NationStates Jolt Archive

Federal official calls marijuana growers dangerous terrorists
Friday, July 13, 2007
...
Walters, whose official title is director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said too many people write off marijuana as harmless. "We have kind of a reefer blindness,' " he said.
...
Although crews doing the raids are using Black Hawk and other helicopters to drop in on some of the gardens, Bosenko said they don't want to give the growers any warning of a raid.

http://redding.com/news/2007/jul/13/drug-czar-gives-warning/

The Czar named his operation -Alesia- after the last major battle(won by the romans) between the Roman Empire and the Gauls in 52 B.C. Asterix+Obelix? :D

Yes, the federal government are morons. What else is new? :p

The Czar named his operation -Alesia- after the last major battle(won by the romans) between the Roman Empire and the Gauls in 52 B.C. Asterix+Obelix? :D

Sure, I'll take a serving of Magic Potion, thanks Getafix!

It may not be harmless but when was the last time the federal government went Rambo on a suspected meth lab? Their treatment of marijuana is a little.. disproportionate to other homegrown drugs, and far more dangerous ones at that.

so there is going to be allot less Americans on NSG now?

It may not be harmless but when was the last time the federal government went Rambo on a suspected meth lab? Their treatment of marijuana is a little.. disproportionate to other homegrown drugs, and far more dangerous ones at that.

Aye. Our current legal drugs of tobacco and alcohol are both more dangerous and deadly to the human body.

What I want to know is why the tobacco companies don't just lobby to have marijuana legalized then take control of the product themselves. Surely that would earn them more money in this day and age of everyone knowing that their current products are hideously poisonous.

What I want to know is why the tobacco companies don't just lobby to have marijuana legalized then take control of the product themselves.
Because marijuana isn't tobacco. They are two different plants.

Surely that would earn them more money in this day and age of everyone knowing that their current products are hideously poisonous.
And highly addictive. Huge price tags don't make committed smokers stop smoking 3 packs a day.

Aye. Our current legal drugs of tobacco and alcohol are both more dangerous and deadly to the human body.

There is no way, there is no way in hell that alcohol does more damage to the human body than marijuana.

Because marijuana isn't tobacco. They are two different plants.

Yes, thank you Captain Obvious. That's not the point. They could simply sell it as another type of product, much like alcohol companies selling both beer and wine.

And highly addictive. Huge price tags don't make committed smokers stop smoking 3 packs a day.

Indeed. Again, why not just take control of marijuana for profit? They could make it just as addictive but market it as a safer drug to use, and avoid putting the toxins they put into tobacco into the marijuana.

There is no way, there is no way in hell that alcohol does more damage to the human body than marijuana.

Have you set your computer to "Auto-Troll" mode?

Ah, Marijuana, that dangerous substance, so dangerous, that even a quiet little Sioux Indian who wants to grow a variety of Hemp which has minimal THC content can't even do that.

I can at least understand wanting to restore public lands. That's a laudable goal, but this goes too far.

There is no way, there is no way in hell that alcohol does more damage to the human body than marijuana.

Bwhah really?

Have you set your computer to "Auto-Troll" mode?

Yeah, I'm sure a glass of wine, which is actually beneficial to the human body, is MUCH more dangerous than a joint, which only poisons your body and damages your lungs. :rolleyes:

Yes, thank you Captain Obvious. That's not the point. They could simply sell it as another type of product, much like alcohol companies selling both beer and wine.How many alcohol companies produce both beer and wine? I don't recall seeing a Samuel Adam's Pinot Grigio, or a Miller Merlot.


Indeed. Again, why not just take control of marijuana for profit? They could make it just as addictive but market it as a safer drug to use, and avoid putting the toxins they put into tobacco into the marijuana.
Not as much profit in it. Tobacco is addictive, not what is in tobacco products. Would a stoner pay 30 bucks for a carton of joints? I dunno, maybe if he was already high.

There is no way, there is no way in hell that alcohol does more damage to the human body than marijuana.

Welcome to "I'm being an idiot, so I get IGNOREd."

Do some research, Rusty, then get back to me.

One joint damages in the same way as a cigarette. Or is smoking suddenly healthy and normal when it's marijuana?

There is no way, there is no way in hell that alcohol does more damage to the human body than marijuana.
Do some research, Rusty, then get back to me.
How many alcohol companies produce both beer and wine? I don't recall seeing a Samuel Adam's Pinot Grigio, or a Miller Merlot.
That's actually a good question...I honestly don't know. I suppose I just figured they would diversify.



