The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-10-2012, 12:16 PM   #126
Jay3
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtown View Post
What are you even talking about? You do realize something can be legal with limits and regulations, right? You can't drink beer everywhere, you can't smoke everywhere. Neither are decriminalized though, they are legal.
That's precisely the distinction I was drawing -- something can be legal to do, that doesn't mean you have a protected, enforceable right to do it.

It's not an obscure point -- it will come up, in the employment setting. Certain kinds of employers will maintain the policy of no dope.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 12:52 PM   #127
teknic
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic View Post
Not only does it cause lung cancer it is now widely known to increase the cause of testicular cancer in young males. I've seen permanent damage that its causes to my family. People can tell me it's harmless and beneficial, but not to me. I have 2 family members gone as a direct result.
both of your claims are completely false.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 12:57 PM   #128
Drunken.Broncoholic
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teknic View Post
both of your claims are completely false.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48969102...icular-cancer/


Tell that to my uncle.

Scientists claims > you
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 01:20 PM   #129
Bronco Yoda
.
 
Bronco Yoda's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,051
Default



Talking about again, what were we, hmm?
Bronco Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 01:37 PM   #130
teknic
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic View Post
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48969102...icular-cancer/


Tell that to my uncle.

Scientists claims > you
It's funny that you consider that study to be the claims of scientists. Any academic would disagree with you. The sample size is too small, with too many statistical outliers, no control is present, and no variable was isolated. To draw a clear conclusion from that data is laughable and subject to confirmation bias. I had previously seen that study mentioned, but I have also seen numerous sources discredit the methodology of that study.

If you actually care about studies that follow the scientific method, thereby providing reliable, replicable results, check out the literally THOUSANDS of academic studies that disagree with you.
http://www.letfreedomgrow.com/cmu/Gr...istJan2012.pdf

In regards to your uncle, I don't mean to be insensitive, but you're missing the point. There is no known carcinogen present in cannabis. The use of cannabis did not cause his cancer, the act of inhaling the byproducts of crude combustion did. If you were to smoke ANY plant, it would increase the risk of lung cancer. This isn't because the plants are carcinogenic, but rather the byproducts of combustion are. If he had used a vaporizer or ingested the cannabis instead, then he would not have developed the lung cancer. Many of the compounds present in cannabis have been shown to inhibit tumor growth and destroy cancer cells.

In short, you're wrong.

Last edited by teknic; 11-10-2012 at 01:44 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 01:53 PM   #131
Drunken.Broncoholic
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teknic View Post
It's funny that you consider that study to be the claims of scientists. Any academic would disagree with you. The sample size is too small, with too many statistical outliers, no control is present, and no variable was isolated. To draw a clear conclusion from that data is laughable and subject to confirmation bias. I had previously seen that study mentioned, but I have also seen numerous sources discredit the methodology of that study.

If you actually care about studies that follow the scientific method, thereby providing reliable, replicable results, check out the literally THOUSANDS of academic studies that disagree with you.
http://www.letfreedomgrow.com/cmu/Gr...istJan2012.pdf

In regards to your uncle, I don't mean to be insensitive, but you're missing the point. There is no known carcinogen present in cannabis. The use of cannabis did not cause his cancer, the act of inhaling the byproducts of crude combustion did. If you were to smoke ANY plant, it would increase the risk of lung cancer. This isn't because the plants are carcinogenic, but rather the byproducts of combustion are. If he had used a vaporizer or ingested the cannabis instead, then he would not have developed the lung cancer. Many of the compounds present in cannabis have been shown to inhibit tumor growth and destroy cancer cells.

In short, you're wrong.

I'm not going to get in an arguement with you. If you want my uncles doctors phone numbers you can argue with them. Many of the carcinogen and co-carcinogens found in tobacco smoke are also found in marijuana smoke.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 01:54 PM   #132
teknic
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic View Post
I'm not going to get in an arguement with you. If you want my uncles doctors phone numbers you can argue with them. Many of the carcinogen and co-carcinogens found in tobacco smoke are also found in marijuana smoke.
In the smoke.

