Single Joint=20 Cigarettes And Huge Lung Cancer Risk: Researchers

[Flames89]

I don't trust someone without at least one vice ...

[FlamingLonghorn]

My choice of drugs is heroin because it's not as harmful as drinking bleach.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

there isnt really for beer because its still fairly cheap.

huge black market for smokes though

I think 'huge' is a relative term. I know many, many smokers, and none of them to my knowledge obtain their cigarette's through the black market. They go to the Mac's or 7/11. I'm not saying the market doesn't exist, but to say it's huge, to me, implies a LOT of people buy smokes on the black market.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Dion

Alcohol used in moderation is not hazard to ones health. No hypocrisy there.

Is alcohol a 'safer' drug than marijuana? As far as I'm concerned it's completely hypocritical to legalize one mind-altering substance and ban another with similar effects 'just because'. If people are hard-core against legalizing pot, they should be against the legality of alcohol too (imo the far more dangerous drug). I'm not sure I understand how some people support having a few drinks after work, but to smoke a joint after work is somehow worse.

Just because something is against the law doesn't mean the law is right. You're allowed to question the reasoning behind government decision-making. It's funny how some have the attitude that the government is a bunch of slimy politicians all looking out for their own hides, but when it comes to interpreting marijuana legislation/legalization 'the law is the law'. Funny how respect for the govt. can be mobile depending on the issue.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Is alcohol a 'safer' drug than marijuana? As far as I'm concerned it's completely hypocritical to legalize one mind-altering substance and ban another with similar effects 'just because'. If people are hard-core against legalizing pot, they should be against the legality of alcohol too (imo the far more dangerous drug). I'm not sure I understand how some people support having a few drinks after work, but to smoke a joint after work is somehow worse.

Totally agree. And as for the cumulative effects, I contend that a pothead is less of a menace to society than a drunk. Or maybe they're equally bad. But I can say that in all my years, I never picked a fight when I was baked. Can't say the same about booze. (Especially rye. I'm mean when I drink rye)

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I never picked a fight when I was baked.

No, but I bet you totally Bogarted the doritos.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

No, but I bet you totally Bogarted the doritos.

I don't need to be high to punch somebody out for doing that.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

More like properly understanding terminology.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that the study states, "This analysis identified that one cannabis joint had similar adverse effects on the lung as between 2.5 and 5 tobacco cigarettes," not 20.

So as long as you share the joint between 2.5 and 5 people then you're in the clear? Sweet!

[The Yen Man]

My take on pot smoking is the same as the prostitution issue. It is so easily accessible and so many people do it anyways, the government should just legalize it, heavily regulate it, and tax the sh*t out of it. That way its safer for everyone, and you get a ton of cash out of it.

[Thor]

Oh no a study!

Some other studies you might want to look at:

Marijuana Compound May Fight Lung Cancer
http://www.forbes.com/health/feeds/h...out603764.html

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

In case you think this study has no counter agrument, do some looking around:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...is+lung+cancer

I'll also steal a post from someone on my website who reacted to this story, in his words:

Ok guys, I'm here to save the day. All of you pot smokers, chill out, its not as bad as it seems. The study CANNOT "adjust for tobacco smoke" because while marijuana has been shown to cut tumor growth, it becomes a catalyst for danger when combined with tobacco. When marijuana smokers are also tobacco smokers, marijuana greatly increases the risk of lung cancer. However, standalone, marijuana does NOT cause lung cancer, as proven by MUCH better, larger-study-group, scientific studies:

"A study published in 2006 on a large population sample (1,200 people with lung, neck, or head cancer, and a matching group of 1,040 without cancer) failed to positively correlate a lung cancer risk. The results indicated a slight negative correlation between long and short-term cannabis use and cancer, suggesting a possible therapeutic effect. Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has antitumor properties, either by encouraging programmed cell death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous, or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors."

