Want to Keep Pot Illegal? Time to Justify...

[MikeK]

If you are going to villify smoking tobacco then why is marijuana any different? it uses the same paper and produces the same gases and even has some nicotine in it - though less than tobacco.

[...]

First, you should know that smoking is neither the only way nor the best way to enjoy marijuana. If you doubt that, try a pot brownie. (Just take a couple of bites if it's your first time -- and wait.)

Also, if you will closely examine any commercially available cigarette you will see a series of faint grey circles imprinted on the paper. That is dried potassium nitrate. It is there to keep the cigarette burning. It also is carcinegenic when burned.

The tobacco in all commercially available cigarettes is adulterated with all sorts of chemicals which are added to enhance the effect of nicotine. Some of these chemicals are carcinogenic when burned. And they are responsible for the intolerable stink of cigarette smoke.

The typical papers used to roll "joints" (Bambu, etc.), contain no potassium nitrate. But the problem with a lot of bootleg marijuana is it does contain a lot of toxic chemicals, typically insecticides and growth-inducing chemicals. This is one more good reason to legalize marijuana -- so the FDA can control its purity.

Last, burning marijuana does not stink like cigarettes. It smells a bit like leaves burning on a fall day. Not at all unpleasant.

 

[MikeK]

My Grandparents got in a lot of trouble for trying to buy some farm land by growing marijuana in Minnesota...My Grandfather got like four federal feloneys and spent a lot of time in prison.My Grnadmother got off because she was still a teenager.
It grew wild and the cultivated kind blended in real well but he was charged as a bigger dealer yet because they counted all the plants, even the wild hemp as belonging to them....But such is life that is how the dice fell and they lost..

Now for the first time it is now legal to grow in Colorado and does well here if it don't get to hot.Loves summer weather between 70 and 80 degrees if grown outside.Will do fine even above 9,000 ft.Lot more will be grown probaley even tho' the county is riddled with growers
already.

My boss at the restuarant takes a hit every two hours and has every since he came back wounded from Viet Nam way way back ( he gets a 20 percent disability check for having part of his shoulder blown any and a bullet is still by his backbone).I guess it don't hurt him any.Of the 987,264 kinds grown here he says he likes Blue Moonshine, or Colorado Pine bud the best...Purple Cush tho' is getting very popular.Stawberry cush is probaley grown the most....
I have never grown Marijuana, nor do I intend to,any knowledge I pass alone is what I get from seeing those who do...It is after all still a federal crime...I personally don't want to be layed back,,,I need to go...go...go....

Hello, there!

 

[whitehall]

Let's see, "policing" illegal alcohol and guns is expensive so why not legalize the manufacture of alcohol and guns? It costs a lot to prosecute rapists and afford shelter to abused women. Should we forget about it? It almost seems funny that at a time in history when cigarette smoking has become almost illegal the pot heads want to make a buck selling narcotics to our kids.

Whitehall, let me explain this very simply.

It does indeed cost a lot to prosecute rapists and women batterers, however those costs are offset by the massive benefit to society (specifically from a human rights perspective) that we gain from cutting down and preventing those atrocities from occurring. The benefit we get in return is worth the cost we pay.

However when it comes to marijuana, the costs we pay (I argue) come nowhere close to being offset by whatever benefits we receive from marijuana being prohibited. I'm not saying marijuana is useful or completely without negative side effects, I'm simply saying that prohibiting private marijuana use is NOT worth the billions of tax dollars we pay in prison costs, the resources we waste that could otherwise be policing/prosecuting murderers/rapists, and the immense power it gives to the cartels.

I mean, just focusing on the cartel issue alone should be enough to convince you. Marijuana legalization will cripple these cartels temporarily if not permanently; much of the violent marijuana drug trafficking (which leads to literally tens of thousands of deaths every years) will disappear and in it's place we'll have a non-violent industry appear much like the current tobacco and alcohol channels.