You're still missing the point.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 01:58 PM   #133
Drunken.Broncoholic
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teknic View Post
In the smoke.

You're still missing the point.
So you're saying to eat it in brownies and you'll be fine. Got it.

This doesn't change anything. My entire Point is saying if you SMOKE it.

Last edited by Drunken.Broncoholic; 11-10-2012 at 02:00 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 01:59 PM   #134
bowtown
Ring of Famer
 
bowtown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,529

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Aaron Brewer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay3 View Post
That's precisely the distinction I was drawing -- something can be legal to do, that doesn't mean you have a protected, enforceable right to do it.

It's not an obscure point -- it will come up, in the employment setting. Certain kinds of employers will maintain the policy of no dope.
Yes, of course it will, but pretty much every single thing that is legal to do in our society has rules and regulations around them, but they are legal. That's not the same thing as decriminalization.

Last edited by bowtown; 11-10-2012 at 02:01 PM..
bowtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:00 PM   #135
teknic
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic View Post
So you're saying to eat it in brownies and you'll be fine. Got it.
I'm saying that if you smoke anything, it will increase your chance of developing lung cancer. If the combustion were ideal, there wouldn't be any issue. Because our world is not ideal, the combustion doesn't occur in an environment with excess oxygen, or at a temperature high enough to destroy the by-products. Those by-products are responsible for the carcinogens in smoke.

To claim that cannabis causes cancer is factually incorrect. It actually does the opposite.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:02 PM   #136
Play2win
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 9,630

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Duke
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronco Yoda View Post


Talking about again, what were we, hmm?
Actually if Yoda was stoned, he would probably just say:

"What were we talking about?"
Play2win is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:04 PM   #137
Drunken.Broncoholic
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teknic View Post
I'm saying that if you smoke anything, it will increase your chance of developing lung cancer. If the combustion were ideal, there wouldn't be any issue. Because our world is not ideal, the combustion doesn't occur in an environment with excess oxygen, or at a temperature high enough to destroy the by-products. Those by-products are responsible for the carcinogens in smoke.

To claim that cannabis causes cancer is factually incorrect. It actually does the opposite.

My entire point in here is about smoking it. When I said it cause problems I'm saying it when smoking it. So when I said it increases testicular cancer I'm saying it does when you smoke it. I thought this was plainly clear by being in a thread about smoking it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:08 PM   #138
teknic
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic View Post
My entire point in here is about smoking it. When I said it cause problems I'm saying it when smoking it. So when I said it increases testicular cancer I'm saying it does when you smoke it. I thought this was plainly clear by being in a thread about smoking it.
Your claim was that cannabis causes cancer. I asserted that it is not the plant which is responsible for the cancer, but the actual act of smoking it. You don't have to smoke it, so claiming that cannabis is carcinogenic is simply incorrect.

By the way, how is this thread about smoking cannabis?
Thread title: NFL Still Bans Denver Broncos From Marijuana Use Even When Itís Legal; Right Or Wrong?

Nothing was implied about the method of use. If you chose to interpret it in that way, that is due to your ignorance. Last time I checked, smoking is not the only method of use.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:09 PM   #139
Drunken.Broncoholic
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teknic View Post
Your claim was that cannabis causes cancer. I asserted that it is not the plant which is responsible for the cancer, but the actual act of smoking it. You don't have to smoke it, so claiming that cannabis is carcinogenic is simply incorrect.

By the way, how is this thread about smoking cannabis?
Thread title: NFL Still Bans Denver Broncos From Marijuana Use Even When Itís Legal; Right Or Wrong?

Nothing was implied about the method of use. If you chose to interpret it in that way, that is due to your ignorance. Last time I checked, smoking is not the only method of use.
Did I ever say the word "cannabis" before your first post? If I did I'd like to see it.


