• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Take this all you weed supporting dummies.

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.
 
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 😛
 
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 😛
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 😛
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
Let us all pray for those sinners.

Where do I drop my dontation, father?
 
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

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

Which would I choose?

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

😀
 
WOW !!!
Thats what happened,weed,cig's,beer & whiskey and of course WOMEN!!!!!!
I wouldn't change a thing other then the cig's.😀
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top