Not as much profit in it. Tobacco is addictive, not what is in tobacco products. Would a stoner pay 30 bucks for a carton of joints? I dunno, maybe if he was already high.
Point.

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.
Cirrhosis of the liver.
Overdose.
Drunk driving.
Domestic violence.

GTFO.

All those are caused by either alcohol overdose, or alcohol + human stupidity.

Yeah, sure. I'm SURE marijuana doesn't cause lung cancer. Or drug driving.

One joint damages in the same way as a cigarette. Or is smoking suddenly healthy and normal when it's marijuana?

Nice shift there, dumbass. Your own post:

There is no way, there is no way in hell that alcohol does more damage to the human body than marijuana.

Have you set your computer to "Auto-Troll" mode?aww

burn -baby- burn :D

There is no way, there is no way in hell that alcohol does more damage to the human body than marijuana.

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.
Cirrhosis of the liver.
Overdose.
Drunk driving.
Domestic violence.

GTFO.

Marijuana joints lack the same ingredients as found in commercial cigarettes.

Oh, so it's only SLIGHTLY less damaging. It's still breathing in smoke. Which is still damaging to the human body.

There is no way, there is no way in hell that alcohol does more damage to the human body than marijuana.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm

Try again.

One joint damages in the same way as a cigarette. Or is smoking suddenly healthy and normal when it's marijuana?
Marijuana joints lack the same ingredients as found in commercial cigarettes.

Nice shift there, dumbass. Your own post:

What shift? I never said tobacco was any better than marijuana. But putting alcohol on the same level is just idiotic.

One joint damages in the same way as a cigarette. Or is smoking suddenly healthy and normal when it's marijuana?

Bah it is well known that both smoking and drinking are bad for your health. But why I wonder do you never see the warning: Drinking kills! on every pint you buy?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm

Try again.

Again, those are the results of alcohol ABUSE. Just about any substance can be abused. People die from Red Bull overdose.

Bah it is well known that both smoking and drinking are bad for your health. But why I wonder do you never see the warning: Drinking kills! on every pint you buy?

Because one cigarette actually does pretty serious damage to the lungs. One bottle of beer does nothing but make you a little warm and fuzzy.

Oh, so it's only SLIGHTLY less damaging. It's still breathing in smoke. Which is still damaging to the human body.

have you not heard of brownies?

or how a small glass of red wine though helping with digestion of a meal is still unhealthy (yes who know that poison is bad for your body!?)

Marijuana can certainly be harmful, sure, but it's not anywhere near as harmful as alcohol or modern tobacco products. In fact, many components, from the plant itself to the THC inside the plant has useful benefits. The plant can be woven into fibers for clothing, rope, and the like, and the THC may be useful in treating Alzheimer's.

Research kthxbai.

Oh, nice try. Telling me that logic is irrelevent because I haven't got a degree int the subject.

Compared to breathing in burning chemical additives :rolleyes:

Smoke is smoke, it's all damaging. One joint does more damage than one unit of alcohol. You cannon deny that.

Oh, so it's only SLIGHTLY less damaging.
Research kthxbai.

It's still breathing in smoke. Which is still damaging to the human body.
Compared to breathing in burning chemical additives :rolleyes:

All those are caused by either alcohol overdose, or alcohol + human stupidity.

Yeah, sure. I'm SURE marijuana doesn't cause lung cancer. Or drug driving.

Yeah, and guns don't kill people, only guns+people kill people...

What shift? I never said tobacco was any better than marijuana. But putting alcohol on the same level is just idiotic.

Then congratulations, you're an idiot.

have you not heard of brownies?

The same argument could be made for chewing tobacco, but it's irrelevant because neither marijuana foods or chewing tobacco are the prevalent methods of consumption.

or how a small glass of red wine though helping with digestion of a meal is still unhealthy (yes who know that poison is bad for your body!?)

Oh, it is not. Red wine contains resveratrol, which is cardioprotective. It also contains polyphenols, antioxidants and flavanoids.

Because one cigarette actually does pretty serious damage to the lungs. One bottle of beer does nothing but make you a little warm and fuzzy.

Ohhh change and change again huh. You did not specify what amount of use, or abuse in your first post. You made a ludicrus blanket statement and now you are trying to wriggle out of it because you have been called on it.

Yeah, and guns don't kill people, only guns+people kill people...

Kinda, although guns aren't drugs. It's a similar argument, though. A smart person with a gun doesn't kill other people with it, the same way a smart person who's had a few glasses of wine sleeps on his mate's couch, instead of driving home.