It all comes down to the old phrase... 'is the juice worth the squeeze'? You need to ask yourself that. Is all the money we're spending, and all the violence that surrounds the illegal marijuana market really worth it? I think the answer is an obvious no.

This isn't about wanting to get high, or even proving a single useful reason to smoke marijuana; it's a simple cost/benefit analysis of prohibition.



.

When the government decided to get into the gambling industry it just created a generation of degenerate gamblers and organized crime didn't miss a beat. Legalizing marijuana would not eliminate drug cartels and would in fact increase their customer base for other drugs. As I said before a serious pot head will find a way to get the high he/she craves. They can get a couple of seeds and grow a marijuana tree and smoke it until their brains run out their ears. Marijuana use ain't what the argument is about. The high rollers see a way to cash in but it ain't gonna happen.

 

[MikeK]

Nice try at deflection, but the facts remain:

1. Smoking IS the most common means of ingestion; and

2. People who first use marijuana are more likely to use harder drugs.

3. According to your assertion, the vast majority of marijuana users are either irresponsible or teetotalers. Which is it?

If you wouldn't mind answering some personal questions there are some things about you I'd like to know:

Gender

Age

Education

Occupation

Is anyone close to you addicted to drugs, now or in the past?

 

[MikeK]

When the government decided to get into the gambling industry it just created a generation of degenerate gamblers and organized crime didn't miss a beat. Legalizing marijuana would not eliminate drug cartels and would in fact increase their customer base for other drugs. As I said before a serious pot head will find a way to get the high he/she craves. They can get a couple of seeds and grow a marijuana tree and smoke it until their brains run out their ears. Marijuana use ain't what the argument is about. The high rollers see a way to cash in but it ain't gonna happen.

When I was a boy growing up in South Brooklyn the numbers racket was very common. I don't believe it exists anymore. Same with the illegal ("underground") gambling parlors. They were commonplace back then, just like speakeasies during Prohibition, but I haven't even heard of one anymore.

So I don't know what you're talking about. Do you?

 

[KevinWestern]

Let's see, "policing" illegal alcohol and guns is expensive so why not legalize the manufacture of alcohol and guns? It costs a lot to prosecute rapists and afford shelter to abused women. Should we forget about it? It almost seems funny that at a time in history when cigarette smoking has become almost illegal the pot heads want to make a buck selling narcotics to our kids.

Whitehall, let me explain this very simply.

It does indeed cost a lot to prosecute rapists and women batterers, however those costs are offset by the massive benefit to society (specifically from a human rights perspective) that we gain from cutting down and preventing those atrocities from occurring. The benefit we get in return is worth the cost we pay.

However when it comes to marijuana, the costs we pay (I argue) come nowhere close to being offset by whatever benefits we receive from marijuana being prohibited. I'm not saying marijuana is useful or completely without negative side effects, I'm simply saying that prohibiting private marijuana use is NOT worth the billions of tax dollars we pay in prison costs, the resources we waste that could otherwise be policing/prosecuting murderers/rapists, and the immense power it gives to the cartels.

I mean, just focusing on the cartel issue alone should be enough to convince you. Marijuana legalization will cripple these cartels temporarily if not permanently; much of the violent marijuana drug trafficking (which leads to literally tens of thousands of deaths every years) will disappear and in it's place we'll have a non-violent industry appear much like the current tobacco and alcohol channels.

It all comes down to the old phrase... 'is the juice worth the squeeze'? You need to ask yourself that. Is all the money we're spending, and all the violence that surrounds the illegal marijuana market really worth it? I think the answer is an obvious no.

This isn't about wanting to get high, or even proving a single useful reason to smoke marijuana; it's a simple cost/benefit analysis of prohibition.



.

When the government decided to get into the gambling industry it just created a generation of degenerate gamblers and organized crime didn't miss a beat. Legalizing marijuana would not eliminate drug cartels and would in fact increase their customer base for other drugs. As I said before a serious pot head will find a way to get the high he/she craves. They can get a couple of seeds and grow a marijuana tree and smoke it until their brains run out their ears. Marijuana use ain't what the argument is about. The high rollers see a way to cash in but it ain't gonna happen.

