Weed cuts lung cancer tumors in half

Ok, think of it from a marketing stand-point. If it was legal, you can just go to the store and pick up some joints which makes it easier to get, easier to smoke. I don't think they'd be selling dime bags over the counter and then you go home and prepare it however you want.
 
what??? um why the hell would anyone pay for all the unnessecary processing that goes into rolling if youre just gonna tear it up & stick it in your bowl???

anyway, i like rolling. its relaxing.
 
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? If it was legal, then big companys would start making it and selling it. It's not about the simple legality of the drug, it's about the accesability of it when legal. If it was legalized, you'd be able to buy marijuana everywhere. Now, if you were a company and you wanted to sell marijauna that people could just buy and light up, how would you sell it? Not everybody has bowls, and rolling it into a joint is easy.
 
Meh, I drive a lot, a good 400-600 miles a week... I don't think so, but OK. As for whether or not they'd sell weed in joints... no. Go to CA where you can already buy it legally with medical permission and you can buy bags, baked goods, all sorts of shit, but normally they don't show off their pre-rolled J's.
 
the more you smoke the more comfortable you are with driving high. Its not hard. at all. or maybe its just if you suck dick at driving, you shouldnt be driving, high or normal.
 
too bad that a study was done on car crashes with the driver high said that not one crash was immediately caused by them being high, and that the primary cause of the accident would have occured sober anyway

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLmHL7YznUI

this guys first ever time driving wen high...he did better then he was sober. now, overtime u can agree that one would get better driving high, as practice makes perfect.
 
oh and its not the "smoke" that gives u cancer...its wats in it. wats in smoke of a cigarette and a joint, is completely different. and it depends on what you smoke it out of, and how the mj was cured...if its in water, it takes out all the chemicals introduced in the growing stage and guides the path for a clean, smooth smoke.
 
now the arguement has switched from whether it should be legalized and its safety, to how accessible itd be.

i agree with u on half of wat ur saying. itl be more accessible...not like it isnt now anyway. but its not going to be any easier to "carry them as cigarettes". buy a dutch or rolling papers, roll a blunt, and ur good to go. its not any easier, most people cant even tell if ur smoking tobacco or weed, and most dont care to think cause they either approve of smoking anything, or not.

and just because itd be easy for the companies to roll it then sell it, doesnt mean they would make a higher profit from that then just straight selling it. if its all rolled up u cant even see wat u get. and people have different preferences on rolling, and who rolls their shit.
 
I'm not a fucking doctor here, I just get the facts and piece the puzzle together. Some people say they notice limited reaction time, some say they drive better, even if 500 people die every year because of driving high it's not worth it for everyone else just to get high.
 
like i said...in the study conducted, not one person has ever died in a car crash where being high was the primary cause, and in every case where the driver was high, the primary reason for the crash was not at all caused by being high and would have happened anyway

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj72e5q61Fs
 
First of all, they already do sell it in stores in states that it is legal. They don't sell it in joints because not everyone smokes joints, let alone smokes at all. You keep forgetting how many people cook it.
 
smoking at all..???

are u serious? where do you live? i feel bad for you

and cooking it??? i never knew some1 cooked weed...you obviously know absolutely nothing about weed, not even the slightest bit
 
I think it's you who doesn't know much, son. I agree with you that he underestimates how many people smoke... quite a few people who you'd never expect to spark a bowl regularly to help them through the week. I smoked a few bowls with the 28-year-old guy marrying my cousin at his own wedding engagement party, never even met him before. That being said... "cooking" weed is actually pretty common, he means baking it in with brownies or something similar.
 
I know a ton of people who smoke but out of those people, most of them also cook with it. There are also people who don't smoke it and cook with it all the time. Don't even try to say I don't know anything about it.
 
i barely ever smoke.... because its not good for u and its illegal so ive been completely clean (alchohol too) for like 4-5 months now and i may never go back.

as for the marijuana argument: its wayy better for u then alchohol... in the words of Bob Marley, alchohol make u drunk... it dont make u meditate.
 
Then why can you buy it in stores? Fuckin idiot. No matter what you say it doesn't change the fact that you've repeated the same things over and over, citing biased sources and being generally, a teachers pet. You're the kind of idiot that these ads are aimed towards. Why do you insist on doing all of this "research" anyway? Have you no friends to play with little kid? Every time I log on to ns this thread is at the top and usually you are the last person to post. What are you trying to prove? You've done a terrible job at persuading us that weed is a bad thing. Next time you decide it's your duty to inform people about your opinion, do us all a favor and keep it to yourself. I hope you grow up to travel the country and give speaches to high school kids of how bad marijuana is.
 
Gava you've been wrong in so many posts.

I know you're anti-drug and whatnot, but mj is one of the few that is not terribly bad for you, and can actually help.