Yeah, and guns don't kill people, only guns+people kill people...

...

Uh...that's actually true...a firearm isn't going to decide to kill you all by itself.

Unless it's a Transformer. Then it might kill you.

Ohhh change and change again huh. You did not specify what amount of use, or abuse in your first post. You made a ludicrus blanket statement and now you are trying to wriggle out of it because you have been called on it.

What statement? My statement was that alcohol was not as dangerous as marijuana. I never brought tobacco into it.

I stated that one unit of alcohol, in this case, a bottle of beer, is less dangerous to the human body than one joint of marijuana. If said human body decides to be an idiot after ingesting either consciousness-altering drug, it's their own stupid fault.

You'd be hard pushed to find anyone who has ever died of a weed overdose. Apparently, you have to smoke something like your own body weight for it to kill you.

Again, those are the results of alcohol ABUSE.

Those are the sum total "harmfulness" of the drugs. Try reading.

Just about any substance can be abused.

So? Abusing some substances is more dangerous than abusing others. Like say, abusing caffeine versus abusing arsenic.

People die from Red Bull overdose.

Irrelevant. More people die from alcohol overdose than marijuana. Or red bull.

So? Abusing some substances is more dangerous than abusing others. Like say, abusing caffeine versus abusing arsenic.

Yes. Alcohol overdose and marijuana overdose actually both have relatively long-term affects. One night of binge drinking or chain smoking won't kill you on the spot, although it will do damage. But a lifetime of binge drinking and chain smoking will give you cirrhosis and lung cancer.

Alcohol can be overdosed on in one session, although it's more difficult. But again, this comes down to human stupidity. If both alcohol and marijuana are consumed in moderation, like they're supposed to be, marijuana is ultimately more harmful.

Oh, nice try. Telling me that logic is irrelevent because I haven't got a degree int the subject.
You can't argue logic while refusing to look at any evidence. That is called "faith." Faith != Logic. Therefore you arn't using logic.

That was logic.

Smoke is smoke, it's all damaging. One joint does more damage than one unit of alcohol. You cannon deny that.
I can if you can't prove it.

Irrelevant. More people die from alcohol overdose than marijuana. Or red bull.

Marijuana can't be overdosed on. Neither can tobacco. Both give you long term damage if smoked.

Alcohol is also far more prevalent than marijuana. If marijuana was in tobacco's place, you'd have Quit campaign all over the place telling you about marijuana-invoked lung cancer.

What statement? My statement was that alcohol was not as dangerous as marijuana. I never brought tobacco into it.

I stated that one unit of alcohol, in this case, a bottle of beer, is less dangerous to the human body than one joint of marijuana. If said human body decides to be an idiot after ingesting either consciousness-altering drug, it's their own stupid fault.

This statement right here:

'There is no way, there is no way in hell that alcohol does more damage to the human body than marijuana.'

Notice a blanket statement, no specifics, no mention of amounts, or abuse, or methods of taking, no one joint vs one bottle, just a plain stupid, obviously wrong generalised statement.

No wonder you're getting flack.

Heh, if weed was in tobacco's place, I doubt people would be doing anything than watching TV and eating stuff.

Again, those are the results of alcohol ABUSE. Just about any substance can be abused. People die from Red Bull overdose.
Ah, so we're talking about how dangerous something is when it's not used dangerously. I see.

This statement right here:

'There is no way, there is no way in hell that alcohol does more damage to the human body than marijuana.'

Notice a blanket statement, no specifics, no mention of amounts, or abuse, or methods of taking, no one joint vs one bottle, just a plain stupid, obviously wrong generalised statement.

No wonder you're getting flack.

Obviously I mean "in moderation". Why the hell would I would I say "50 beers is less damaging than 50 joints"?

Marijuana can't be overdosed on. Neither can tobacco. Both give you long term damage if smoked.

Alcohol is also far more prevalent than marijuana. If marijuana was in tobacco's place, you'd have Quit campaign all over the place telling you about marijuana-invoked lung cancer.

I have the feeling that you are wrong here also.

I belive that more people smoke MJ than drink alcohol. Note that I said I belive here I do claim it as truth, but I belive it to be so.

Ah, so we're talking about how dangerous something is when it's not used dangerously. I see.

Except that unless your eating the marijuana, or for that case, chewing the tobacco (neither of which are the prevalent, or ever will be the prevalent methods of consumption), marijuana and tobacco consumption is always dangerous.