Sure, and those are your valid opinions.

However, I disagree and that's because I think the billions in revenue that the cartels currently make through marijuana won't be easily replaced. It's like saying a company can lose it's star product, but still be okay because "they'll figure out something else". I think that's much easier said than done; you can't just replace a finely tuned money engine like pot overnight. At the very least, the cartels will be crippled for decades..

Secondly, what this argument is about is justifying the costs of marijuana prohibition. It's not about proving whether or not marijuana is useful, or if marijuana has medical benefits, or if people who smoke it are worthless dopes; the argument is simply "should we continue to spend billions of dollars and untold resources policing a drug that is non-toxic and non-fatal"?

Do the benefits of prohibition outweigh the costs?

Theories about how marijuana might make certain people lazy or make spiders spin bad webs really don't stack up to the REAL tangible lives (cartel/gang violence) and costs we sacrifice for prohibition.



.

 

[PaulS1950]

Marijuana is in no way an addictive drug. It can be habitual but addiction requires more and more use to maintain the same level of intoxication - Marijuana doesn't do this. It also has no long term additive harmful effects. People who use it long term do not die from marijuana overdose. It does have a few problems. It interferes with short term memory in most people who use it regularly. It can, when smoked, cause hoarsness and a sore throat until the mucus membranes become accustomed to it. Prolonged heavy use can cause headaches in some people - not severe like Migraines but headaches non-the-less.
The only reason the users of marijuana rarely go on to hard drugs is because the same guy that sells the pot sells other illegal drugs too. these dealers pressure people to try the new thing and some get taken in. If marijuana is legal then the only people that users will get to know are their pharmisists. or the guy running the MJ store down the street - depending on how it is sold. They won't have the intimate contact with other illegal drugs anymore.

I can see no reason not to make it legal even though there is a part of me that says it is a bad idea. That is an emotional reaction because I was married to an addict for 13 years. When it nearly cost me my job and my house I filed for a divorce and lost the most important thing I had - My kids. I did get them back after they moved out from living with their mother so even that turned out very well.

 

[KaliAndersson]

How long will it be before these growers get socked with a tax evasion charge?

Colorado was expecting to become a pot tourism hub so none of this is a surprise.

TAXES! That is why growers should still keep silent for the good of everybody.
Growing Marijuana has always been a cash business,they can't even put the money in the bank without risk, so they have spent a lot of it, if they have sold like my neighbor lady to an outside buyer in Kansas City, the money comes to the local economy....Buying good guard dogs,buying firewood,snowplowing their driveways, keeping the hardware store going during a bad nonexistant house building market by selling grow lights, fans, potting soil so on.
Even the restuarant/bar makes money,all paid with cash and even the echo does not go into the black hole on the banks of the Potamac River, or into the Golden Dome in Denver. I know I have benifited from those dollars as a waitress tremendusly...Marijuana is by far the number one money making ag business here,as well as other rural areas.I know it was where we lived in Oklahoma...

And as far as money goes, helps take up the slack the timber business of logging and sawmills did, that the Federal government crushed purposely during the 1990s (My Step-grandfather had several sawmills and a logging business that hired a lot of people.)...It is truly still a great American enterprize that is based on these peoples skill, knowledge, and very long hard work....My neighbor Lady during harvest time works long, long hours to deliver Americas Marijuana demand...And does nothing else from before daylight till way late into the night..
She can put out a crop year long from her basement every 7 weeks.And a boom crop on the hillside behind her house in the Ganbles oak brush during the summer time.She had one plant outside, and I saw it, that produced eight ounces of bud just from that one plant.I don't know how much suger leaf she made into Keif from it...She wanted to pay me $20.00 an hour to trim sugar leaf and bud during the harvest last Sepember.

