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.
You know, the funny thing (any definition of funny you want to use-humorous, ironic, odd, whatever) a study came out just last week that second-hand marijuana smoke is bad for a person. We can't seem to agree on the health effects of smoking it, but we can say second-hand is bad. Go figure. Frankly, it stands to reason, biologically, that anything one puts in their lungs is bad for the lungs. Improved lung function my derriere! I think that argument was used with tobacco 100 years ago or so as well. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...ience-says-yes
My feeling is that it will always be difficult to have accurate studies; the products will always change. When I was in trucking we would ship 55 gallon drums of tobacco 'flavoring'. If we had a leaking barrel; that flavoring has a bad odor and looks like tar. Of course that was a 'concentrate' and I never smelled it in the cigarettes I smoked at that time. But I was hoping that the brand I smoked did not contain that flavoring. My thinking is, since corporations are now into growing, that they will do the same to marijuana to improve taste or enhance the other 'qualities' of their products. There is no 'one-size-fits-all' when it comes to marijuana; there is this quest to always offer something different.
Of course now we all agree that tobacco is bad for our lungs. But many want to hype marijuana as 'good' for your lungs. Many marijuana users cough and that cough, like a tobacco cough, is telling your body that this is not good. According to Google: approximately 25 percent of habitual smokers of marijuana have a chronic cough (often accompanied by increased production of phlegm and wheezing, but not shortness of breath). At the very least; that should be taken as a warning.
My feeling is that it will always be difficult to have accurate studies; the products will always change. When I was in trucking we would ship 55 gallon drums of tobacco 'flavoring'. If we had a leaking barrel; that flavoring has a bad odor and looks like tar. Of course that was a 'concentrate' and I never smelled it in the cigarettes I smoked at that time. But I was hoping that the brand I smoked did not contain that flavoring. My thinking is, since corporations are now into growing, that they will do the same to marijuana to improve taste or enhance the other 'qualities' of their products. There is no 'one-size-fits-all' when it comes to marijuana; there is this quest to always offer something different.
Of course now we all agree that tobacco is bad for our lungs. But many want to hype marijuana as 'good' for your lungs. Many marijuana users cough and that cough, like a tobacco cough, is telling your body that this is not good. According to Google: approximately 25 percent of habitual smokers of marijuana have a chronic cough (often accompanied by increased production of phlegm and wheezing, but not shortness of breath). At the very least; that should be taken as a warning.
Regular lab testing of the product, which should be required by law, would eliminate any question as to whether cannabis is changing. They're doing that in California already and probably other states where it's legal. I don't see this as an issue. Cannabis is a plant and can be modified like any other plant. I suspect that most of the plants that provide our food these days have also been modified over the years.
I agree that there will be unintended consequences if legalization becomes nationwide. That is a common aftereffect of social revolutions. What starts as a positive change inevitably brings with it some unwanted negatives. One of those negatives is that big business, like a predatory killer whale, will do its best to swallow up the smaller fish in the cannabis industry and put them out of business. I wouldn't want to see that, but there may not be any way of stopping it.
I think you are also correct that corporations will add flavorings and other substances to make the product more appealing. That's what they do with e-juice, the cigarette version of vape cartridges. Whether this is a bad thing for cannabis users remains to be seen. I suspect that many experienced stoners, especially the crunchy granola types, may shun such commercialization and continue to seek out products that are pure and unadulterated.
I totally agree about smoking and the lungs. It makes sense that smoking both tobacco and cannabis would greatly increases the risk of respiratory problems. My personal experience has been that I can't smoke it at all any more, and even vaping gives me phlegm. Generally speaking, though, smoking cannabis alone may not carry too much risk. After all, most cannabis users don't smoke one joint after another all day long the way cigarette smokers do. The trend toward e-vaping cigarettes troubles me, though, because nicotine is addictive, and vape pens make it too easy for underage users to conceal their habit.
The good news is that smoking is no longer the only means of ingesting cannabis. That's one of the benefits of legalization. You can vape it (which doesn't combust the material and is therefore safer for the lungs) or use it in the form of tinctures, edibles, teas, candies, mints, gummi bears or sublingual strips and sprays. Another benefit of legalization is that the products are clearly labeled with the amount of THC, so it is easy to start small and wait at least an hour to see how it affects you before ingesting more. This avoids the unpleasant side effects of an overdose, and it's what the young lady's so-called "responsible" monitor in the window-jumping incident should have done instead of ignoring her to eat moldy coffee cake.
Regular lab testing of the product, which should be required by law, would eliminate any question as to whether cannabis is changing. They're doing that in California already and probably other states where it's legal. I don't see this as an issue. Cannabis is a plant and can be modified like any other plant. I suspect that most of the plants that provide our food these days have also been modified over the years.
I agree that there will be unintended consequences if legalization becomes nationwide. That is a common aftereffect of social revolutions. What starts as a positive change inevitably brings with it some unwanted negatives. One of those negatives is that big business, like a predatory killer whale, will do its best to swallow up the smaller fish in the cannabis industry and put them out of business. I wouldn't want to see that, but there may not be any way of stopping it.
I think you are also correct that corporations will add flavorings and other substances to make the product more appealing. That's what they do with e-juice, the cigarette version of vape cartridges. Whether this is a bad thing for cannabis users remains to be seen. I suspect that many experienced stoners, especially the crunchy granola types, may shun such commercialization and continue to seek out products that are pure and unadulterated.
I totally agree about smoking and the lungs. It makes sense that smoking both tobacco and cannabis would greatly increases the risk of respiratory problems. My personal experience has been that I can't smoke it at all any more, and even vaping gives me phlegm. Generally speaking, though, smoking cannabis alone may not carry too much risk. After all, most cannabis users don't smoke one joint after another all day long the way cigarette smokers do. The trend toward e-vaping cigarettes troubles me, though, because nicotine is addictive, and vape pens make it too easy for underage users to conceal their habit.