Obviously I mean "in moderation". Why the hell would I would I say "50 beers is less damaging than 50 joints"?

The only obvious thing about your OP, was that is was a kneejerk reaction.

I belive that more people smoke MJ than drink alcohol. Note that I said I belive here I do claim it as truth, but I belive it to be so.

Maybe in the US. Not on the planet. I find it immensely difficult to believe that would be worldwide. Especially with places like China.

Maybe in the US. Not on the planet.

I don't live in the US.

I don't live in the US.

Western Europe too, possibly. Beyond that...

There is no way, there is no way in hell that alcohol does more damage to the human body than marijuana.

You're wrong, and every bit of medical research done says you're wrong. *Especially* if it's not smoked but vaporized and/or eaten, marijuana is an order of magnitude safer than ethanol, medically speaking.

You're wrong, and every bit of medical research done says you're wrong. *Especially* if it's not smoked but vaporized and/or eaten, marijuana is an order of magnitude safer than ethanol, medically speaking.

Oh, so marijuana enhances blood flow and cardiovascular systems now?

Yes. Alcohol overdose and marijuana overdose actually both have relatively long-term affects. One night of binge drinking or chain smoking won't kill you on the spot, although it will do damage.

Binge drinking CAN kill you. Easily. Either from overdose (which is impossible from marijuana) or from the effects of drunk driving.

According to preliminary data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2006, 17,941 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 41 percent of the 43,300 total traffic fatalities.

Auto accidents are in fact less than half of all alcohol-attributable deaths (75,766 in 2001, according to a CDC study).

Now go find me the comparable statistics in "marijuana overdose." I'll wait. No, go on and do it.

Alcohol can be overdosed on in one session, although it's more difficult.

It is impossible to overdose on marijuana.

But again, this comes down to human stupidity.

Apparently yours.

Marijuana can't be overdosed on. Neither can tobacco.

But alcohol can, and for that reason alone is more dangerous.

Alcohol is also far more prevalent than marijuana.

Another reason why alcohol is more dangerous.

I accept your concession.

Except that unless your eating the marijuana, or for that case, chewing the tobacco (neither of which are the prevalent, or ever will be the prevalent methods of consumption), marijuana and tobacco consumption is always dangerous.
Define 'dangerous'.

Binge drinking CAN kill you. Easily. Either from overdose (which is impossible from marijuana) or from the effects of drunk driving.

According to preliminary data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2006, 17,941 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 41 percent of the 43,300 total traffic fatalities.

Auto accidents are in fact less than half of all alcohol-attributable deaths (75,766 in 2001, according to a CDC study).

Now go find me the comparable statistics in "marijuana overdose." I'll wait. No, go on and do it.

Uh huh. After I EXPLICITLY said that alcohol can be and is overdosed on, and said that was NEVER part of my argument, you bring this out.

I will say this one more time. If you don't get it this time, I will not repeat it.

HUMANS ARE FUCKING STUPID.

Alcohol can be binge drunk. It will kill you. Smoking marijuana will ultimately cause the same problems as cigarettes, like strokes and lung cancer. Those will kill you.

We are not talking about what humans do with these substances. If we were, we'd be able to conclude that oxygen is the most dangerous substance, because it causes humans to live, which causes murders and car crashes and BASE jumping.

We are talking about the positives and negatives of these substances ON THEIR OWN. Not what happens when humans do or do not abuse them.

Define 'dangerous'.

They damage the human body. Lung damage leading to lung cancer, strokes, throat cancer, etc.

Western Europe too, possibly. Beyond that...

Heh I love the way you just keep building upon your previous statements.

You: 'Drugs are bad ummkay'

Me: 'Well some are not that bad'

You: 'Some drugs are bad ummkay'

You are funny!

They damage the human body. Lung damage leading to lung cancer, strokes, throat cancer.
Cirrhosis of the liver, throat cancer and coronary heart disease. And you don't have to abuse alcohol to have either. In any case, this is a very poor way to rate one drug against the other. Excluding the effects on society and abuse makes any discussion practically useless and hardly relevant to the real world.

Heh I love the way you just keep building upon your previous statements.

You: 'Drugs are bad ummkay'

Me: 'Well some are not that bad'

You: 'Some drugs are bad ummkay'

You are funny!

Never said that. All drugs are bad if taken the wrong way.

Cirrhosis of the liver, throat cancer and coronary heart disease. And you don't have to abuse alcohol to have either.

No, you just have to drink turpentine. Come on. You think I'm that stupid? A glass of wine a day does not cause that.