"It" meant marijuana to me cannabis to you. Guess I should post in crayon next time
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:13 PM   #140
teknic
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic View Post
Did I ever say the word "cannabis" before your first post? If I did I'd like to see it.
Sorry, I prefer to use the proper term for the plant, rather than the pejorative term "marijuana" (or "marihuana"), which has racist connotations.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:13 PM   #141
Tim
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Marijuana sounds like a cure all, I might start doing it so I'll live longer.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:13 PM   #142
teknic
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic View Post
Did I ever say the word "cannabis" before your first post? If I did I'd like to see it.


"It" meant marijuana to me cannabis to you. Guess I should post in crayon next time
Ignorance.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:13 PM   #143
Drunken.Broncoholic
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teknic View Post
Ignorance.
Canadian
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:15 PM   #144
teknic
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic View Post
Canadian
Yes, I am.

That doesn't change the point that you are completely wrong though.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:30 PM   #145
DAN_BRONCO_FAN
Ring of Famer
 
weed will win

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: colorado springs area
Posts: 3,410

Adopt-a-Bronco:
miles
Default

alcohol causes brain damages if done in excess too. so why should marijuana be banned. should anything that might harm a person be banned ?
im 100% for legalizing marijuana also lowing the age to 18 for drinking toking just to be clear on my views .
as far as the nfl goes they have every right to make their own rules on what you can cannot do , i dont agree with it if it dont interfere with performance .
DAN_BRONCO_FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:32 PM   #146
bronco militia
OMG...this is horrible!
 
bronco militia's Avatar
 
THE GREATEST

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: colorado springs, co
Posts: 25,152
Default

i've got nothing against weed, but this is going to be one big cluster ****. nice going, dumb asses

bronco militia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:33 PM   #147
Jay3
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bowtown View Post
Yes, of course it will, but pretty much every single thing that is legal to do in our society has rules and regulations around them, but they are legal. That's not the same thing as decriminalization.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make -- you asked me "what are you even talking about?" and I tried to clarify. Don't think I can anymore.

This whole thread is supposed to be about whether we think the NFL is "right or wrong" to maintain its policy, and I'm saying I think they're right. I don't know what how the semantics come into it.

If I had to guess, I'd say you feel strongly that it should be clarified the difference between something being "legalized" and "decriminalized." But I thought that got really well clarified right early in the thread.

Can you finish the thought? Are you saying that based on a semantic distinction, the NFL is not within its legal rights to maintain its policy? Because I figure the courts will sort that out if in fact this one state changing means that nationwide employers are required to allow pot smoking. I thought we were just weighing on what we thought was right or wrong.

I do not believe that legalizing the smoking weed creates a protected, enforceable right to smoke it -- all sorts of other rights, such as property rights, contract rights, etc, will come into play to limit the ability of people to smoke it and still be wherever or do whatever they want. There will still be places, jobs, and organizations that say "we don't allow that," and "but it is legal" will not be enough to override that pronouncement.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:38 PM   #148
DAN_BRONCO_FAN
Ring of Famer
 
weed will win

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: colorado springs area
Posts: 3,410

Adopt-a-Bronco:
miles
Default

why dont we settle the marijuana causes cancer by providing a link that is credible and deals with medical studies.
couldone weed dealer be adding other substances to the marijuana

Last edited by DAN_BRONCO_FAN; 11-10-2012 at 02:48 PM..
DAN_BRONCO_FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:40 PM   #149
Dedhed
Ring of Famer
 
Dedhed's Avatar
 
Fare thee well

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,344

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Q Smith
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socalorado View Post
So Police, Fire, Nurses, Dr.s can be stoned on the job if its part of their union or employment contracts?
Just asking. I really dont know.
Are Poilice, Fire, Drs, Nurses allowed to drink on the job under union contracts?
Dedhed is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:45 PM   #150
Dedhed
Ring of Famer
 
Dedhed's Avatar
 
Fare thee well

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,344

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Q Smith
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic View Post
Did I ever say the word "cannabis" before your first post? If I did I'd like to see it.


"It" meant marijuana to me cannabis to you. Guess I should post in crayon next time
You should clearly be looked at as a credible source in this argument.



/sarcasm
Dedhed is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:46 AM.


Denver Broncos