" is an idiot and is not someone i would want anywhere near me with a knife. this is in addition to the fact the the doctor knows the medical reasons behind not being high on the job, and to say that he would 100% do just as good a job high is not something that i buy.

Total Head said:

yes, and i would rather a functional alcoholic than a meth head. you are missing my point. like i already stated, it's not about the comparison of the danger involved between different levels of intoxication, it's about whether someone who chooses to be high on anything has any business cutting anyone. the "everyone does it" argument has no place in an operating room.

Click to expand...

so you're still talking about a moral/ethic issue? in which case, I don't give a fuck what you have to say anymore.

unless this is going to evolve into a logical debate, which I highly doubt it, I'm done.

and if you don't think you're arguing morals, I think you better go look up the definition of morals and ethics.

poplars said:

so you're still talking about a moral/ethic issue? in which case, I don't give a fuck what you have to say anymore.

unless this is going to evolve into a logical debate, which I highly doubt it, I'm done.

and if you don't think you're arguing morals, I think you better go look up the definition of morals and ethics.

Click to expand...

i have made numerous points. like i stated originally, the reasons why a stoned surgeon is a bad idea are VARIED. at no point was this argument about whether the job would get done or not. the issues at hand are whether or not it should occur, why it should not occur, and what can be gleaned from the fact that it did (hypothetically) occur. and at exactly what point did i deny making an ethical argument? the medical profession is steeped in ethics. it's the name of the game, and for good reason. are you submitting that ethics have no place in this conversation?

Total Head said:

i have made numerous points. like i stated originally, the reasons why a stoned surgeon is a bad idea are VARIED. at no point was this argument about whether the job would get done or not. the issues at hand are whether or not it should occur, why it should not occur, and what can be gleaned from the fact that it did (hypothetically) occur. and at exactly what point did i deny making an ethical argument? the medical profession is steeped in ethics. it's the name of the game, and for good reason. are you submitting that ethics have no place in this conversation?

Click to expand...

no place in THIS conversation, yes. because when I state that I'm only talking about if someone is CAPABLE, you don't bring up ethics otherwise you're seriously just arguing a TOTALLY irrelevant point.

if I'm not arguing ethics, why argue ethics with me? that's absolutely POINTLESS.

the ONLY thing I've been arguing THIS ENTIRE TIME is science.

the argument was about whether or not it's okay to be high on the job, the example a surgeon. your position was that it is ok because the person is still capable. my position was that they should not because i believe it is proof the surgeon has poor judgement and probably doesn't take the gravity of his job and position very seriously, partly because i do not believe that a stoned dr. dave is doing the same quality of work as sober dr. dave, and partly because i don't want a surgeon with no sense. and what science have you been talking? i looked back through the posts about this argument and this was th best i could find:

poplars said:

and the science is against it doing any cognitive damage in any way. no brain cell damage, in fact, it causes brain cell growth. therefore your memory loss theory is bullshit...

Click to expand...

i'm not sure what studies you read, or if you just read the blurbs in high times, but the popular study that was done that showed growth of cells in the hippocampus was done with a highly synthetic and ISOLATED cannabinoid called HU-210, and it was quite purified. the study was by the university of saskatchewan and the guy who did the study was quick to point out that actual weed has several other cannabinoids with effects that are directly opposite to the one in the study, and real world conditions would not subject any person to the amount of HU-210 that the study used. there was also a similar study that came out around the same time that used natural cannabinoids which found NO regeneration of any brain cells. the science on marijuana is underfunded and shaky from all angles, so do not sit there and claim to have "irrefutable proof" that marijuana does or does not do a certain thing because it's bullshit. and it does not change the fact that a surgeon that would get smoked out and operate on someone is questionable.

normally I'd go grab the studies, but at the moment I'm trying to relax. maybe later I'll come back and edit this post and post my evidence.

as far as the doc impaired comments, I agree for the most part, though I also think it's possible for a doctor to love his job more on cannabis, but that's just another thought. I'm not saying in any way it's a good thing, I was only talking about the strict scientific possibility of someone being CAPABLE of doing such things. not saying it's gonna be a better quality than the person who is sober, but I bet it could be equal to.



and technically bro, if HU210 causes neurogenesis, so will THC.

