Smoking cannabis is infact 20 times more likely to give you lung cancer, than smoking cigarettes. Smoking a single joint, is the equivalent of smoking a 20 pack of cigarettes.
Reason for this being, that the cannabis smoker inhales deeply and keeps the smoke in his lung to gain as much from the high as he can. This way of smoking is very dangerous. He absorbs 4 times as much tar from the tobacco, and 5 times more carbon mono-oxide.
Problem here is, that the genetic and molecular security systems, cannot handle such an overload easily, and deal with it as if these poisons had been administered in smaller dosis over time. And so the risk of causing irreversible genetic damage multiplies further, to a factor 20.
Medicinal marihuana, given in pill form, does not convey the same health hazards. On the other hand, greedy smoking with instruments like bongs, waterpipes and you name it, may be even more dangerous. More high; more tobacco poisons to go along with it.
Maybe, but at least it's natural. Okay, it's supposed to be natural. You never know unless you grow it yourself so...
Say no to drugs, Kids!
natural? you're burning it and inhaling it. I suppose it's natural relative to all the crazy stuff kids are doing these days, but I doubt the FDA would let them put natural on the label.
I'll stick to my big three, caffiene, booze, & tobacco. When they make stuff illegal (rightly or wrongly) it's too much of a risk to bother, plus I tried it a couple times and did not like it. I should probably stop smoking the tobacco, but quitting that last little bit is hard. I can go for a day or two, but then something triggers it. plus I'm super cheap so i buy in cartons. it takes a long time to run out. eventually, I'll get to drinking, and then i smoke all night.
First thing I need to say is this is one news article, based off of a single statement, made by a charity that is funded by a major marketing firm (IMP once parent to Whitewater Creative) about findings that may (or may not) have been made by researchers.They fail to mention names of researchers or universities implicated in the study and theres not so much as a single mention of a PUBLISHED ARTICLE in a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL, the first two things you should look for when reading about a "scientific study". They don't talk about the methods used to conduct the study, they don't talk to any other researchers for opinions on the possibilty of replication, they don't tell you anything but census information. They don't even list a source, it's just "The BLF says...". The worst thing of all though is that they don't talk about any statistical significance whatsoever. The strongest wording they could use was "scientific links" which doesn't tell you ****. Without a statistical evaluation of the study performed there is absolutely no way of knowing if what was found was because it's an accurate representation of the facts or if it happened by chance.
Now I don't smoke weed but I do think it is a less harmful drug than any of the legalized ones currently available. This includes any and all pharmaceuticals, so the "pill form" bull**** you put at the end sent me into a laughing riot. And I'm not arguing your point because you're against it. I'm arguing it because I think the BLF completely mucked up what the study truly showed, if there even was one and it's you, as the reader, who's responsible to question the statements made statements.
e:spelling, grammar, general stupidity I didn't catch.
That's a pretty bold statement. Weed is safer than ANY legal drug? I get that there's a lack of sources in the article, but you're inhaling smoke into your lungs. of course that's going to cause cancer. and if you use a gravity bong or some other crazy contraption to shove more of it into you, well, yeah that's going to be worse.
But seriously, do you care? If you smoke weed would cancer really stop you? I know several pot smokers and they're mostly afraid of their girlfriends and wives more than the cancer.
Ashton, H. (2001), Pharmacology and effects of cannabis: a brief review, the Br J of Psychiatry, 178, 101-106
So there's your study. I'm not putting a lot of weight into the 20 times worse or whatever because I bet I take a lot more than 20 inhales occasionally smoking cigarettes (~pack/week) than my friends who take maybe a handful of hits a couple times a week. Compare a hard-core smoker and the cigarette smoker is going to be worse off.
They fail to mention names of researchers or universities implicated in the study and theres not so much as a single mention of a PUBLISHED ARTICLE in a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL, the first two things you should look for when reading about a "scientific study".
Yeah, well, there's an awful lot that's left unsaid about those two ALLCAPS in the bargain. See, there's this thing called "groupthink"...
I personally believe this decision is going to be one made from bottom-line fiscal vs. societal concerns. No matter how you slice it, weed used to be culturally acceptable, it will cause more damage than proponents are willing to admit (both on the medical and social fronts), yet the cost of incarceration due to "zero tolerance" policies in the "war on drugs" is increasingly untenable.
It's Killed lot's of People, Like most tools we use in both peace and war.
Way more than are ever going to die from smoking it.
Did anyone but me catch what I meant in line 2 above? حشاشين-Hassassin.
Always been around and will kill people, Being high and High risk go hand in hand and cause some deaths but this plant has been around and will be around.
Societal Disapproval is fine, but it's hard to muster after looking at other legal and non-legal drugs and life effects around me.
Taxes or Outlawing it just makes Black Markets and Criminals more powerful.
I like the prices in the underground market that's been around all my life better than the registration and legal sales with Extra taxes ideas though.
But I think it's a community issue. The one I lived in the cops ignore it unless you piss them off mostly.