Marijuana: the non-hate thread...

no1tovote4 said:
Calling them non-cancerous is a tactic to make people feel safer, it was a tactic used by the tobacco companies and one that is used by those who wish to legalize MJ. Unfortunately it was already shown that such a tactic is unsupportable and will not work. Those lesions are the precursor of cancer, that many people still will not develop the cancer when they have such lesions doesn't mean that they are not a sign of the damage that will often lead to cancer and is just a distraction from the actual conclusion of studies that they would rather dismiss. The science is the same as those that link tobacco to cancer, there is a clear delineation that shows that the smoke contains more carcinogens than tobacco and often in higher concentrations.

Lesion:

1. A wound or injury.
2. A localized pathological change in a bodily organ or tissue.
3. An infected or diseased patch of skin.

I dont' see an upside to any of these definitions.
 
GotZoom said:
Lesion:

1. A wound or injury.
2. A localized pathological change in a bodily organ or tissue.
3. An infected or diseased patch of skin.

I dont' see an upside to any of these definitions.


No upside - but calling them a "precursor to cancer" is akin to saying that driving on the freeway is a precursor to getting in an accident.

There is a definite link between legions and cancer for tobacco smoke, but there is NO such link for marijuana.


NIDA's own site says "It’s hard to know for sure whether regular marijuana use causes cancer."


In other words THEY HAVE NO PROOF, because you can bet your bottom dollar that if there was a shred of proof they would be all over it.



Andy
 
Said1 said:
Is it just me, or have others noticed that many chronic pot smokers suffer from extreme paranoia - stoned or not? :cuckoo:

Actually it is more an ability to connect the dots and see the picture....rather than being in denial. Dont think for a moment that I am paranoid.....When you havent taken the time to give thought and consideration to the mass of crap that is put in front of us every day by the media and those with special interests you are at their mercy. Whether I like it or not I try to sort thru it. I can honestly say that the facts and my conclusions dont always serve my causes.....but then life is not about accepting truth or facts to support your opinions it is more about seeking the truth and thinking for yourself.
 
CivilLiberty said:
No upside - but calling them a "precursor to cancer" is akin to saying that driving on the freeway is a precursor to getting in an accident.

There is a definite link between legions and cancer for tobacco smoke, but there is NO such link for marijuana.

They were directly compared and found to be the same for those who didn't smoke tobacco and only MJ. As I have stated before, this is the same argument that tobacco companies used to say it was never proved to contribute to cancer. It is disingenuous to say that the same lesions due to the same action with a different substance are not compelling in a conclusion that they have the same danger.

NIDA's own site says "It’s hard to know for sure whether regular marijuana use causes cancer."
NIDA also states that this is because it is difficult to test because they cannot legally procure the drug for testing, not because they could not test it or the results point to another conclusion. Their conclusion is drawn from the fact that the smoke contains even more known carcinogenic materials than tobacco smoke and that they find the same lesions in the lungs of those who only smoke that substance. Their findings are more compelling than you are willing to admit, mostly because you started the argument on the untenable footing that MJ is not carcinogenic.

In other words THEY HAVE NO PROOF, because you can bet your bottom dollar that if there was a shred of proof they would be all over it.

They have the same convincing evidence that they have for tobacco only in much smaller numbers as they must find people willing to be tested that admit to using an illegal substance. You would be the first to submit that science offers NO PROOF OF ANYTHING BY DEFINITION if we were arguing Darwin v. IT, however here you deny the validity of that process and only will accept proof rather than evidence. That they have no proof does not mean that they have no convincing evidence, only that you are using the fact that science offers no proof to further a political agenda rather than stating the obvious evidence offered by that site and others is compelling and that arguing the safety of the drug user is simply a means to an end.

I will warn you again, attempting to argue that we should legalize it because it is safer than cigarettes will only work to strengthen the resolve of the Nanny State to protect you from yourself. It will not behoove the progress of the decriminalization of this substance to point to the flaw as a strength when compelling evidence exists to deny your claims of the relative safety of the drug. Argue for the freedom to choose for yourself whether to subject yourself to such dangers, but denying the compelling evidence to claim such dangers are non-existent will fail as an argument.

What will your bumper stickers say, "Legalize it, it is Slightly Safer than Cigarettes!"?
 
Smoke contains any number of substances, carbon monoxide being a particularly toxic one, and in most instances is inhaled heated. It would be idiotic to claim either is harmless. But just to add to this cancer topic...I recently bought a garden hose at Costco, on the inside of the package it stated that chemicals in the material of the hose was known to cause cancer in Calif. It was not to be used for drinking water (typical) but who doesnt take a gulp off a hose on a hot summer day???? I returned the hose because I planned to use it on veggie garden and orchard. I started looking at hoses.....most had warnings on the outside of the packing but the one from Costco was definately only on the inside and Im sure 99% of buyers never see it, (I was looking it over for warranty info). On some hoses the warnings were even greater, material known to cause cancer, dont drink from hose, BUT THIS REALLY GOT ME......WASH HANDS AFTER USE. Isnt the hose on so that you have water to wash your hands.....???????? So we live in a inviornment ridden with chemicals, we ALL have teflon in our bodies, women especially are increasingly getting lung cancer and the thought is that hair spray may be a contributor, so limit what you do expose yourself to. How many of you really read the labels and take all the precautions thatare stated on a product...and use it according to instructions.
I think a great way to avoid any cancer connection is a pan of brownies. :rock:
 

Forum List

Back
Top