TheFertilizer
Well-Known Member
Yeah but all you've really done is posted a link to an article that shows silver has some adverse health effects. The paper goes on to talk about occupational exposure limits. In both cases is the paper that relevant to what we're doing here? If it is, do you posses the expertise to point out how? No, I don't think you could, so you conceded to the, "Better safe than sorry," position, which in the end is more or less an opinion based upon lack of information if you cannot show how the information in the article relates to what we're discussing. Specifically, how does 0.1 mg/m3 occupational health limit compare to levels that we may encounter smoking CS contaminated weed? Without the ability to make actual estimates based on that information, we're just polishing up opinions as if they were facts.Yes, yes. I learned early on that if you put youself in a situation to take a position, you better have some sources to cite or some references to offer. Otherwise you are just perpetuating “informed ignorance”, especially in this day and age of headline readers. People feel like experts in a topic they read a headline on. Fascinating. I am fed up too, brother. (Or sister...).
The OP asked (and I summarize), if CS treated pot safe to consume by smoking or eating. This could be a good forum to gather such anecdotal evidence, or perhape the OP is looking for scientific data to back any claim up. If we want to help each other, let’s help by stating if we have sources that back up our thoughts, or if it’s purely anecdotal, state that. I personally would leave the emotions out of replies when it’s clear others have taken time to provide something the OP asked for. The stakes are simply too high.
And that’s my 10 cents.
Cobbling up research written by experts doesn't actually lend you that expertise if you lack the authority to interpret that information. Unless we have Ph. D or M.D. in front of our names, then that article doesn't actually provide much useful information other than what was already known about the possibility of adverse health effects from sliver; it does nothing to make us more aware of whether those health effects are likely. It doesn't tell us how much silver a person much come into contact with to bring on any of the possible adverse health effects. What it does do is tell us what those possible health effects are, and allow us to determine for ourselves whether the severity of those risks is greater than, less than or equal to the risks of going untreated.
Oh and we can cast all sorts of dispersion about how bad a grower someone must be, how irresponsible they are for not planning ahead, and make all sorts of character judgments, but that doesn't change the fact that if they need medicine, CS contaminated weed could medicate them without presenting a large risk for adverse health reaction. If you have such a huge problem with me saying so Bonsaiweed, sue me. My PTSD experience hasn't led me to making wide-sweeping generalizations about peoples character when they don't agree with me, so I don't assume everyone is crossing their Ts and dotting their Is, and is going to have everything perfectly situated in order to avoid such a conundrum. I mean my god, imagine a sick person not having all their shit together... Unheard of. I'm sorry, but if your feelings about this are so strong you can't even imagine a scenario where someone would earnestly need that weed, then your imagination is clouded by your feelings.
I'll remind you I haven't missed a step in pointing out when my experience is anecdotal, but what I think people are fooling themselves with, is the idea that they can go and pull up a white-paper that's talking about sciences and principles they have no expertise in, and then assume they can interpret that information, and offer an opinion on it with expertise. It doesn't work that way, and so to suggest an opinion drawn from that article by any one of us (including myself) is somehow more valid than anecdotal evidence, can't actually be supported unless one of us has enough expertise in this field to show 1). A correlation between a certain level of exposure and an adverse health effect and 2). What those occupational exposure limits translate into in terms of smoking weed sprayed with CS. It's also worth mentioning, that the article states there seems to be no correlation between a certain level of exposure and people developing these conditions, so in effect it already states that even if we found 2. it wouldn't help us since 1. is indeterminate.
Also, I really can't help but point out the irony that we're all smoking a substance whose safety itself is highly controversial. When did you guys start smoking cannabis? Did you go and research it to death and find your white-papers saying it was totally innocuous and harmless? Well, I have very sincere doubts you did, as I could find white-paper after white-paper to talk about it being a carcinogen, to talk about the hundreds of toxic compounds in the smoke, and so on and so forth. Yet people smoked it, and they didn't die, and they got more benefit from it than harm and through anecdotal evidence other people came to trust it, and smoke it as well. So frankly, you can't sit there and tell me with a straight face you've never used or consumed a substance without verifying through some scientific research that it's 100% harmless, because if you had you wouldn't be smoking cannabis.
Anecdotal evidence pioneers the way for scientific research. In my opinion, the onus for proof of CS's dangers and safety concerns is on the people making the claims that it's unsafe. Otherwise, they should stick with, "It's better not to take the risk," rather than coming from a place of false authority and simply declaring it unsafe. As far as sharing my anecdotal experience, the OP asked about it, i shared it. I'm not offering it up unsolicited, going around telling people, "Smoke all the CS sprayed weed you want!" but I'm not going to sit here and act like Chicken Little with his head cut off because I think the sky is falling.
I really don't care for the attitude that has overcome this discussion. I think it's unfortunate your imagination is so rigid, Bonsaiweed, that you think the only way someone would go against your grand wisdom, would be the result of some negative character defect. "I'm quite tired of people stating things that they have no evidence to support their viewpoint." I don't know why you think that shouldn't apply to people making claims that CS, and smoking CS contaminated weed. I don't care if you're only concerned about what people have said here, I'm tired of seeing that claim made all over the internet, and I find it so ironic that WillGrow510 talks about people just taking evidence for granted like they're reading headline news, because that is exactly what the people repeating those claims are doing. Frankly, there's a lot of the pot calling the kettle black going on, sprinkled in with a lot of self-righteous, egotistical talk about ignorance and idiocy.
I'm out.