Uh huh. After I EXPLICITLY said that alcohol can be and is overdosed on, and said that was NEVER part of my argument, you bring this out.

It -disproves- your argument. Yeah I can see why you'd want to just ignore it. I'm not going to ignore reality, however.

I will say this one more time. If you don't get it this time, I will not repeat it.

HUMANS ARE FUCKING STUPID.

I'm going to say your argument one more time. If you don't get it this time, I will not repeat.


There is no way, there is no way in hell that alcohol does more damage to the human body than marijuana.


Alcohol can be binge drunk. It will kill you. Smoking marijuana will ultimately cause the same problems as cigarettes, like strokes and lung cancer. Those will kill you.

Oh, I thought binge drinking wouldn't kill you? You said... oh, and huge size font since you can't remember that many posts back...

One night of binge drinking ... won't kill you on the spot

I guess all the kids who die in alcohol related deaths because of binge drinking - for just "one night" - well, they must not be part of your argument either, right? Yeah, anything that proves you wrong, is not allowed.

We are not talking about what do with this substances. If we were, we'd be able to conclude that oxygen is the most dangerous substance, because it causes humans to live, which causes murders and car crashes and BASE jumping.

Are you being deliberately stupid in order to troll more effectively?

Or is this drivel actually supposed to mean something?

We are talking about the positives and negatives of these substances ON THEIR OWN. Not what happens when humans do or do not abuse them.

Oh, I guess we're supposed to leave humans out of the argument too.

I'm going to say your argument one more time. If you don't get it this time, I will not repeat.

Again, I did not make any mention of human actions. A glass of red wine next to a joint of marijuana. One human drinks the wine, the other smokes the joint. Which human was just physically damaged more? We're not bringing drink or drug driving into it, nor overconsumption of either substance.

I guess all the kids who die in alcohol related deaths because of binge drinking - for just "one night" - well, they must not be part of your argument either, right? Yeah, anything that proves you wrong, is not allowed.

I misused the term the second time. I meant, not a binge, like, those death causing binges. There's no word for it.

A binge is getting blown out, having too much too drink, maybe throwing up, then waking up the next morning with a massive headache. The death causing binge does much worse.

Oh, I guess we're supposed to leave humans out of the argument too.

Yes, you are. The world would be a fine place if it were not inhabited with sentient beings.

A final question to you all before I go to bed: why is it that you are all so pro-marijuana and so anti-tobacco?

Answer: because one is legal and the other is not. It has NOTHING to do with the drugs to you people. You're just in it because since marijuana is banned by the government, being pro-marijuana is the liberal, left wing thing to do.

Never said that. All drugs are bad if taken the wrong way.

Damn me! please don't stop.:D

Again, I did not make any mention of human actions. A glass of red wine next to a joint of marijuana. One human drinks the wine, the other smokes the joint. Which human was just physically damaged more? We're not bringing drink or drug driving into it, nor overconsumption of either substance.



I misused the term the second time. I meant, not a binge, like, those death causing binges. There's no word for it.



The bolded is the funniest thing i've read on here today. Congratulations

No, you just have to drink turpentine. Come on. You think I'm that stupid? A glass of wine a day does not cause that.
No, it doesn't. It's a risk. No more, no less, the same with cannabis. Both put someone at an increased risk when used and abused.

The bolded is the funniest thing i've read on here today. Congratulations

Very well. Go ahead and create a term to define it.

There is none. A binge drinking session is always bad, but by definition, it is not in itself lethal. There is another sort of binge drinking, which is essentially overdose.

No, it doesn't. It's a risk. No more, no less, the same with cannabis. Both put someone at an increased risk when used and abused.

Except that, again, cannabis will have an immediate damaging effect when smoked. It's ok when eaten, but when consumed in it's prevalent form, smoking, it's damaging immediately.

Very well. Go ahead and create a term to define it.

There is none. A binge drinking session is always bad, but by definition, it is not in itself lethal. There is another sort of binge drinking, which is essentially overdose.
So binge drinking can mean binge drinking or some magical undefined thing that only you seem to know what it is?

Except that, again, cannabis will have an immediate damaging effect when smoked. It's ok when eaten, but when consumed in it's prevalent form, smoking, it's damaging immediately.

...

What? Can you prove this at all?

