Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wrong, marijuana is not carcinogenic, in fact it may help with some kind of cancers. Tobacco and pot are totally different substances.
Please read the thread and don't post blind. Several posters have provided links showing that smoking pot is carcinogenic. I mean you're intentionally putting smoke directly into your lungs.
Please read the thread and don't post blind. Several posters have provided links showing that smoking pot is carcinogenic. I mean you're intentionally putting smoke directly into your lungs.
Why are you ignoring the links others have provided to you that refutes what you are spouting?
Quote:
In conclusion, while both tobacco and cannabis smoke have similar properties chemically, their pharmacological activities differ greatly. Components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some. Both types of smoke contain carcinogens and particulate matter that promotes inflammatory immune responses that may enhance the carcinogenic effects of the smoke. However, cannabis typically down-regulates immunologically-generated free radical production by promoting a Th2 immune cytokine profile. Furthermore, THC inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate some of the carcinogens found in smoke. In contrast, tobacco smoke increases the likelihood of carcinogenesis by overcoming normal cellular checkpoint protective mechanisms through the activity of respiratory epithelial cell nicotine receptors. Cannabinoids receptors have not been reported in respiratory epithelial cells (in skin they prevent cancer), and hence the DNA damage checkpoint mechanism should remain intact after prolonged cannabis exposure. Furthermore, nicotine promotes tumor angiogenesis whereas cannabis inhibits it. It is possible that as the cannabis-consuming population ages, the long-term consequences of smoking cannabis may become more similar to what is observed with tobacco. However, current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to tobacco.
In addition, I have been trying to tell you we are 50 years into the longest "study" ever conducted, on millions of people, no cancers reported. Not one. Why do you ignore this evidence?
I'm Canadian and pot will be legal nation wide here on July 1st this year....Don't like it or believe it is harmful, then I have a solution for you....Don't use it. In other words mind your own business.
Wow. Just wow. Millions of users, daily, 50 years, not one case, yet you cling to your sad belief. It is the longest long-term study we've ever had! You are just COMPLETELY closed-minded.
Sad indeed.
There has never been a large-scale longitudinal study. It took decades to prove tobacco smoking causes cancers.
Sudden unexpected death under acute influence of cannabis
The acute toxicity of cannabinoids is said to be low and there is little public awareness of the potentially hazardous cardiovascular effects of cannabis, e.g. marked increase in heart rate or supine blood pressure. We describe the cases of two young, putative healthy men who died unexpectedly under the acute influence of cannabinoids. To our knowledge, these are the first cases of suspected fatal cannabis intoxications where full postmortem investigations, including autopsy, toxicological, histological, immunohistochemical and genetical examinations, were carried out. The results of these examinations are presented. After exclusion of other causes of death we assume that the young men experienced fatal cardiovascular complications evoked by smoking cannabis.
Pure propaganda. Find one. I dare you. Try finding someone who knows someone who died. Even try finding someone who knows someone who knew someone's brother's cousin who died from "Sudden unexpected death under acute influence of cannabis".
Then, check who funded that study, and get back with me.
Think about that study for a moment:
"To our knowledge, these are the first cases of suspected fatal cannabis intoxications". That would make it extremely rare. Yet, here we have 2 at the same time? Give me a break...
But, I get your point. Even though there's an almost zero chance this can happen, it is plenty of justification to continue with prohibition. Got it.
Apparently it was 5 years ago. If I dwelt on what anonymous dorks like myself wrote on a message board five years ago, then I am in desperate need of a life. This is just entertainment, what we write here, really isn't that important.
You have surely dedicated a lot of fruitless time and effort to a cause that "really isn't that important" then.
I have a question for all the advocates of legal mj.
Why should I have to worry every time I am behind the wheel that some fool high on weed may possible cross over into my lane and smash into me because he/she actually had no control over the vehicle because of his /her intoxicated state?
Now don't go on about all the people intoxicated by boose, I am talking about the dangers of increased uses of mj, as it is becoming legal in many more states.
Sure, some have been smoking it for years and driving, but with it's new legalization, many more will have access to it, and that worries me.
Lets hear from the gallery so my direct question can be answered without all the off subject stuff
Why should I and countless other motorist be put in jeopardy because some fool wants to smoke and drive?
Simple question, so the answer should be simple.
I have a question for all the advocates of legal mj.
Why should I have to worry every time I am behind the wheel that some fool high on weed may possible cross over into my lane and smash into me because he/she actually had no control over the vehicle because of his /her intoxicated state?
Now don't go on about all the people intoxicated by boose, I am talking about the dangers of increased uses of mj, as it is becoming legal in many more states.
Sure, some have been smoking it for years and driving, but with it's new legalization, many more will have access to it, and that worries me.
Lets hear from the gallery so my direct question can be answered without all the off subject stuff
Why should I and countless other motorist be put in jeopardy because some fool wants to smoke and drive?
Simple question, so the answer should be simple.
Bob.
Are you worried more now? Just because it becomes legal doesn't mean everyone and their brother will be running out to consume it.
You have been on the road with people under the influence of all sorts of things, and are everytime you venture onto the road.
Secondly, where has ANYONE advocated for driving under the influence?
You present this sky is falling situation where there is none.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
