Take this all you weed supporting dummies.

[LordJezo]

Not so "healthy" for you after all.

 

[gopunk]

anybody with half a brain could have realized this *shakes head*

 

[CubicZirconia]

It's no secret that smoking weed is actually worse for you than tobacco. The problem is that people who smoke tobacco tend to do so more many many years, which isn't usually the case when dealing with weed. Personally I thinking smoking either is just plain stupid.

 

[jobberd]

This is only a problem BECAUSE it is illegal. Want a solution? Bake the stuff. Oops, it's too expensive because prices are inflated tremendously because it is illegal. Or, use a vapourizer. Oops, they are outlawed, and are not sold mainstream. Take that, you dummy

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: jobberd
This is only a problem BECAUSE it is illegal. Want a solution? Bake the stuff. Oops, it's too expensive because prices are inflated tremendously because it is illegal. Or, use a vapourizer. Oops, they are outlawed, and are not sold mainstream. Take that, you dummy

well, he never said he wanted it to be illegal, just that it's harmful. i agree... it's harmful, but i don't really mind if people go and get lung cancer from this.

 

[NetworkDad]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: jobberd
This is only a problem BECAUSE it is illegal. Want a solution? Bake the stuff. Oops, it's too expensive because prices are inflated tremendously because it is illegal. Or, use a vapourizer. Oops, they are outlawed, and are not sold mainstream. Take that, you dummy

well, he never said he wanted it to be illegal, just that it's harmful. i agree... it's harmful, but i don't really mind if people go and get lung cancer from this.

No doubt. Thinning of the herds, population control. If people want to get high and fry themselves, go for it.

 

[N8Magic]

That article says absolutely nothing concrete.

First, this information comes from the British Lung Foundation which could hardly be considered an unbiased source. Secondly, it comes on the same day that marijuana laws were eased in England. Coincendence? I think not.

To quote:
"Preliminary results suggest that the drug is at least as harmful as smoking tobacco - and may carry a higher risk of some respiratory cancers."

Preliminary results are just that, preliminary. This means the study has not been finished and the results MAY (key word here) be leading in that direction, but no one is sure until the study has been finished.

Nice try though.

 

[Harvey]

Cannibis may be as carcinogenic as tobacco, but although I've been around weed for years, I've never known anyone who could smoke twenty fat j's a day by him/herself. It's also not physically addictive, so it doesn't have that hook that keeps pulling you back when you want to quit.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Cannibis may be as carcinogenic as tobacco, but although I've been aroudn weed for years, I've never known anyone who could smoke twenty fat j's a day by him/herself. It's also not physically addictive, so it doesn't have that hook that keeps pulling you back when you want to quit.

true on both points, though if you're unlucky enough to have that alcoholism gene going on, weed addiction is pretty bad from what i hear.

it just cracks me up when i hear people say that there aren't any dangerous side effects to weed. the act of getting high aside, come on people, you're inhaling smoke. dunno, just seems obvious to me. maybe it's not as bad as tobacco, who knows.... but you can't ignore the fact that you're *inhaling smoke*.

 

[Harvey]

I'm not defending it. My only point is, the comparison is not particularly valid without considering a lot of other factors.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I'm not defending it. My only point is, the comparison is not particularly valid without considering a lot of other factors.

yea i know, i wasn't really talking about you there just remembering some older threads...

 

[LordJezo]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Cannibis may be as carcinogenic as tobacco, but although I've been around weed for years, I've never known anyone who could smoke twenty fat j's a day by him/herself. It's also not physically addictive, so it doesn't have that hook that keeps pulling you back when you want to quit.

How can you say it's not addictive? I know plenty of people who cant stop smoking it, and who need to keep them selves on it all day long.

One person even passed up a chance to be on his college football team because they had drugs screening policies and he couldnt bring himself to give up weed.

 

[Geekbabe]

lalala "Have another hit .. of sweet air"

I agree with Harvey on this one

 

[N8Magic]

Originally posted by: LordJezo


How can you say it's not addictive? I know plenty of people who cant stop smoking it, and who need to keep them selves on it all day long.

One person even passed up a chance to be on his college football team because they had drugs screening policies and he couldnt bring himself to give up weed.

It's not physically addictive.

That's not to say that it isn't psychologically addictive. For example, nicotene is physically addictive, as you go through withdrawal and physical pain when it is removed from your system.

THC on the other hand is not physically addictive. Your mind may think it's addicted to it, but in reality it is not. You can become addicted to anything you find pleasureable in the same way.

Some people just have addictive personalities.

 

[wfbberzerker]

i dont think there are many people who smoke a pack of weed a day for 30 years straight.

 

[apoppin]

Anybody who swallows that "crap" put out by the British government is the real dummy.

The report is also expected to warn that research carried out in the 1960s and 1970s may underestimate the impact of today's cannabis since it is much more potent than the cannabis smoked then.

A total LIE. Absolutely NOT true. Completely disproven. They are comparing the old studies done with "leaf" vs. "bud" (which is still of a factor of 1 to10 or 15).


The rest of the article is filled with words like "preliminary", "may be", "might be" as to be pure government/journalistic propaganda.

 

[HiveMaster]

When they start putting ammonia and rat poison in weed (like they have in cigs) the people who smoke it could then start to worry.
You want to die, do all the legal stuff: beer, wine, cigs.

 

[Phuz]

Key Point

First, this information comes from the British Lung Foundation which could hardly be considered an unbiased source. Secondly, it comes on the same day that marijuana laws were eased in England. Coincendence? I think not.

Also, in actuality, the carcinogens of Tobacco are NOT comparable to those found in marijuana. They are very very different. The whole argument for 1 joint = x cigs is also invalid. The carcinogens found in pot will not be plagued with radium. Big tobacco uses radioactive fertilizers! It has been proven to have high contents of radium for mass increased growth speed. Duh?

 

[jooxed]

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
It's no secret that smoking weed is actually worse for you than tobacco. The problem is that people who smoke tobacco tend to do so more many many years, which isn't usually the case when dealing with weed. Personally I thinking smoking either is just plain stupid.

Let us all pray for those sinners.

Where do I drop my dontation, father?

 

[Squisher]

Imagine that. Something is bad for you.

hmmm. I'll add it to my list.
1. Smoking weed
2. Smoking cigarettes
3. Eating meats
4. Eating sweets
5. Driving a car
6. Spending your days looking for other peoples shortcomings
etc......................................
list suspended until I can type at 70 wpm

 

[RossMAN]

If I smoked and had to choose between weed and tobacco.

Which would I choose?

Ever seen the movies "Half Baked" and "How High"?

 

[Loggerman]

WOW !!!
Thats what happened,weed,cig's,beer & whiskey and of course WOMEN!!!!!!
I wouldn't change a thing other then the cig's.

 

[CubicZirconia]

Let us all pray for those sinners. Where do I drop my dontation, father?

I have my opinion and your have yours, deal with it. I stand by my original statement.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The problem here is that we have a statement completely unfettered by data. From a scientific perspective, how much weed do you need to smoke to have the same cancer causing potential as a pack of cigarettes? I dunno. Perhaps someone can point me to a GOOD study that addresses this, but until then I tend to believe that with factoring in what the average user of each drug smokes, cigarettes are more dangerous.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

LordJezo, why are you so insecure that you have to do this?