Except that, again, cannabis will have an immediate damaging effect when smoked. It's ok when eaten, but when consumed in it's prevalent form, smoking, it's damaging immediately.
So, you're saying one joint immediately damages your lungs? I fail to see how one joint vs. one glass of red wine how one could be more damaging. The risks of both are cumulative and depend on use. Saying cannabis damages someone immediately is ridiculous. And, for someone claiming to perform an analysis without taking human activity into account, you seem to be taking quite a lot in store by how cannabis is taken.

...

What? Can you prove this at all?
To be honest, I think drugs is one issue where, because of prohibition, research on side effects is difficult to get hold of reliably. Especially research where human activity isn't taken into account.

A final question to you all before I go to bed: why is it that you are all so pro-marijuana and so anti-tobacco?

Answer: because one is legal and the other is not. It has NOTHING to do with the drugs to you people. You're just in it because since marijuana is banned by the government, being pro-marijuana is the liberal, left wing thing to do.
Hilarious.

Again, I did not make any mention of human actions. A glass of red wine next to a joint of marijuana. One human drinks the wine, the other smokes the joint. Which human was just physically damaged more? We're not bringing drink or drug driving into it, nor overconsumption of either substance.

If we're not bringing "human action" into it, then the wine was not drunk, the joint was not smoked. Lovely!

I misused the term the second time. I meant, not a binge, like, those death causing binges. There's no word for it.

... binge.

A binge is getting blown out, having too much too drink, maybe throwing up, then waking up the next morning with a massive headache. The death causing binge does much worse.

"waking up" is not some definitive part of binge drinking. Death often is included. But hey, I guess you want to leave that out too. Anything that destroys your "argument," you want to hand-wave out of the discussion.

Yes, you are. The world would be a fine place if it were not inhabited with sentient beings.

So why are you arguing about the effects of drugs on sentient beings?

Just to troll? Yeah. GTFO, like I said.

A final question to you all before I go to bed: why is it that you are all so pro-marijuana and so anti-tobacco?

Answer: because one is legal and the other is not. It has NOTHING to do with the drugs to you people. You're just in it because since marijuana is banned by the government, being pro-marijuana is the liberal, left wing thing to do.

I'm not anti-tobacco. Nice try at a martyr'd-political-wing rant though. Extra troll points for you!

Except that, again, cannabis will have an immediate damaging effect when smoked. It's ok when eaten, but when consumed in it's prevalent form, smoking, it's damaging immediately.

What is this immediate damage that you speak of? Please define what this damage is, how much is caused, and describe how it is worse than the damage caused by alcohol.

You have made the claim that chronic use of marijuana will cause lung cancer. You may be correct, but you have not shown this to be true.

If you want to be taken seriously, you should try to back up your claims, like this:

Claim:
Marijuana may be useful in preventing or treating cancer.

Support:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Support/marijuana

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/HealthScout/070417/6041715AU.html

TUESDAY, April 17 (HealthDay News) - While smoking marijuana is never good for the lungs, the active ingredient in pot may help fight lung cancer, new research shows.

Harvard University researchers have found that, in both laboratory and mouse studies, delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cuts tumor growth in half in common lung cancer while impeding the cancer's ability to spread.

The compound "seems to have a suppressive effect on certain lines of cancer cells," explained Dr. Len Horovitz, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.

As far as your claim that marijuana use causes lung cancer, I think you are uninformed.

Look here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html):

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."

This is what people meant when they said you should do your research first.

Except that, again, cannabis will have an immediate damaging effect when smoked. It's ok when eaten, but when consumed in it's prevalent form, smoking, it's damaging immediately.

That is interesting. So your point that MJ is more dangerous than alcohol is based solely on the relative damages done by only one exposure to each drug?

In which case as antibiotics do not know which bacteria to kill, they kill all bacteria including those in the gut that aid digestion, then antibiotics are far more dangerous then either beer or MJ?

All vacinations are the same? Chemotheorpy?

Answer: because one is legal and the other is not. It has NOTHING to do with the drugs to you people. You're just in it because since marijuana is banned by the government, being pro-marijuana is the liberal, left wing thing to do.

Yeah, because we're all huge pot smokers here. Mmmm...I can just taste the smoke from that bong! Ohyesyesyes...give Kyronea his love, bongie...

No. We are discussing facts here, not opinions, nor are we holding "typical left-wing opinions." We are using medical research rather than propaganda.

How many alcohol companies produce both beer and wine? I don't recall seeing a Samuel Adam's Pinot Grigio, or a Miller Merlot.


Sam Adams is a beer brand, owned by the Boston Beer Company, who do mostly make beers, but they do have hard iced teas and ciders which they brand differently.

They are relatively new and smaller company though.