Yes, they sell them in clubs in california. Many people have a medical license for weed. California has clubs that sells it to people with that license. People around the USA don't crack down on it very much at all...and you know why?

It's not a big deal. People who are have had no experience with it or have had only bad experiences are the ones who believe all the stuff put out by DARE and the government.

People with asthma use bud to help it. They use vaporizers (yes, they make handheld vaporizers) or baked goods.

Arnold Schwartzenegger (spelling?) used it for after working out in his early days to calm the muscles. It helps for that, at least it did for me.

There are so many uses for it, I don't understand why the government has been so stubbourn. They could just decriminalize it and stop arresting people and stop spending all that money, and then tax the bud and get some more dough.

I really think anyone who wants to know about it should research from both angles.
 
You can't buy it in stores you dumb fuck it's illegal. I am citing LEGITAMENT sources, not biased ones, and I recite them over and over because I rebute the same questions over and over because morons in this thread can't read it all. Yes, I do have friends, but I agree I find it hard that somebody takes 20 minutes every couple of days to debate in a thread, I MUST not have friends. Atleast I present the facts, people like you haven't shown me anything except your 'first hand experience' on how you drive better high. This thread is about debating the affects of marijuana, it's not about posting your fucking opinions. You call my facts bad? Atleast I have facts, you have nothing except your so called first hand experience which makes you a better driver and apparently doesn't hurt your lungs in any way shape or form.p
 
I laugh at these statistics of how many people crash while smoking.

THEY WERE GONNA CRASH ANYWAY BUT BEFORE THEY GOT IN THEIR CAR THEY DECIDED TO HAVE FUN AND SMOKE A BLUNT.
 
Of course smoke hurts your lungs, and maybe for some people getting a little buzz is good for their driving to keep em focused, but not for me at least.

So for that I agree: driving high is not so good, and smoke is not good for you.

YES THEY SELL IT!
 
Dude, I'm not saying you don't have friends. I respect people who choose not to smoke, but your facts are just wrong, dude. All of that shit is outdated, disproven, and influenced heavily by the agendas of government agencies. Even if driving high is dangerous, tell me, why the FUCK is it not legal when alcohol is? It may make you a worse driver, but a slightly slower reaction time will rarely make the difference in a potential accident situation, especially when compared to the effects of LEGAL alcohol, which are far more impairing.

It's bad for your lungs? Not as bad as cigarettes. That one joint = five cigarettes "fact" is biased, out of context horseshit. It's not even as bad for your lungs as alcohol is for your liver. Maybe there are beneficial side effects, maybe not, but that shouldn't be an issue given that both alcohol and cigarettes are far worse.

Why does the government not want it legalized? They don't want to damage their careers supporting something that society has deemed unacceptable because some people are idiots and do nothing but smoke, and because they're the most obvious, that image got pegged on everyone who tokes every once in awhile... but so many other people do it. I smoked with the 28-year-old successful businessman marrying my cousin.

And finally, you're still a complete moron going around calling other people out on not doing their research when you haven't taken five seconds to find out from Google that buying weed in California is legal with medical approval, there are shops where you can buy it, and you are even allowed to GROW IT. LEGALLY. I will bet you thousands upon thousands of dollars on this. Oh, not to mention places like Denver where you can have a full OUNCE (eight times the standard amount people get when they re-up) as long as you don't sell it, legally, without police harassment or confiscation.

Sit down and get your facts straight, champ. These are not from marijuana.com or whatever dumbass thing you came up with to make us look as biased as you are. We're talking independent research done by professionals, such as the Harvard graduates in the first post, who aren't paid off by some government agency trying to win the support of soccer moms for the next election. Fuck off.
 
you sound pissed. maybe you need to chill out and spark a j.

alcohol is legal because of tradition. its been a prevalent fixture in all aspects of our society for thousands of years. weed is illegal not because of its harmful side effects, but still it is futile to argue that it isnt harmful to you. as is alcohol.
 
I'm down for sparking a J haha, only reason I'm pissed is because this kid has blindly cited the same bullshit facts for six pages now.
 
I just pulled up an article from the TIMES a week ago, but thats outdated? I've shown tons of sites agreeing with the 1 joint = 5 cigarettes fact, so call it horseshit you ignorant fuck.

Here's my last word on this thread.

If you smoke weed, go ahead, fry your fucking lungs out, I don't care. My concern is when you bring the affects of weed negatively onto somebody else by I harming them, that's my fucking concern. Debating this thread is a waste of time because it's you dumbass morons who like smoking weed and will use ANY excuse to justify it, face the fucking facts, it hurts your lungs, driving while high is more difficult then driving sober, it's the fucking facts so deal with it.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it you hippie bastards.
 