"Prior, a 1997 study examining the records of 64,855 Kaiser patients (14,033 of whom identified themselves as current smokers), also found no positive correlation between cannabis use and cancer.

A Research Triangle Institute study concluded that THC, a dilative agent, may help cleanse the lungs by dilating the bronchi, and could actively reduce the instance of tumors. Additionally, a study by Rosenblatt et al. found no association between marijuana use and the development of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. However, a contrasting 2006 study linked the smoking of cannabis to the growth of cancerous tumors through the impairment of anti-tumor defenses."

Sources for the above:

# ^ WebMD (23 May 2006). Pot Smoking Not Linked to Lung Cancer. ScienceNOW, Abstract
# ^ S. Sidney (September 1997). "Marijuana use and cancer incidence (California, United States)". Cancer Causes and Control 8 (5): 722-728.
# ^ J. Huff & P. Chan (October 2000). "Antitumor Effects of THC". Environmental Health Perspectives 108 (10): A442-3.
# ^ K.A. Rosenblatt et al. (1 June 2004). "Marijuana Use and Risk of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma". Cancer Research 64: 4049-4054.

I think that if you are anti-drug and you see 1 story you jump up/down in glee when you read anything that supports your case.

The truth is that drugs are not easy issues to deal with, taking an extreme position on either end pro/anti does not help anyone.

Marijuana has a lot of medicinal uses and loads of studies support it being used as such. As a recreational drug, its not safe; we're not stupid. However its certainly not any worse than fast food, booze, a large number of prescription drugs, etc..

Issues like legalization should be argued by both sides with people who will approach it with logic, reason and good intentions.

Lets let the extremist views of anti drug and militantly pro drug yell at each other while the rest of us change laws that make sense for liberty, freedom and personal choice.

That is until another study comes out and someone thinks they know better than us again.

[Reaper]

nm

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Is alcohol a 'safer' drug than marijuana? As far as I'm concerned it's completely hypocritical to legalize one mind-altering substance and ban another with similar effects 'just because'. If people are hard-core against legalizing pot, they should be against the legality of alcohol too (imo the far more dangerous drug). I'm not sure I understand how some people support having a few drinks after work, but to smoke a joint after work is somehow worse.

I can't say for certain which is safer as i've never tried marijuana and don't plan too. That said i can understand why people see the govt as hypocritical in regards to say cigarettes or alcohol. They tried banning alcohol once during the prohabition era and had little success. They could try and do the same with cigarettes but it also would go underground. Other than higher taxes and limiting where people can smoke, i'm not sure what else the govt can do.

Now for the govt to turn around and legalise another harnful product would only make them a bigger hippocrite.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Dion

I can't say for certain which is safer as i've never tried marijuana and don't plan too. That said i can understand why people see the govt as hypocritical in regards to say cigarettes or alcohol. They tried banning alcohol once during the prohabition era and had little success. They could try and do the same with cigarettes but it also would go underground. Other than higher taxes and limiting where people can smoke, i'm not sure what else the govt can do.

Now for the govt to turn around and legalise another harnful product would only make them a bigger hippocrite.

Why would that be hypocritical?

Many prescription drugs people use are much worse for you, yet they are sold and people profit from them.

Why have criminals in charge of a vice that a large portion of your population uses recreationaly?

Look at all the crime around marijuana, legalize it and you shut down the vast majority of crime activity around the drug. You would put it in hands of regulation and taxes that would go towards the government which they currently not only do not get but also they spend 100's of millions in law enforcement costs, countless more in legal courts, etc..

The cost of having it illegal is outrageous, and the argument why its illegal is even less logical.

Legalize it, control it, tax it.

Then do the same for prostitution.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Dion

I can't say for certain which is safer as i've never tried marijuana and don't plan too. That said i can understand why people see the govt as hypocritical in regards to say cigarettes or alcohol. They tried banning alcohol once during the prohabition era and had little success. They could try and do the same with cigarettes but it also would go underground. Other than higher taxes and limiting where people can smoke, i'm not sure what else the govt can do.