Miller Brewing Company, well, it was until recently owned by Phillip Morris. (For those who don't know, they're one of the world's largest tobacco companies, but they've also owned the Kraft and Nabisco Brands (Nabisco previously being owned at some point by RJ Reynolds, another Tobacco comapny). PM, now known as Altria, sold off part of their ownership to SABMiller, but retains an ownership interest.

So as far as it goes, I don't see much obstacle for these companies to expand their operations into the putative marijuana market

Yeah, because we're all huge pot smokers here. Mmmm...I can just taste the smoke from that bong! Ohyesyesyes...give Kyronea his love, bongie...

No. We are discussing facts here, not opinions, nor are we holding "typical left-wing opinions." We are using medical research rather than propaganda.

Dude, pass me the lefty bong. Give me another hit of that ol' medical research.

On a side note, I was reading in the paper this morning that Québec, if it separated, would beat Canada for highest marijuana consumption in the developed world. We're the reason Canada beat the Netherlands in that UN study.

If Ferrous Oxide was right, we should see a higher rate of lung cancer in Québec than in the rest of Canada, after we adjust for tobacco consumption. I wonder if Rusty will bother crunching the numbers?

Dude, pass me the lefty bong. Give me another hit of that ol' medical research.

On a side note, I was reading in the paper this morning that Québec, if it separated, would beat Canada for highest marijuana consumption in the developed world. We're the reason Canada beat the Netherlands in that UN study.

If Ferrous Oxide was right, we should see a higher rate of lung cancer in Québec than in the rest of Canada, after we adjust for tobacco consumption. I wonder if Rusty will bother crunching the numbers?
Ah, proof!
Canada = Leftie Liberals
Canada = Pot

Therefore:
Pot = Leftie Liberals.</sarcasm>

Dude, I'm so high on liberalism right now.

Again, those are the results of alcohol ABUSE. Just about any substance can be abused. People die from Red Bull overdose.
Irrelevant. More people die from alcohol overdose than marijuana. Or red bull.

Shhhh!!!! I want to hear about these people who die from Red Bull overdose! What'd they do believe the ads that say it gives you wings & jump off a cliff?

From the bong of Bill Clinton.

Lewinski and I have something in common.

Dude, I'm so high on liberalism right now.

From the bong of Bill Clinton.

Shhhh!!!! I want to hear about these people who die from Red Bull overdose! What'd they do believe the ads that say it gives you wings & jump off a cliff?

Apparently in Sweden it's suspected to be involved in three deaths.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1435409.stm

Of course, two of those involved mixing Red Bull with vodka.... so we'll just ignore them, we wouldn't want to shoot FO's argument MORE full of holes.

Apparently in Sweden it's suspected to be involved in three deaths.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1435409.stm

Of course, two of those involved mixing Red Bull with vodka.... so we'll just ignore them, we wouldn't want to shoot FO's argument MORE full of holes.

Thankie for link!
Ross died of sudden adult death syndrome after a basketball match. Hours earlier he had drunk three cans of Red Bull.
Ya think it's anything like SIDS? Maybe he should have been laying on his back after the basketball, rather than his side...

Dude, I'm so high on liberalism right now.yeah mee tooo :D

A final question to you all before I go to bed: why is it that you are all so pro-marijuana and so anti-tobacco?

Answer: because one is legal and the other is not. It has NOTHING to do with the drugs to you people. You're just in it because since marijuana is banned by the government, being pro-marijuana is the liberal, left wing thing to do
That's a ridiculous claim to make, and I'm glad it's being ridiculed.

Speaking for myself, I am pro-marijuana not because it is the 'liberal, left-wing thing to do', but because I can see no reason whatsoever - not one - for its cultivation, possession and use to be criminalised whilst the use of other substances, that are proven to be more harmful, is legal.

Seriously, how can it be justified?

One joint damages in the same way as a cigarette. Or is smoking suddenly healthy and normal when it's marijuana?

Just a quick note... Yes, marijuana is pretty equal to tobacco from what I've read and heard. However, you don't smoke twenty joints in a day, do you? Compare smoking one or two and the effect of that, to what you have to drink to get the same effect and then do the math.

And I'm not even going to get into the social benefits of THC compared to alcohol.

That's a ridiculous claim to make, and I'm glad it's being ridiculed.

Speaking for myself, I am pro-marijuana not because it is the 'liberal, left-wing thing to do', but because I can see no reason whatsoever - not one - for its cultivation, possession and use to be criminalised whilst the use of other substances, that are proven to be more harmful, is legal.