Pretty much. And didn't we already bring you studies showing that driving while high is practically never the cause of an accident? In fact, that it rarely even contributes? And what information do you think TIME uses, what business does a magazine that gets shipped to millions of moms and dads everywhere have supporting marijuana? Use your brain.
 
I am unclear about your mission in all of this. To prevent the negative affects of marijuana from harming somebody else by means of car crashes, second hand smoke, etc.? Have you been directly hurt by the effects of marijuana? Where does this passionate adversity come from? What is your stance on smoking pot in the comfort of your own home having eliminated the risks your outlined for others seeing as how you made it clear that your are protected these said "others".
 
if you take out the profanity and anger, the overall point of what you are saying i agree with.

alcoholedu for college said 1 joint= 4 cigs. random fact.
 
ooo some unbiased research!!!

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

By Marc Kaufman, Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, May 26, 2006; Page A03

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's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.

They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."

Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.

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.

The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
 
Sorry, I'm replying to this even though it was like 6 pages ago because it's an irrelevant argument.

Just because they're "Harvard scientists" doesn't mean their discoveries are infallible. The way they set the experiment up could have been skewed, and until further testing is done by other segments of the scientific community who will inevitably attempt to replicate the study, nothing can be said for sure.

Additionally, just because someone goes to Harvard doesn't mean they're a ridiculous genius. Schools on Harvard's level inflate their grades a shitload to make their average students look more over-achieving than they actually are. Many of the classes at schools like those are fairly easy to coast through without doing too much work. The Ivy League is hard to get in to, but not hard to stay in. My girlfriend goes to Georgetown, and I go to a smaller private university in central VA, and my classes are much more involving and assign us much more work than hers do. I'm not saying that the top-tier schools are full of idiots or something, all I'm saying is that they're not the best schools on the planet just because they're called Harvard or Princeton. Both of my first cousins went to Princeton, and they are complete dipshits half of the time.
 
colleges like harvard dont just FUCK AROUND to get their reputation.

harvard isnt the place to let some bullshit thing get published, there were harvard PHDs working on that shit. You think places like princeton and harvard are a joke, there was a chem graduate student who tried to get his PHD for 15 years and finally gave up at age 35, wasting 15 years of his life, because he wasnt smart enough to pull it off basically. And shitty schools try to build their reputation by making their classes hard, and that doesnt work.
 
Yah, I understand dude, Harvard isn't a shit school, I'm just saying that just because a study comes out of Harvard doesn't mean it's suddenly time to rewrite science textbooks. Give other scientists time to replicate the study before you go sucking Harvard's dick over this deal.

Also, I don't think their graduate programs do very much grade inflation, I've heard they're hard as fuck. I'm just saying that, as far as their undergrad goes, Harvard probably isn't as great as everyone says it is. I'm sure there are majors that are very competitive, but just like any school there are definitely ways for slackers to coast through and still look good when they graduate, just because it's Harvard. I'll stop there, though, because I don't know for sure in Harvard's case. Brown, on the other hand, is a total joke. I know for sure that they grade inflate like crazy to keep themselves looking respectable in the Ivy League. This is coming from three people I know who go there and basically do zero work, so I'm not just talking out of my ass.

That sucks for the guy who wasted his time in grad school, but if he was smart enough to last that long in Harvard grad school then I'm sure he'll get something figured out. Like I say, their grad programs aren't a joke, but any time some random guys from Harvard churn out a weed study, people definitely need to take a second look at it. It was probably just some stoner PhD guys' pet side project for the last couple years, and it actually yielded some results. Wait and see if it gets replicated.

Oh, and don't call my school shitty. Three presidents, an astronaut, and ten fortune 500 CEO's have come from my school, and our total enrollment is only 1200 people. I'm pretty sure Harvard can boast better stats than that, but we're doing pretty well considering nobody has ever heard of us.
 
before you think ur some smart ass, read the damn article! its from may last year, the one originally posted is from april this year, hence the old one is outdated and just wrong....idiot

great, now the threads turning into whether harvard kids are smart or not...
 
oh and my friend in college has done extensive research and written 8 different papers, all over 10 pages, concerning weed and its effects. he didnt start smoking weed until the end of his senior year in hs, and started the research before that. he was biased against it, cause well, he had never tried it. since he started the research he has started smoking weed and never stopped. yes hes found negative side effects from smoking weed, hell theres negative side effects from everything u do in life, but there are a ton more advantages/positives from it. the other day he told me in a good 30 min convo about how a drug in mj stimulates certain parts of the brain and helps tremendously with learning and other things that normally wouldnt occur. thats just a very rare summary of what it was about, he used words that i had never heard before, but i was amazed at all the facts that he could bring up about it. if u wanna know more i can get the info for you and the 100's of sites he got all his research off
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top