 

[jwoodie]

Nice try at deflection, but the facts remain:

1. Smoking IS the most common means of ingestion; and

2. People who first use marijuana are more likely to use harder drugs.

3. According to your assertion, the vast majority of marijuana users are either irresponsible or teetotalers. Which is it?

If you wouldn't mind answering some personal questions there are some things about you I'd like to know:

Gender

Age

Education

Occupation

Is anyone close to you addicted to drugs, now or in the past?

Not that it is particularly relevant, but here you go:

Male

65

MBA, JD

Attorney

Yes

How about you?

P.S. Please explain why you think legalized marijuana cigarettes would be any less of a health hazard than legalized tobacco cigarettes.

 

[KevinWestern]

Nice try at deflection, but the facts remain:

1. Smoking IS the most common means of ingestion; and

2. People who first use marijuana are more likely to use harder drugs.

3. According to your assertion, the vast majority of marijuana users are either irresponsible or teetotalers. Which is it?

If you wouldn't mind answering some personal questions there are some things about you I'd like to know:

Gender

Age

Education

Occupation

Is anyone close to you addicted to drugs, now or in the past?

Not that it is particularly relevant, but here you go:

Male

65

MBA, JD

Attorney

Yes

How about you?

P.S. Please explain why you think legalized marijuana cigarettes would be any less of a health hazard than legalized tobacco cigarettes.

Cigarettes contain thousands of carcinogens and chemicals (to keep it burning, ect) whereas people generally demand the most 100% pure pot they can get. You don't need all those added carcinogens with a joint. The current assumption/culture is that a joint is just pot and paper. Less carcinogens = healthier product in comparison.

 

[PaulS1950]

The chemicals are in the paper - not the tobacco. The tabacco is smoked using the rest of the plant to enhance the nicotine levels and "mellow" the flavor. The paper is treated with chemicals in the production of it and then potasium and ammonium nitrates are added to keep it burning. Most of that has been mandated out of the paper production citing the "fire hazard" it can pose for smokers who fall asleep while smoking. Either way, unless you use a pipe to smoke it they both use the same chemicals in the papers.

 

[KevinWestern]

The chemicals are in the paper - not the tobacco. The tabacco is smoked using the rest of the plant to enhance the nicotine levels and "mellow" the flavor. The paper is treated with chemicals in the production of it and then potasium and ammonium nitrates are added to keep it burning. Most of that has been mandated out of the paper production citing the "fire hazard" it can pose for smokers who fall asleep while smoking. Either way, unless you use a pipe to smoke it they both use the same chemicals in the papers.

Well, at the very least, Marijuana won't contain nicotine - the addictive element (if I'm not mistaken) - so they will be less habit forming than tobacco cigarettes. People likely will generally be compelled to smoke less joints during the day than tobacco cigarettes.

Interestingly - too - is that chronic marijuana smokers generally don't experience the same lung cancer rates as cigarette smokers. Perhaps this is due to delivery methods...

 

[Conservadude]

It's time the prohibitionists justify why marijuana should remain illegal.

Why is it on them? It's on them because prohibition means some very negative and real consequences that we as a society have to all deal with, namely:

1.) Policing marijuana costs us billions in taxpayer dollars every year (ie police work, courts, prison overhead, feeding prisoners, ect). This money comes out of my paycheck.
2.) Policing marijuana drains on vital resources (cops could be stopping murders, violent crimes, courts could be freed up).
3.) Marijuana prohibition puts millions of non violent people who pose no threat to anyone behind bars every year. This breaks up families, ruins career opportunities.
4.) Marijuana prohibition gives power to the drug cartels and their violent activities. If pot were legal, much of their revenue stream (to buy guns, ect) would be cut.
5.) Marijuana prohibition means that all the money that could be made from private legal enterprise in the US instead remain mostly in Mexico in the hands of criminals (tax free).

Now, I'm open for a discussion (of course), but I think it needs to start with providing the benefits of Marijuana prohibition (specifically), and how those benefits outweigh all of those combined.

