Not a strong counter argument, but still valid: What about the alcoholics? Which drugs are illegal again?
Also: Some more data on this study would be nice. Which other drugs were the users involved in e.g.? I bet you, it's not marijuana only vs never ever drugs, so meh I'm Flash-like unimpressed. Nearly every study out there is biased or incomplete.
The study might not be conlcusive or whatever... but anybody who knows people who have smoked a lot for a long time (and is not a pothead him/herself) could tell you the results of the study.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
I never said that, i said show me where weed alone gives u lung cancer. Because no, it never has. Google it. I tried googling lung cancer from cannabis alone, nothing.
You're being deliberately vague. No one is saying using marijuana in responsible ways will cause cancer (vape or eating). Smoking any substance creates carcinogens which are linked to cancer. If I am mistaken and you are in fact claiming smoking marijuana has no link to cancer you are sorely mistaken.
No I'm not, I did just update my OP. But once again, I'm saying. Marijuana-cancer. Hard science. Nothing with "May/Might/Could" in the title please. Marijuana-lung cancer. Ok someone else's turn, i'll check back in later.
I read through this article from pubmed last time this was brought up, you should too because you're completely incorrect if in fact you are saying smoking marijuana doesn't cause cancer. Which of course you REFUSE to clarify.
You are aware, that the term "Increased Risk" is not "Cause Of" Right? This isn't shit I don't know. Now please, Lung cancer, caused by marijuana only. Show me
My mind is literally blown by your ignorance. Increased risk of what? Not causing cancer? No, increased risk OF CAUSING CANCER.
Walking across the street, increases your risk of being hit by a car. Does that mean the act of walking across the street killed you? Or the car it's self? Does the car not exist if you don't walk across the street?
That is about the most laymen way for me to explain this to you. If you want to read the journal, in a way that suits you by interpreting it in your favour. Then by all means. But me, when I read something, I usually take the words for their literal meaning.
We should keep cannabis illegal so criminals like the guy in this video don't have a chance to use this insidious drug. And as an added benefit it will keep white women from listening to that satanic Jazz music and seeking relationships with blacks and latinos! Marihuana truly is the devil's own weed, I tell ya!
These studies are highly entertaining. It's true of course,but every time someone brings it up in a argument it just makes me laugh. Monitoring people that heavily abuse marijuana over a time span of 15-33 years and the ONLY significant thing they detected is memory loss and learning capacity.Most of these monitored people started as kids as well. Newsflash,you abuse any kind of substance when you're a adolescent,it's going to have severe effects. If you heavily abuse alcohol for that long you either won't own your liver anymore or be dead altogether. Than they slap on a big juicy headline "Marijuana causes brain damage" when the "brain damage" is entirely reversible with "casual" users and possible the same with heavy abusers of the drug. Also they fail to mention how often the subjects smoke pot in that time span.
On October 22 2012 03:25 FuzZyLogic wrote: [quote] Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
I never said that, i said show me where weed alone gives u lung cancer. Because no, it never has. Google it. I tried googling lung cancer from cannabis alone, nothing.
You're being deliberately vague. No one is saying using marijuana in responsible ways will cause cancer (vape or eating). Smoking any substance creates carcinogens which are linked to cancer. If I am mistaken and you are in fact claiming smoking marijuana has no link to cancer you are sorely mistaken.
No I'm not, I did just update my OP. But once again, I'm saying. Marijuana-cancer. Hard science. Nothing with "May/Might/Could" in the title please. Marijuana-lung cancer. Ok someone else's turn, i'll check back in later.
I read through this article from pubmed last time this was brought up, you should too because you're completely incorrect if in fact you are saying smoking marijuana doesn't cause cancer. Which of course you REFUSE to clarify.
You are aware, that the term "Increased Risk" is not "Cause Of" Right? This isn't shit I don't know. Now please, Lung cancer, caused by marijuana only. Show me
My mind is literally blown by your ignorance. Increased risk of what? Not causing cancer? No, increased risk OF CAUSING CANCER.
Walking across the street, increases your risk of being hit by a car. Does that mean the act of walking across the street killed you? Or the car it's self? Does the car not exist if you don't walk across the street?
Both? Walking across the street lead to you dying, but you wouldn't have died had the car not been there. If you don't cross the street the car's existence is irrelevant, since it only affects you if you cross the street.