Seriously, how can it be justified?

Economically. Marijuana use makes people less competetive, therefore less likely to work overtime and so on. I can't back that up with studies, it's purely from my observations of stoners and their lifestyle. It doesn't just apply when people are stoned, it's a chronic effect. It might have something to do with lowered blood-pressure, or it might be the phytoestrogens in weed.

When people work only as much as they are paid for, businesses make less money, harming the economy. In an environment of personal competition people work harder than what they are paid for.

Here's another thing: sickness is good for the economy. The medical sector is more than 15% of developed economies. People who are sick more than three or four days a year (the usual number of paid sick days) don't have to be paid, and when they do get to work they have to work harder to catch up. They are compelled to spend some of their money on healthcare, possibly even going into debt and compelling them to work more.

Unhealthy products also reduce the unproductive years of retirement. Lung cancer and heart disease in particular peak at about retirement age.

What is good for the economy is bad for the vast bulk of humanity. In that sense the ban cannot be justified, but "good for the economy" is often used as a justification for many bad things (like war and industry subsidies and systemic inequality.)

Snipped long economy class.

What a sad world... but as state pays for healthcare where I live, I think it's more economic when people are healthy. Plus we get like 14 sick days with pay and then the state takes over. Guess it varies from country to country, no?

What a sad world... but as state pays for healthcare where I live, I think it's more economic when people are healthy. Plus we get like 14 sick days with pay and then the state takes over. Guess it varies from country to country, no?

My post was a fabric of guesswork actually. I was aiming for an average across developed countries and socioeconomic levels so I'll stick at three or four days.

That was definitely the weakest paragraph. Feel free to hit it a bit harder ... :)

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.


Unfortunately for me, I know what happens when a mother drinks when she is pregnant.

I suffer from memory loss, lack of being able to fully turn short turn memories into long term memories(I have no idea what this would be called), depression, apparently I developed behaviorally slowly, and a gammut of other mental and emotional problems.

*Thankfully*(I use this term loosely here), I have no physical abnormalities, and I am not mentally challenged or mentally undeveloped, like many are. I just have a host of problems that seem to line up with what happens when your mother drinks and smokes when she is pregnant with you.

But eh, could be worse for me.

My god. BC is now the world's largest terrorist organization.

Economically. Marijuana use makes people less competetive, therefore less likely to work overtime and so on. I can't back that up with studies, it's purely from my observations of stoners and their lifestyle. It doesn't just apply when people are stoned, it's a chronic effect. It might have something to do with lowered blood-pressure, or it might be the phytoestrogens in weed.

When people work only as much as they are paid for, businesses make less money, harming the economy. In an environment of personal competition people work harder than what they are paid for.

Here's another thing: sickness is good for the economy. The medical sector is more than 15% of developed economies. People who are sick more than three or four days a year (the usual number of paid sick days) don't have to be paid, and when they do get to work they have to work harder to catch up. They are compelled to spend some of their money on healthcare, possibly even going into debt and compelling them to work more.

Unhealthy products also reduce the unproductive years of retirement. Lung cancer and heart disease in particular peak at about retirement age.

What is good for the economy is bad for the vast bulk of humanity. In that sense the ban cannot be justified, but "good for the economy" is often used as a justification for many bad things (like war and industry subsidies and systemic inequality.)

In all seriousness though, how many stoners do you know that do it aty work, vs how many you know that wait until work is finished and they are at home?

Economically. Marijuana use makes people less competetive, therefore less likely to work overtime and so on. I can't back that up with studies, it's purely from my observations of stoners and their lifestyle. It doesn't just apply when people are stoned, it's a chronic effect. It might have something to do with lowered blood-pressure, or it might be the phytoestrogens in weed.

When people work only as much as they are paid for, businesses make less money, harming the economy. In an environment of personal competition people work harder than what they are paid for.

Here's another thing: sickness is good for the economy. The medical sector is more than 15% of developed economies. People who are sick more than three or four days a year (the usual number of paid sick days) don't have to be paid, and when they do get to work they have to work harder to catch up. They are compelled to spend some of their money on healthcare, possibly even going into debt and compelling them to work more.
You realize that is contradictory? A product that makes people want to not work overtime is bad for the economy but something that causes people to take paid time off is good for the economy? Not to mention the cost of healthcare to US industries..

My god. BC is now the world's largest terrorist organization.

Awe, but it's just so pretty!

My god. BC is now the world's largest terrorist organization.

For certain values of "organization," yes. :p