These things are currently impacting us each and every day, so I think it's a very important discussion.

If the US was a company, is prohibition worth the cost? I say NO WAY.

Thanks everyone...

The government should really never have a say about what an adult puts in their body, IMO. If you wanna drink acid, it's really not any of my business.

Abortion is much different, IMO, because that is affecting another human being.

But if someone wants to get high, and isn't hurting anyone, be my guest. Legalize it.

 

[MikeK]

Nice try at deflection, but the facts remain:

1. Smoking IS the most common means of ingestion; and

2. People who first use marijuana are more likely to use harder drugs.

3. According to your assertion, the vast majority of marijuana users are either irresponsible or teetotalers. Which is it?

If you wouldn't mind answering some personal questions there are some things about you I'd like to know:

Gender

Age

Education

Occupation

Is anyone close to you addicted to drugs, now or in the past?

Not that it is particularly relevant, but here you go:

Male

65

MBA, JD

Attorney

Yes

How about you?

P.S. Please explain why you think legalized marijuana cigarettes would be any less of a health hazard than legalized tobacco cigarettes.

It's not what I think. It's what I've learned over the years. If you'd care to know more about this topic I recommend Jack Herer's informative, well-documented, interesting and entertaining book, The Emperor Has No Clothes (available from Amazon). It's an excellent primer. Also, you can Google up NORML's website which contains a treasury of facts and authoritatively debunks all of the standard Reefer Madness lies, exaggerations, misinformation, and absurdities.

As mentioned earlier, the paper used on all commercially available cigarettes is ringed with dried potassium nitrate to keep the chemically treated tobacco burning. The residue of burned potassium nitrate is carcinogenic. In addition to that, the tobacco used in all commercially available cigarettes is treated with a number of chemicals which enhance the effect of nicotine. Some of these chemicals are known carcinogens: What in tobacco smoke is harmful?

The papers used to roll marijuana "joints" need no chemicals because marijuana's natural oil keeps it burning at a comparatively lower temperature. And legally produced marijuana would need no chemical additive to enhance its natural effect. Compared to cigarettes marijuana is quite benign.

Equally important; the average smoker ingests between 20 and 30 cigarettes per day, whereas the average (not degenerate) marijuana smoker ingests less than the equivalent of ten tobacco cigarettes in a week. But, as previously emphasized, and unlike cigarettes, one need not smoke marijuana to enjoy it. The problem is the cost of bootleg marijuana makes baking with it prohibitive. If it were legal, once the methods of baking "pot" brownies, carrot cake, etc., became more commonly known, smoking it would soon become much less common. Because the effect of digesting it, while not as immediate as inhaling it, is much nicer and lasts much longer.

PS, I'm 76, male, I have an M.A. (along with some para-legal training), I'm retired, former civil service legal investigator. I was primarily interested in the last question posed to you because it's been my experience that seemingly determined opponents of marijuana use and legalization have been personally affected by drug addiction and are motivated more by fear than by knowledge and experience.

 

[KevinWestern]

If you wouldn't mind answering some personal questions there are some things about you I'd like to know:

Gender

Age

Education

Occupation

Is anyone close to you addicted to drugs, now or in the past?

Not that it is particularly relevant, but here you go:

Male

65

MBA, JD

Attorney

Yes

How about you?

P.S. Please explain why you think legalized marijuana cigarettes would be any less of a health hazard than legalized tobacco cigarettes.

It's not what I think. It's what I've learned over the years. If you'd care to know more about this topic I recommend Jack Herer's informative, well-documented, interesting and entertaining book, The Emperor Has No Clothes (available from Amazon). It's an excellent primer. Also, you can Google up NORML's website which contains a treasury of facts and authoritatively debunks all of the standard Reefer Madness lies, exaggerations, misinformation, and absurdities.