On October 22 2012 05:13 BjoernK wrote: The study might not be conlcusive or whatever... but anybody who knows people who have smoked a lot for a long time (and is not a pothead him/herself) could tell you the results of the study.
Of course overuse has negative effects. I can even tell from personal experience. Maybe even occasional or regular use. So the fuck what!? My sister gets completely wasted from 2 glasses of wine, but nobody wouldn't deny her a gallon of Vodka in every shop basically everywhere but the UAE, etc...
Another personal experienced and proven fact: Marijuana "addiction" is a joke. There's a huge difference between mental and physical dependency. Alcohol and cigarette addiction is a physical one, MJ does NOT make you physically dependant. Like someone already said, it's like computer games or facebook...
Yeah in a perfect world we wouldn't need/have/take any substance, but that won't happen.
There are more benefits to legalise marijuana so I vote legalised. I mean if we can sell cigarettes and alcohol there is no reason to deny marujuana. Nowadays, many of our food product are probably more dangerous than marijuana anyway
On October 21 2012 17:31 travis wrote: The primary reason marijuana isn't legal is that it makes people think critically. This isn't a comment on whether or not marijuana is a positive thing just my opinion on why it's illegal. Marijuana teaches many people to be more open minded and more capable of following trains of thought that they would otherwise dismiss. Again, just my opinion.
Marijuana is surely unhealthy as you are putting smoke in your lungs. But this isn't a justification for it being illegal. It has no synthetic chemicals in it unlikely cigarettes and is definitely healthier.
I smoked marijuana for years and didn't have much trouble quitting. It is not physically addictive, and being psychologically addictive isn't really a point. Psychological addiction is the same as wanting something because you know you like it.
The 'medical use' section doesn't even contain a reason for keeping it illegal.
The entire war on drugs is bogus anyways it's about money and control not about doing anything good.
This.And the fact that is illegal is because Corps and Goverments have more income from being it illegal.That is the truth about it.Also at the addiction part...psycholagigal addiction is EVERYTHING you want-from coffee to tea and basically everything-its a stupid reason to keep marijuana illegal.
On October 22 2012 05:45 Raysalis wrote: There are more benefits to legalise marijuana so I vote legalised. I mean if we can sell cigarettes and alcohol there is no reason to deny marujuana. Nowadays, many of our food product are probably more dangerous than marijuana anyway
Exactly right. Even the DEA (or at least a DEA official) admitted it in 1988:
“In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.
[Francis Young - DEA Administrative Law Judge - 1988]”
I doubt I'll ever have any (certainly can't imagine it at this point in my life), but I think it should be legalized.
People who do the research on it and take an informed risk in becoming marijuana users I don't see a problem with. Of course, there'll still be plenty of idiots who just do what their friends do, but that's an inevitable product of human nature and society.
Also, I wouldn't be very surprised if in a couple of decades time, after more and more places decriminalize/legalize weed and there is more research into it that they discover a bunch of negative long-term health effects that previously seemed ridiculous, like happened with smoking. You can already see the beginnings of that with the recent study that showed marijuana causing a drop in IQ.
On October 21 2012 20:30 Probe1 wrote: I think there is a case to be made that it contains more carcinogens but nicotine binds with receptors while cannabinoids do not which directly increases the amount of carcinogens absorbed and RR of lung cancer. So you could qualify an erroneous statement that cannabis contains more carcinogens however you'd still be wrong if you were trying to argue cancer rates.
Of course there are not enough studies and almost no long term studies. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue definitively for either side.
I agree with you, cannabis is less harmful than tobacco.
Show me the science then, because I have never seen anything to suggest that marijuana contains more carcinogens than a cigg.
And no, I'm not wrong. No one has gotten cancer from Marijuana consumption alone, ever. Please either show us some hard science, or stop speculating.
Watch a doc called "The Union" if you'd like some more of your fallacy's debunked. You'd be surprised what old wives tales that would be put to rest for ya in the first 10 minutes.
Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
I never said that, i said show me where weed alone gives u lung cancer. Because no, it never has. Google it. I tried googling lung cancer from cannabis alone, nothing.
Usually, when someone (you) spews un sourced rhetoric, and gets called on it (By me) You are the one who is suppose to link a source. Not asking me to link a source to something, refuting what you neglect to source to begin with.
