Originally posted by: marincounty
I'll post this link again for those who refuse to believe it:
Text
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.
While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: marincounty
I'll post this link again for those who refuse to believe it:
Text
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.
While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.
holy shit.
this is the surprise on my face :Q
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: Ns1
Originally posted by: marincounty
I'll post this link again for those who refuse to believe it:
Text
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.
While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.
holy shit.
this is the surprise on my face :Q
Yeah, that shit is like mother's milk. Better than oatmeal....
Nice find, however. Those results are a bit surprising, IF RIGHT.
-Robert
Originally posted by: Anubis
You can quote all the studies you want supporting side A, and someone who cares more then I do can some in and site studies supporting side B. none of that really matters as smoking weed is a personal choice just like cigs and drinking, people know its bad for them and CHOOSE to do it anyway. Government should not impose laws limiting personal choice/freedom regardless of how stupid they may be
Originally posted by: alchemize
You expect it out of republicans. My point was just that there are many on the other side of the aisle that are more than happy to pick and choose which personal liberties we get to enjoy.Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: alchemize
You're stating the obvious. Why is a criticism of the democrat party considered an endorsement of the republican? I just think it's funny that the only one advocating it to be illegal (to this point) is a "leftie", and his reasons are consistent with the whole "we know what's best for the people" notion.Originally posted by: eskimospy
You do realize that the Democratic party has been far more amenable to the legalization of some drugs than the Republican party, right? A lot of the people who are ganging up on chess are in fact left wingers, such as myself. It's more like people ganging up on an authoritarian, why does it have to be left/right?
If you use the search function you will find a dozen other threads similar to this one where die hard Republicans are making the same arguments. My point was that the problem is with authoritarianism instead of a political party and so it seems sort of silly to single one out for criticism.
Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
it is illegal because the public doesn't want it legalized.
If the American public wanted it to be legal, it would happen. example, look how long prohibition lasted.
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
it is illegal because the public doesn't want it legalized.
If the American public wanted it to be legal, it would happen. example, look how long prohibition lasted.
Apples and oranges.
Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
it is illegal because the public doesn't want it legalized.
If the American public wanted it to be legal, it would happen. example, look how long prohibition lasted.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: trance247
I am voting yes on 2 in MA!They will collect some much money in fines, watch city roads paved in gold!
![]()
What is Number 2 in Boston?
Automatic seizure if caught with MJ?
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: Howard
Can you prove any of this?Originally posted by: chess9
Because you will get emphysema, heart disease, possibly diabetes, and cancer. By the age of 50 you will be sucking down 5 lpm of supplemental oxygen and will be facing probable death before the age of 70.
-Robert
I can't prove a thing, but quite a few researchers have provided significant evidence of emphysema alone. It should be noted that those who smoke MJ inhale much more deeply than cigarette smokers, and they get signs of emphysema 20 years earlier than cigarette smokers.
"Marijuana is inhaled as extremely hot fumes to the peak inspiration and held for as long as possible before slow exhalation. This predisposes to greater damage to the lungs and makes marijuana smokers are more prone to bullous disease as compared to cigarette smokers."
Patients who smoke marijuana inhale more and hold their breath four times longer than cigarette smokers. It is the breathing manoeuvres of marijuana smokers that serve to increase the concentration and pulmonary deposition of inhaled particulate matter ? resulting in greater and more rapid lung destruction."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...08/01/080123104017.htm
And this from WebMD:
"In our clinic we have encountered several young marijuana smokers with no history of tobacco smoking or other significant risk factors who were diagnosed with lung cancer or other ... cancers. It's certainly reasonable to suspect there could be an association with the development of emphysema." Though more study is needed, he says, "for the recreational user with a full life expectancy, the potentially harmful effects of marijuana smoking are a legitimate concern."
http://www.webmd.com/news/2000...ar-marijuana-emphysema
These same, or similar, concerns were expressed about cigarette smoking in the 1950's and 1960's, but they were poo-pooed by people who knew much better, like tobacco farmers, cigarette smokers, and advertisers/manufacturers.
Lots of people are in the line to Darwin's Waiting Room.
-Robert
No doubt cannabis has negative health effects. So what?
Why didn't you say that in the first place you dumbass? You know all about the ill effects of weed, yet ask me for proof? What a douchebag. Have I mentioned how grass kills brain cells? Keep looking, you may have ONE left.
-Robert
Originally posted by: ch33zw1z
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: trance247
I am voting yes on 2 in MA!They will collect some much money in fines, watch city roads paved in gold!
![]()
What is Number 2 in Boston?
Automatic seizure if caught with MJ?
