Drugs

[prodigy06]

Why would it be capitalized?

[Emithith]

auto correct didn't protest so it must be right.

[prodigy06]

It is correct. It isn't a proper name, it is a plant species.


---


"Sure it is. Low levels of fluorine in saliva prevent the decay of enamel, and thus help with cavities." -qqwref-

Also, fluorine, is not sodium fluoride, which is what happens to be in your water and toothpaste.
Also, in the slightest form, as a topical application only and with no ingestion needed, there is PLENTY enough of it just in the toothpaste.

Fluoride's LD is between 5-10 grams for a 150lb human. It is produced as a byproduct from super fertilizers, and they even make fluoride as a by waste from scrapped aluminum. It is purely poison. To say it is safe because you are only drinking very minute amounts is ridiculous. Is it also safe to spray a shot of RAID roach killer in each glass of my water? You will commonly find it is safe, but I ask you to research how in the world continually drinking toxins is in any way, shape, or form safe.

Check out what it does to your brain and brain wave activities. Check out what pesticides and arsenics in kids juice does. Sure, it just may not show you an acute reaction. Think of chronic use of these though. You may need to look a little deeper into the chemistry of it, not just do one google search and think you know something.

[MagicCarpetRide]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_(word)

[prodigy06]

There is no page for that Magic.

Do note this though since you chose to post directly from wikipedia qqwref, you forgot THIS huge part right below what you plagiarized.
"Author Martin Booth notes that this etymology was popularized by Harry J. Anslinger in the 1930s, during his campaigns against the drug.[3] However, linguist Jason D. Haugen finds no semantic basis for a connection to mallihuan, suggesting that the phonetic similarity may be "a case of accidental homophony".[4] -Wikipedia-

Harry Anslinger was at the forefront of villanizing cannabis by calling it marijuana. This was most of what I was relating the term to. It also was called the devil's plant and was used racially to villanize it to whites, because jazz musicians were said to be the largest users. This led to saying it caused blacks to look at white women twice, go mad, and want to rob and murder people. This was all considered the time of "reefer madness," like the propaganda film was released to try and scare people from smoking it.

[MagicCarpetRide]

Well I believe the word Marijuana originated before the anti-marijuana propaganda and such. It wasn't created as "derogative term" as you say. I may be wrong though.

[prodigy06]

You are correct that it originated before the propaganda. Since the 1930's though it's been largely used as perjorative.

Sorry for that double post, nois.

[Emithith]

Origin:
1890–95, Americanism ; < Mexican Spanish marihuana, mariguana; traditional association with the personal name María Juana is probably a folk etymology
Source: Dictionary.com

The whole Harry Anslinger shit happened in 1930. So yeah

edit: lol ninja'd by a hair

[Spenner]

Ever wonder why we SPIT OUT the fluoride solution when we're given it at the dentist??? Not a great thing to take shots of. Or injest in small amounts over a longer period of time.

But neither are radio waves; radiation probably has a lot to do with the increase in cancer patients. Think of how driven our world is on wireless communication nowadays, how dense society is with these kinds of devices that emit and constantly emit radiation, in small or larger forms. On top of the UV index of the sun, and our obsessing over the orange guidotastical look. Laying under tanning beds. Want to know why cancer rates are going up???? Everyone wants to be burnt by the sun and wirelessly connected wherever they go 24/7.

...Purely an assumption, I mean. So I don't think cannabis smokers are the reason for an increase in cancer rates, I think there's a LOT more about today's society that's forcing augmented cells to form.

And if smoking cannabis somehow was a leading cause for cancer then I doubt it would be suited for cancer patients in medicinal form. Kind of hitting them while they're down. But of course that's not the case. Money and fear of not being in complete control of it and the fact that it has a negative image by most of our past generation (the new generation everywhere seems so much more open minded about it. For our elders, the taboo factor overpowers, and a lot of people by that time are stubborn enough to stand fortified in their beliefs. So it would be very hard to change the minds of the majority of our older generation).

I think our politics are wimps. They're afraid of this risk of being seen as "the pot legalizer!!! Satan lives again!!!!" but in the long run, once they can prove that control can be established and managed, I'm sure eyes would be opened to the fact that we would have so much more money to spend on real problematic areas.

I for one dislike a lot of the types of people associated with cannabis smokers. People don't think of a cannabis smoker as perhaps a lawyer who has had a long stressful day, wants something that can allow him still to be functional and productive, but now has the ability to focus on relaxing and recharging for the next day ahead. But nope. It's people with backwards hats and baggy jeans who are all "idgaf~ yea buddy $$$". I am totally with those people who are against having a society full of those types of people .__' perhaps once controlled and legal it won't be so swagga to be s.w.e.d'n. I mean that mostly for the people who try to fit into that category of people, who WANT to be one of the kind. Some people are way too deep in the hole

Wow I'm really tired and probably typed way too much, most of which lacking sense. Good good.

[korny]

I don't think anyone ever suggested that pot was a cancer causing agent, because cannabidiol, a major constituent of the herb, is probably the most if not one of the most powerful anti-cancer compounds that we know of.

[prodigy06]

Nobody was talking about cannabis being cancerous. It's never caused cancer, emphysema, lymphoma or anything that smoking tobacco has caused. Smoking cannabis alone does not even lead to decreased lung capacity like tobacco.

I do agree with you on everything else to a T that you said, but I don't know where that cancer bit came from. Previously when I mentioned the cancer rates ever increasing I was generally speaking about how everything else in the world is bad for you, but a naturally occurring plant that man chose to outlaw was totally harmless.