The good news is that smoking is no longer the only means of ingesting cannabis. That's one of the benefits of legalization. You can vape it (which doesn't combust the material and is therefore safer for the lungs) or use it in the form of tinctures, edibles, teas, candies, mints, gummi bears or sublingual strips and sprays. Another benefit of legalization is that the products are clearly labeled with the amount of THC, so it is easy to start small and wait at least an hour to see how it affects you before ingesting more. This avoids the unpleasant side effects of an overdose, and it's what the young lady's so-called "responsible" monitor in the window-jumping incident should have done instead of ignoring her to eat moldy coffee cake.
In this article: https://khn.org/news/are-there-risks...ence-says-yes/ it is mentioned that they have to use lab rats instead of people for testing. I believe you brought up that point before. Until we get the actual 'human' test results; we may never see how this drug really affects those that use.
I am torn on the other means of ingesting cannabis. Many of them would appeal to our young. It is like the old candy cigarettes that so many resented because it was about getting our young comfortable with having a cigarette in their hands.
I am torn on the other means of ingesting cannabis. Many of them would appeal to our young. It is like the old candy cigarettes that so many resented because it was about getting our young comfortable with having a cigarette in their hands.
Regardless of the "appeal" or temptation some may be to kids, it is the responsibility of the parents and adults to keep those things out of reach. If kids get into them anyway, then the adults should be held legally accountable for it. That goes along with people who get stoned then drive around. The analogy about "candy cigarettes", while understandable, it's also flawed. It's not like gummy bears are going to be taken off the shelves out of fear that kids might later start using cannabis products. When kids are old enough, they can make their own decisions about cannabis. Same thing applies to alcohol, including beer. My dad used to drink a beer now and then (not often) when I was a kid. As an adult, I have had beer, but I generally don't because I don't like the taste of it and I don't like the intoxicating effect of it. Most adults won't allow their kids to drink alcoholic beverages.
Regardless of the "appeal" or temptation some may be to kids, it is the responsibility of the parents and adults to keep those things out of reach. If kids get into them anyway, then the adults should be held legally accountable for it. That goes along with people who get stoned then drive around. The analogy about "candy cigarettes", while understandable, it's also flawed. It's not like gummy bears are going to be taken off the shelves out of fear that kids might later start using cannabis products. When kids are old enough, they can make their own decisions about cannabis. Same thing applies to alcohol, including beer. My dad used to drink a beer now and then (not often) when I was a kid. As an adult, I have had beer, but I generally don't because I don't like the taste of it and I don't like the intoxicating effect of it. Most adults won't allow their kids to drink alcoholic beverages.
#1. Are you serious? Maybe that applies with very young kids, but once they get into middle school, they know stuff the parents don't know. Long before marijuana was legalized here in CO, I am sure my kids who were in MS/HS at the time, could have told me where to get it.
#2. Again, are you serious? I don't want to hijack this thread to talk about giving alcohol to kids, but you'd be surprised how here on CD and also IRL how many parents think it's just fine. Some even drink along with the kids!
#1. Are you serious? Maybe that applies with very young kids, but once they get into middle school, they know stuff the parents don't know. Long before marijuana was legalized here in CO, I am sure my kids who were in MS/HS at the time, could have told me where to get it.
I'm not saying kids don't get into stuff. I'm saying the parents are responsible and should be held accountable for their kids' actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
#2. Again, are you serious? I don't want to hijack this thread to talk about giving alcohol to kids, but you'd be surprised how here on CD and also IRL how many parents think it's just fine. Some even drink along with the kids!
I know there are people who think letting their kids juiced is just fine, but that's not very bright in my opinion. Again, the parents are responsible for their kids and should be held accountable for their kids' actions.
I'm not saying kids don't get into stuff. I'm saying the parents are responsible and should be held accountable for their kids' actions.
I know there are people who think letting their kids juiced is just fine, but that's not very bright in my opinion. Again, the parents are responsible for their kids and should be held accountable for their kids' actions.
Have you ever parented teens? Even legally, that's not true.
I agree "letting" kids drink is not real bright. The only thing the parents can (sometimes) be held accountable for is providing the alcohol and/or serving the kids.
I want to emphasize my own kids didn't do this stuff (that I know of). I do know the law in these matters.
It's simply that two or three wrongs don't make a right. Marijuana is a mind altering substance; people do not think clearly when under the influence and the more THC they have in their systems the father they distance themselves from reality.
I really have no problems with people that want to smoke themselves into oblivion in their own homes. I have a problem with people that do not pull their own weight at work; it isn't my job to make up for what they don't accomplish. Also I hate sharing a road with distracted drivers - that goes for cellphones, alcohol or any other distraction. Maybe that will change as we get all of the self-driving vehicles on our roads - but it is not here yet.
By the way, if you die in a car accident because you are distracted by pot, that would make marijuana lethal.
We should ban cell phones because they are lethal!
We should ban cell phones because they are lethal!
Cell phones already are banned form our roads while driving; they are listed as a distraction. So your argument is that one more distraction can't hurt. It's kind of like being drunk behind the wheel, a bee flies in the window and stings you on the nose, while talking on the cellphone, smoking a joint, and with the wife and kids hollering at you and you just spilled hot coffee in your lap! One, two, or more things do not make a right; they simply make it harder to do what you are supposed to do - drive.
Every state in the union, as far as I know, can arrest you for a DUI if using pot. Everybody acknowledges it can affect your driving and make a driver 'unsafe' or distracted. Until you have the scientific evidence that shows people are not distracted while using and can successfully fight that case against our government; it will not make any difference whether cellphones distract you or not.
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.