Question 2 is on the Massachusetts State Ballot this year. If passed, it would decriminalize possession of less than 1 ounce. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, enough signatures were collected to get this to the voters, :thumbsup:
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: ch33zw1z
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: trance247
I am voting yes on 2 in MA!They will collect some much money in fines, watch city roads paved in gold!
![]()
What is Number 2 in Boston?
Automatic seizure if caught with MJ?
Question 2 is on the Massachusetts State Ballot this year. If passed, it would decriminalize possession of less than 1 ounce. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, enough signatures were collected to get this to the voters, :thumbsup:
Unfortunately, the federal government doesn't recognize state's rights when it comes to drug laws. If Massachusetts (or any other state) legalized MJ or any other drug, users in that state could still be arrested by the feds.
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: ch33zw1z
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: trance247
I am voting yes on 2 in MA!They will collect some much money in fines, watch city roads paved in gold!
![]()
What is Number 2 in Boston?
Automatic seizure if caught with MJ?
Question 2 is on the Massachusetts State Ballot this year. If passed, it would decriminalize possession of less than 1 ounce. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, enough signatures were collected to get this to the voters, :thumbsup:
Unfortunately, the federal government doesn't recognize state's rights when it comes to drug laws. If Massachusetts (or any other state) legalized MJ or any other drug, users in that state could still be arrested by the feds.
Yep, just ask Denver or CA.
Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
it is illegal because the public doesn't want it legalized.
If the American public wanted it to be legal, it would happen. example, look how long prohibition lasted.
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
it is illegal because the public doesn't want it legalized.
If the American public wanted it to be legal, it would happen. example, look how long prohibition lasted.
I would like to see that on a national referendum. Then we'd see what the public does or doesn't want. The supreme authority should be the people in matters such as this.
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: ch33zw1z
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: trance247
I am voting yes on 2 in MA!They will collect some much money in fines, watch city roads paved in gold!
![]()
What is Number 2 in Boston?
Automatic seizure if caught with MJ?
Question 2 is on the Massachusetts State Ballot this year. If passed, it would decriminalize possession of less than 1 ounce. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, enough signatures were collected to get this to the voters, :thumbsup:
Unfortunately, the federal government doesn't recognize state's rights when it comes to drug laws. If Massachusetts (or any other state) legalized MJ or any other drug, users in that state could still be arrested by the feds.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: ch33zw1z
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: trance247
I am voting yes on 2 in MA!They will collect some much money in fines, watch city roads paved in gold!
![]()
What is Number 2 in Boston?
Automatic seizure if caught with MJ?
Question 2 is on the Massachusetts State Ballot this year. If passed, it would decriminalize possession of less than 1 ounce. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, enough signatures were collected to get this to the voters, :thumbsup:
Unfortunately, the federal government doesn't recognize state's rights when it comes to drug laws. If Massachusetts (or any other state) legalized MJ or any other drug, users in that state could still be arrested by the feds.
Yep, just ask Denver or CA.
One good thing about it though is that the feds get pretty bad PR for busting people who are in compliance with state law. If enough states legalize it, they will probably force some federal action on the issue.
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
it is illegal because the public doesn't want it legalized.
If the American public wanted it to be legal, it would happen. example, look how long prohibition lasted.
I would like to see that on a national referendum. Then we'd see what the public does or doesn't want. The supreme authority should be the people in matters such as this.
Originally posted by: n yusef
Why should public opinion be important? To justifiably ban a substance, one must believe that it is dangerous to the user and/or others, and that it is the role of government to regulate dangerous substances.
A substance is either dangerous or not, so the public's opinion on this is irrelevant. The bigger issue is the role of government in regulating personal liberty. I think this ought to be consistent with precedent; marijuana should receive the same treatment as other substances that are determined to be of the same level of danger. If it is determined that marijuana is as bad as heroin, then it should be treated as such. Or, if it is equated with alcohol, then it should be legal with the same restrictions.
Too often public opinion is touted as some divine decider, that the view of the majority is always right, no matter how ignorant, bigoted and most importantly, ever-changing it is.
Originally posted by: chess9
From a health and social policy perspective, including the future costs of healthcare (especially Medicaid/Medicare costs), it makes more sense to prohibit alcohol and marijuana than to legalize it.
If you value the right to kill yourself with drugs and alcohol, your views will be different.
-Robert
Originally posted by: chess9
From a health and social policy perspective, including the future costs of healthcare (especially Medicaid/Medicare costs), it makes more sense to prohibit alcohol and marijuana than to legalize it.
If you value the right to kill yourself with drugs and alcohol, your views will be different.
-Robert
Originally posted by: chess9
From a health and social policy perspective, including the future costs of healthcare (especially Medicaid/Medicare costs), it makes more sense to prohibit alcohol and marijuana than to legalize it.
If you value the right to kill yourself with drugs and alcohol, your views will be different.
-Robert