I don't think it's even legal for them to do tests on THC or not, but I'm still looking. pretty sure they HAVE to use synthetic cannabinoids.

here's one that seems to test THC and CBD

http://biosignaling.com/content/8/1/12/abstract/
and another
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121667879/abstract
and fyi, I don't get my info from high times.

also, you better post a link to that study saying there was NO neurogenesis in natural cannabinoids.

the reason why we cannot assume that thc will do the same is because other cannabinoids in there have a direct opposite effect than HU210, so one cannot assume that the compound on its own will do the same as thc because it's incomplete. the point is that any evidence having to do with marijuana is easy to refute, no matter what type of results came of it. if someone wanted to "prove" a particular point it's not hard to find a few studies that back it up, but it will be just as easy to find "proof" to the contrary. to be honest i am highly suspect of most cannabis studies because the supposed evidence is so varied. you won't catch me arguing against the existance of medicinal benefits of pot, i just think the claims get a little exaggerated and should not be taken to mean that people can just be stoned all the time and it's all good.

Total Head said:

the point is that any evidence having to do with marijuana is easy to refute, no matter what type of results came of it. if someone wanted to "prove" a particular point it's not hard to find a few studies that back it up, but it will be just as easy to find "proof" to the contrary. to be honest i am highly suspect of most cannabis studies because the supposed evidence is so varied. you won't catch me arguing against the existance of medicinal benefits of pot, i just think the claims get a little exaggerated and should not be taken to mean that people can just be stoned all the time and it's all good.

Click to expand...

uh, it's only easy to refute if you don't understand science. then yeah, you can skew shit like a religious freak.

post that study or you're full of shit.

poplars said:

uh, it's only easy to refute if you don't understand science. then yeah, you can skew shit like a religious freak.

post that study or you're full of shit.

Click to expand...

LMAO!! i have already posted 1 study and referenced two others and you have provided shit. whether or not i post it for you does not determine whether it exists. you have yet to post your study about regenerating brain cells. i was the one who appears to actually be familiar with the study. do your own fucking research or YOU'RE full of shit.

Total Head said:

LMAO!! i have already posted 1 study and referenced two others and you have provided shit. whether or not i post it for you does not determine whether it exists. you have yet to post your study about regenerating brain cells. i was the one who appears to actually be familiar with the study. do your own fucking research or YOU'RE full of shit.

Click to expand...

blah blah blah blah bullshit.

I produced 2 articles supporting what I said (look back and read), why can't you produce yours?

because you're sounding like you're full of shit on this one. making me look for the article YOU are trying to prove something about to me? fuck that, you do your own work.

poplars said:

sorry but you just compared two drugs that react in an entirely different way in our brain, there's absolutely no comparison there.

sorry but I'm only talking about how cannabis truly doesn't impair the motor skills or memory after tolerance to such effects are gained.

you can NOT say the same thing about alcohol. there is NO down regulation of receptors that work with alcohol. your nervous system works in hyper-drive to operate through the impairing effects of alcohol . . . therefore you are still impaired even if you don't feel that drunk.

not to mention alcohol truly inhibits your thinking to the point of convincing yourself you're not drunk . . . . . this is not possible with cannabis.

it is NOT the same case in ANY way with cannabis. if you don't feel that high, you TRULY aren't that high.

Click to expand...

a. my point in stating "i'm not that drunk" is that people will say shit, doesn;'t matter if they are as high as a kite, they can still state that they are not high and try to get on with something anyway. has nothing to do with the actual effects of either.

b. many is the tim i have figured i'm ok to drive, i'll sit down behind the wheel and all of a sudden i'm very aware of just how high i still am, maybe i can still drive, but i certainly wouldn't out of precaution.

c. my tolerance has nothing to do with how i can get high and such, i can smoke e-cheese all day long and be fine while others drop like flies, yet i can take a couple of puffs of some tasty from my dealer and be on my arse.

weed is different to alcohol in that there is no easy to establish tolerance. everything can effect my high. cannabis massively effects my motor skills and my memory. take the weekend, i didn't drink, i barely remember what i was doing prior to getting to sleep. take me smoking my joints on a small ledge 4 stories up, i cans troll straight out onto that ledge, i almost have to crawl back.

weeed could NEVER be a legal unregulated substance with no controls such as what you can and cannot do while under the influence. everyone acts differently and everyone is effected differently. while you might feel absolutely fine doing surgery, i wouldn't i'd start doodling on their navel with a scalpel

so personally, i would say fuck you each and every time to a doctor, taxi driver, hell, hairdresser! i do not know that individual so i can have no blind confidence in his ability or his tolerance and such. call me silly but i don't see a reason to take pointless chances

id trust a high surgeon. hell id toke up with him before my surgery.