Right... the government has had some big-time failures with banning alcohol in the 1930's, the black market was huge and millions in (potential) taxes were being siphoned away by organized crime. When they 're-legalized' liquor the black market (and the Capone-esque violence associated with it) dropped substantially. Why not apply these lessons to marijuana? There's a big black market with millions (billions?) being lost in tax dollars and instead going into the dealers pockets.

Now for the govt to turn around and legalise another harnful product would only make them a bigger hippocrite.

Having one mind-altering substance legal while another is illegal, for no apparent specific purpose or reasoning (reefer madness?) is hypocritical. Legalizing marijuana (like alcohol/tobacco) is not hypocritical, it is bringing marijuana enforcement in line with similar drugs.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Interesting result. I probably could have told you that though, considering the fact that smoking 1 joint is at least 20 times better than smoking one cigarette.

[Russic]

imo there are far too many contradictory studies out there to definitively say one is worse than the other. My opinions are similar to those who don't understand how some people can fully endorse alcohol yet be staunchly opposed to marijuana.

I do not believe that smoking weed is a safe activity. I believe it has certain medicinal benefits, but the human lung is not designed to take in anything other than air. I personally feel it is less harmful than drinking, but that is purely my opinion.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Right... the government has had some big-time failures with banning alcohol in the 1930's, the black market was huge and millions in (potential) taxes were being siphoned away by organized crime. When they 're-legalized' liquor the black market (and the Capone-esque violence associated with it) dropped substantially. Why not apply these lessons to marijuana? There's a big black market with millions (billions?) being lost in tax dollars and instead going into the dealers pockets.

Through banning where people can or cannot smoke the govt is in the process of trying to eliminate smoking from society. It would make no sense for the govt to legalise marijuana and then turn around and do the the same thing they are doing to smokers.

Having one mind-altering substance legal while another is illegal, for no apparent specific purpose or reasoning (reefer madness?) is hypocritical.Legalizing marijuana (like alcohol/tobacco) is not hypocritical, it is bringing marijuana enforcement in line with similar drugs.

I gave you my reasons in my last post. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Dion

Through banning where people can or cannot smoke the govt is in the process of trying to eliminate smoking from society. It would make no sense for the govt to legalise marijuana and then turn around and do the the same thing they are doing to smokers.

Is it? I thought legislation behind smoking was to remove the 2nd hand effects of smoking, not to discourage smokers from smoking.

I gave you my reasons in my last post. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Well... you said it would be hypocritical for the government to legalize weed because alcohol/toboacco is already legal. Which doesn't make any sense to me... the current situation is hypocritical (allowing one drug while not allowing the other). I guess we'll agree to disagree, but I'm scratching my head a bit on this one.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Is it? I thought legislation behind smoking was to remove the 2nd hand effects of smoking, not to discourage smokers from smoking.

What about the banning of the soon to be eliminated power walls or the banning of cigarette sales in drug stores? Or the ongoing banning of the sale cigarette to minors? You're going to tell me the govt isn't trying to eliminate smoking?

Eliminating places where people can smoke is intended to eliminate second hand smoke. It also helps to eliminate smoking in general as people get fed up with having no places to light up.

Well... you said it would be hypocritical for the government to legalize weed because alcohol/toboacco is already legal. Which doesn't make any sense to me... the current situation is hypocritical (allowing one drug while not allowing the other).

So you want your govt to be supporting more harmfull products? Makes no sense to me.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Dion

What about the banning of the soon to be eliminated power walls or the banning of cigarette sales in drug stores? Or the ongoing banning of the sale cigarette to minors? You're going to tell me the govt isn't trying to eliminate smoking?

Eliminating places where people can smoke is intended to eliminate second hand smoke. It also helps to eliminate smoking in general as people get fed up with having no places to light up.



So you want your govt to be supporting more harmfull products? Makes no sense to me.

Do you think the government is trying to eliminate drinking?