TL.net....... it's a viscous circle....Sigh, just type this into google "Mairjuana linked to lung cancer"
In 2006, many of us in medicine were shocked when a review of research to date did not show an increase in lung cancer related to marijuana use. There was even a suggestion that marijuana had a protective effect against lung cancer.
I stand corrected, thank you.. I would've assumed since it has carcinogens and from all the times coughing up black shit that it must cause some sort of cancer like cigs lol.. Sorry for being ignorant.
And as in every thread about the topic which keep popping up every couple of months (which is a good thing!): Watch "The Union". It's freely available. If it has been mentionend before, i'm not sorry, because it can't be mentionend enough and is a great source for anyone interested in the topic. If you are a hardcore enemy of marijuana legalisation, you should also watch it. Elsewise you might get embarassed in a debate.
On October 22 2012 05:11 Xiphos wrote: ^because those people either quit while not taking it regularly or still taking it regularly and became reliant by it.
Of everyone posting in this thread, you have got to be one of the most ignorant. I'm not going to bother disseminating anything you've posted, but unless you have something that isn't anecdotal or isn't pointless conjecture or uninformed opinions, you really should just be quiet.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth (or start typing) and remove all doubt.
On October 22 2012 03:25 FuzZyLogic wrote: [quote] Weed does increase cancer risk albeit not nearly as much as tobacco. People have DEFINITELY gotten lung cancer from weed alone although it's very difficult to tell since many potheads also smoke cigs.
Umm no, never not once. Dont leave comments if you're just gonna talk out your ass
Can you show me the studies that say this? There's multiple studies in the OP that say it increases lung cancer risk.
I never said that, i said show me where weed alone gives u lung cancer. Because no, it never has. Google it. I tried googling lung cancer from cannabis alone, nothing.
You're being deliberately vague. No one is saying using marijuana in responsible ways will cause cancer (vape or eating). Smoking any substance creates carcinogens which are linked to cancer. If I am mistaken and you are in fact claiming smoking marijuana has no link to cancer you are sorely mistaken.
No I'm not, I did just update my OP. But once again, I'm saying. Marijuana-cancer. Hard science. Nothing with "May/Might/Could" in the title please. Marijuana-lung cancer. Ok someone else's turn, i'll check back in later.
I read through this article from pubmed last time this was brought up, you should too because you're completely incorrect if in fact you are saying smoking marijuana doesn't cause cancer. Which of course you REFUSE to clarify.
You are aware, that the term "Increased Risk" is not "Cause Of" Right? This isn't shit I don't know. Now please, Lung cancer, caused by marijuana only. Show me
My mind is literally blown by your ignorance. Increased risk of what? Not causing cancer? No, increased risk OF CAUSING CANCER.
Walking across the street, increases your risk of being hit by a car. Does that mean the act of walking across the street killed you? Or the car it's self? Does the car not exist if you don't walk across the street?
That is about the most laymen way for me to explain this to you. If you want to read the journal, in a way that suits you by interpreting it in your favour. Then by all means. But me, when I read something, I usually take the words for their literal meaning.
Yes and no one has ever died of AIDS, they die from getting illnesses they wouldn't have otherwise gotten due to the HIV virus having weakened their immune system. Actually, they don't die from that, they die from their heart ceasing to beat as a result of such an illness. Actually wait a minute, they die from oxygen failing to get delivered to their brain cells due to their heart ceasing to beat. What constitutes "cause" is a difficult question to answer, but can we all agree that both AIDS and an increased risk of lung cancer are bad things?
Health issues? Ha! I eat that stuff. Much better high, with a body stone which lasts for hours. Gateway effect? I'm happy with my cannabis thanks. What kind of stupid concept is this?
On October 22 2012 05:11 Xiphos wrote: ^because those people either quit while not taking it regularly or still taking it regularly and became reliant by it.
Of everyone posting in this thread, you have got to be one of the most ignorant. I'm not going to bother disseminating anything you've posted, but unless you have something that isn't anecdotal or isn't pointless conjecture or uninformed opinions, you really should just be quiet.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth (or start typing) and remove all doubt.
Hey man, if you don't want to disseminate anything I've posted, don't bother posting anything. Because you are being null in your attempt. And talking about irony on the last sentence, sheesh.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5wqiG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fw4gE.jpg)