As mentioned earlier, the paper used on all commercially available cigarettes is ringed with dried potassium nitrate to keep the chemically treated tobacco burning. The residue of burned potassium nitrate is carcinogenic. In addition to that, the tobacco used in all commercially available cigarettes is treated with a number of chemicals which enhance the effect of nicotine. Some of these chemicals are known carcinogens: What in tobacco smoke is harmful?

The papers used to roll marijuana "joints" need no chemicals because marijuana's natural oil keeps it burning at a comparatively lower temperature. And legally produced marijuana would need no chemical additive to enhance its natural effect. Compared to cigarettes marijuana is quite benign.

Equally important; the average smoker ingests between 20 and 30 cigarettes per day, whereas the average (not degenerate) marijuana smoker ingests less than the equivalent of ten tobacco cigarettes in a week. But, as previously emphasized, and unlike cigarettes, one need not smoke marijuana to enjoy it. The problem is the cost of bootleg marijuana makes baking with it prohibitive. If it were legal, once the methods of baking "pot" brownies, carrot cake, etc., became more commonly known, smoking it would soon become much less common. Because the effect of digesting it, while not as immediate as inhaling it, is much nicer and lasts much longer.

PS, I'm 76, male, I have an M.A. (along with some para-legal training), I'm retired, former civil service legal investigator. I was primarily interested in the last question posed to you because it's been my experience that seemingly determined opponents of marijuana use and legalization have been personally affected by drug addiction and are motivated more by fear than by knowledge and experience.

Excellent information. Just want to point out (correct me if I'm wrong) that I think a lot of people don't cook pot brownies, ect, because it's extremely expensive to cook with just the buds (the only thing that's usually available in prohibited zones).

However, if you can get a hold of the marijuana leaves to make your shake for cooking (which is not so great for smoking), this method of ingestion will become a lot more affordable and widely used. This would be another benefit of legalization.

 

[KevinWestern]

It's time the prohibitionists justify why marijuana should remain illegal.

Why is it on them? It's on them because prohibition means some very negative and real consequences that we as a society have to all deal with, namely:

1.) Policing marijuana costs us billions in taxpayer dollars every year (ie police work, courts, prison overhead, feeding prisoners, ect). This money comes out of my paycheck.
2.) Policing marijuana drains on vital resources (cops could be stopping murders, violent crimes, courts could be freed up).
3.) Marijuana prohibition puts millions of non violent people who pose no threat to anyone behind bars every year. This breaks up families, ruins career opportunities.
4.) Marijuana prohibition gives power to the drug cartels and their violent activities. If pot were legal, much of their revenue stream (to buy guns, ect) would be cut.
5.) Marijuana prohibition means that all the money that could be made from private legal enterprise in the US instead remain mostly in Mexico in the hands of criminals (tax free).

Now, I'm open for a discussion (of course), but I think it needs to start with providing the benefits of Marijuana prohibition (specifically), and how those benefits outweigh all of those combined.

These things are currently impacting us each and every day, so I think it's a very important discussion.

If the US was a company, is prohibition worth the cost? I say NO WAY.

Thanks everyone...

The government should really never have a say about what an adult puts in their body, IMO. If you wanna drink acid, it's really not any of my business.

Abortion is much different, IMO, because that is affecting another human being.

But if someone wants to get high, and isn't hurting anyone, be my guest. Legalize it.

I never understood why it's generally conservatives - who argue for fiscal responsibility and less gov't - who push for Marijuana prohibition.

You'd think that they want to (a) not to waste money needlessly and (b) have LESS rules prohibiting free citizens from partaking in non-harmful activities that do not harm other people, not more.

 

[Katzndogz]

If you wouldn't mind answering some personal questions there are some things about you I'd like to know:

Gender

Age

Education

Occupation

Is anyone close to you addicted to drugs, now or in the past?

Not that it is particularly relevant, but here you go:

Male

65

MBA, JD

Attorney

Yes

How about you?

P.S. Please explain why you think legalized marijuana cigarettes would be any less of a health hazard than legalized tobacco cigarettes.