[Spenner]

Never mind my bit about the cannabis+cancer thing, like I said I was very tired and misinterpreted it-- you were talking about fluoride lmao. Omit that part

[prodigy06]

Oh it's fine man. I rambled about a bunch and got way off topic with my ranting so I'm sure it seems confusing unless you re-read it.

[iCeCuBEz v2]

like prodigy I get you gather all your information from speculation and stuff but like.......

it isn't like we've developed filtration systems so tap water is safe for people to drink and it isn't like you can just buy your own water filtration system anyway to put on your tap. Brita exists too.
you can buy distilled water from the super market anyway that is literally just H2O without any other bad minerals.

living healthy in America costs money.

[prodigy06]

How about you test your "filtered" tap water there buddy. I live in Las Vegas where I have personally tested my tap water level to be over 400 parts per million total disolved solids. That is rust, dirt, radioactive materials, fluoride, pvc particles, you name it. Tap water is only filtered and chlorinated enough to barely be safe to drink. You can keep drinking all the crap you want.
A large part of what you are drinking is also pissed out pharmaceuticals from everyone in your municipality whos trace residuals are far to small to be caught by the huge filters at the plant. I challenge you to go buy a $5 PPM meter and tell me what your tap what TDS is, I guarantee it's over 200ppm.

Distilled water only is 0PPM or there are many filtering options you can choose that pay for themselves in 6 months to a year. Brita filters do nearly nothing.

Of course living healthy costs money, that's fairly obvious.

What you said is pure speculation, believing the tap water is safe! By purely BELIEVING in good faith humanity.

I've tested my water in IN, NC, and here in Vegas. North Carolina's water, get this, had more chlorine in it...than POOL regulations. Over 3 PPM chlorine, that is standard for a swimming pool.

I think it's funny how you try to be condescending with what you say, and you just blew TOTAL speculation like it was cool.

Everything I say, I will back up with well researched material, many a time that I've actually tried and tested. When I said pharmaceuticals by the way, you are drinking Prozac, and abilify, and all those fun crazy meds in low doses. HELLO changing brain functions, hello anti-drug users being doped anyway.

[MrGiggles]

Originally Posted by Spenner

Ever wonder why we SPIT OUT the fluoride solution when we're given it at the dentist??? Not a great thing to take shots of. Or injest in small amounts over a longer period of time.

The fluoride solution given to you at the dentist contains fluoride in waaaaay larger doses than is permitted in tap water.

Originally Posted by Prodigy06

Fluoride does not actually help teeth at all. That's what it is supposed to do.

If you think you are correct with that assumption by just reading something you quickly searched, also do a search for "fluorosis" and tell me what too much use of fluoride does.

Fluorosis is a (generally) minor cosmetic issue that affects children...

It does, however, help teeth. Since the US started fluoridating water, cavity numbers have dropped drastically.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19772843
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18584000

Caffeine's LD, btw, has been reported as low as 2 grams.

[prodigy06]

If you read into it more than just what good ole wikipedia tells you, you'll see that populations that are non fluoridated as compared to the US have just as low of a rate for tooth decay and cavities.

Even still, what we're talking about here is continually drinking something is supposed to be topical. Get it? Do you drink lotion to moisturize your skin? Do you drink sunscreen to protect you from UV rays? Do you drink shampoo to clean your hair? Why would you really continually drink a toxin that you are supposed to occasionally apply externally to your teeth?

There is plenty enough in the toothpaste, and it does nothing for your teeth bud.

[MrGiggles]

Yeah, that would probably be due to the fluoride in toothpaste. I'm undecided as to whether water fluoridation is necessary (edit: or ethical, especially where it isn't necessary), but it's unlikely to be harmful.

[prodigy06]

Hey it is to each their own. I do honestly care about humanity, and what we are doing though is setting a new genetic pattern in a direction we've never ventured. And I believe we are genetically predisposing our children and future generations to cancer and maybe even worse. This is not speculation, it's a numbers game honestly. Things need to change. We may not know for 10-20 more years what cell radiation and new technologies now, are starting to do to feti and other developing bodies.
It's scary to me, I'm married and have two kids, and I do a lot of research into a lot of things to kind of prepare I suppose.

EDIT: I believe it totally unethical to do so, it's medicating an entire population with fertilizer waste without any consent.

[MrGiggles]

My computer keeps dying, I think my new mobo is defective and typing posts has become risky, I lost this post like four ****ing times here goes #5

I think the burden of proof for fluoride not helping teeth is on you here, I scrounged through databases for an hour and couldn't find anything less than wide agreement that fluoride helps teeth. The chemistry checks out according to my tenth grade sweet chemistry skillz, fluoride ions react with dissolved hydroxylapatite (Ca5(PO4)3OH) to form fluorapatite (Ca5(PO4)3F) which is more acid-resistant than the original hydroxylapatite. It doesn't really seem to be up for debate.

Water fluoridation, however, is totally up for debate ethically. It's efficacy and safety is argued some too. Most evidence I found shows that it is effective in reducing cavities, and even areas that aren't fluoridated benefit from water and crops grown in fluoridated areas. Most evidence also shows that fluoride (and fluorosis) is harmless at low levels. Some studies show that water fluoridation has no benefit if you get enough fluoride from toothpaste and other sources, and I tend to feel that that's a pretty reasonable and plausible possibility.