Quote:
Originally Posted by puckluck
It just seems like as soon as one person doesn't agree with your opinion or article that you post you start attacking them and telling them to "get a life" and accuse them of the very same thing you do.
And the list is absolute garbage and many different "scientists" have conflicting studies so it's not as black and white as you make it seem.
Here is a article just so my statement wasn't so empty for you.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0615095940.htm
I could find several more that say that it does cause cancer, but that doesn't prove nothing. There hasn't been enough studies to say marijuana definitely causes cancer or doesn't. |
I was just posting the article, I dont see anything wrong with that. And the only person I told to get a life was REDVAN because he said "pot smokers are idiots".
If you can find all this then post it, we're having a debate and you are invited. Don't take my debating the wrong way, I'm not attacking anybody.
BTW the article I posted still has more weight IMO. While your article concludes that:
Quote:
|
"In conclusion, these results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis [marijuana] smoke, implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development," the article states. "The data obtained from this study suggesting the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke highlight the need for stringent regulation of the consumption of cannabis cigarettes, thus limiting the development of adverse health effects such as cancer."
|
Quote:
|
The heaviest smokers in the study had smoked more than 22,000 marijuana cigarettes, or joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 to 22,000 joints. Even these smokers did not have an increased risk of developing cancer. People who smoked more marijuana were not at any increased risk compared with those who smoked less marijuana or none at all.
|
One is making educated predictions, while the other is using a sample of real people who are smoking it. Neither are conclusive... but the article you posted is looser IMO.
The bottom line to me is that it's innocent until at least it sways towards guilty. It seems a lot more like a waste of govt resources to go after something that, while not harmless, is probably on par or less harmful than Alcohol.