Cigarettes contain thousands of carcinogens and chemicals (to keep it burning, ect) whereas people generally demand the most 100% pure pot they can get. You don't need all those added carcinogens with a joint. The current assumption/culture is that a joint is just pot and paper. Less carcinogens = healthier product in comparison.

Oh my oh my. You must get all your medical advice from NORML.

Recreational Marijuana: Are There Health Effects?

Putting smoke in your lungs is not good for the lungs," says Roland Lamarine, HSD, professor of public health at California State University, Chico. He reviewed published studies on the health effects of marijuana earlier this year for the Journal of Drug Education.

Smoking marijuana produces a nearly threefold increase of inhaled tar compared with tobacco, according to some studies. Other research suggests that marijuana smokers, compared to cigarette smokers, inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer.

"There are still questions that aren't answered about lung damage," Lamarine says. For cigarette smokers who also smoke marijuana, there may be an additive effect, he says.

Combining the two appears to be a trend, he says. "Some of the [college] kids tell me they buy cigars and put in some marijuana, so there is both marijuana and tobacco," Lamarine says.

Marijuana smoke contains cancer-causing substances, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Some research shows that marijuana smoke has up to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke, it says.

 

[KevinWestern]

Not that it is particularly relevant, but here you go:

Male

65

MBA, JD

Attorney

Yes

How about you?

P.S. Please explain why you think legalized marijuana cigarettes would be any less of a health hazard than legalized tobacco cigarettes.

Cigarettes contain thousands of carcinogens and chemicals (to keep it burning, ect) whereas people generally demand the most 100% pure pot they can get. You don't need all those added carcinogens with a joint. The current assumption/culture is that a joint is just pot and paper. Less carcinogens = healthier product in comparison.

Oh my oh my. You must get all your medical advice from NORML.

Recreational Marijuana: Are There Health Effects?

Putting smoke in your lungs is not good for the lungs," says Roland Lamarine, HSD, professor of public health at California State University, Chico. He reviewed published studies on the health effects of marijuana earlier this year for the Journal of Drug Education.

Smoking marijuana produces a nearly threefold increase of inhaled tar compared with tobacco, according to some studies. Other research suggests that marijuana smokers, compared to cigarette smokers, inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer.

"There are still questions that aren't answered about lung damage," Lamarine says. For cigarette smokers who also smoke marijuana, there may be an additive effect, he says.

Combining the two appears to be a trend, he says. "Some of the [college] kids tell me they buy cigars and put in some marijuana, so there is both marijuana and tobacco," Lamarine says.

Marijuana smoke contains cancer-causing substances, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Some research shows that marijuana smoke has up to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke, it says.

I'm no expert on whether or not tobacco cigarettes are more or less healthier than marijuana cigarettes, so I'm not going to attempt a back and forth. I'm sure if you google with an agenda you can find evidence pointing in both directions, so the exercise is somewhat futile.

One point I want to make, however, is that pot smokers generally demand the purest bud available (with the least amount of chemicals) whereas the tobacco cigarette smoker can generally care less. The tobacco companies have leeway to add flame retardants, carcinogenic paper, ect, with little question by their customer base. This customer/vendor relationship inherently will lead to a less healthier product for the majority tobacco smokers. Obviously we have our "all natural" cigarettes, but the volume pales in comparison to the Marlboros or Camels.

 

[Katzndogz]

Pot smokers demand the greatest high, they don't care about purity. The goal is the biggest high. They leave out nicotine and put in bath salts or PCP.

 

[KevinWestern]

Pot smokers demand the greatest high, they don't care about purity. The goal is the biggest high. They leave out nicotine and put in bath salts or PCP.

Katz - Are you a pot smoker? Bath Salts and PCP are completely mind altering and render you incapable of going about your daily business; that's something most pot smokers are NOT after. That's why they choose marijuana. Like alcohol, it's a drug that is meant to be a gentle relaxer that (when done in moderation) does not render you useless.

Btw, I believe the quality of the high is directly related to the purity of the marijuana.