NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070731/hl_nm/britain_cannabis_dc;_ylt=Ap.Trs4KUgFefi4QXaOEZUys0NUE

Supposedly here now, marijuana is more dangerous than over because it damages the way lungs work, whereas cigarettes just cause emphysema. Lucky cancer stick smokers. I'm sure those who smoke 2.5 packs of of cigarettes a day are glad they arn't those silly one joint a day pot smokers with their habit that is 2.5 times more dangerous to the lungs than the single cigarette. That's all we need, more reasons for idiots to keep banning marijuana.

You see this as more reasons to ban marijuana, I see this as a big STFU to people who are like, "Wait...you quit smoking pot but you smoke cigarettes? OMG POT IS SO MUCH HEALTHIER!" Then you tell them that, really, both substances have their ups and downs in terms of health and they just plug their eyes and ears and bitch about how second-hand smoke is destroying the world and you now can't smoke in bars because it's cool to make stupid, inconsistent laws that infringe on the rights of private businesses.

<----just a bit bitter.

I've always said that neither of them is particularly healthy for you, although that marijuana, unlike cigarettes, at least has the partially redeeming factor of the presence of cannabinoids.

Either way, other people can keep your marijuana and your cigarettes, I'd rather have nothing to do with either of them.

Something about breathing in smoke just doesn't click with me, y'know?

Personally I see no point in starting to use drugs period legal or otherwise.

How ever one thing people should point out is Cigs are addictive, no dout about that.

Pot how ever is not addictive and unless some one added stuff it has never killed any one using it.

Alchohal on the other is also addictive, so much infact that it can kill if not quenched.

Pot is, in my opinion, less harmful than tobacco and Alchohal for the simple fact it is not addictive and does not have nearly as significant health ramifications.

In the end though I choose to abstain from such crap. I have other means to relieve myself and have a good time.

I've never heard of anyone dying directly from cigarettes, either. Granted, enough nicotine can kill you, but I can't imagine someone smoking enough cigarettes, fast enough, to die from it. And it isn't like marijuana is completely devoid of carcinogens in its smoke. I mean, really, I don't think anyone should be allowed to tell an adult that they are not allowed to touch either substance. However, these smoking bans that apply to bars, privately owned enterprises, are just atrocious. Public smoking bans? Yea, I disagree with the logic behind them, but it's kind of common courtesy to not smoke right in front of a public entrance/exit anyway. But banning smoking from a bar? That's just dumb.

I agree with the banning of smoking in pubs, and im a smoker. because you are infact making non smokers breath your crap. Pot, now.... I live with people who talk about the last time they got drunk and when the next time theyre getting high... while smoking. Im sick of it. I think its a disgusting dirty habbit. Even smoking. PS, trying to quit.

I hate these studies because they ignore a number of factors.

They only focus on those who smoke a joint, and use to to say that marijuana is just as unsafe...

- Like... what about users who share a joint?

- The size of the joint? The amount of weed used?

- Or, users who use glass pipes, which tend to vary in size?

- And of the users who use pipes, what about the ones that share?

- Or bong usage? Vaporisers?

- Or, those who use marijuana in food?

- Frequency of usage...? After all, most people get stoned after one joint and are satisfied. Most smokers need multiple cigarettes before their craving is satisfied, so how does that compare to marijuana?

There are may things they should have tested for instead of just the one. It to me makes studies like this not very credible.

I'm not saying that marijuana smoke is necessarily good for you; I'm just saying that there are too many other things to consider.

I can't speak for the UK or Australia (I'm guessing that's where you're from if you're referring to bars as pubs?) but, in the US, there are many bars that are non-smoking bars.You're simply not allowed to smoke inside and part of their business is drawn from that appeal of the bar. It comes down to the place being a private enterprise and no customer nor worker is forced to spend their time there, especially when there are other options. On the same token, they don't ban hookah bars, which I'm thankful for, but it betrays a lack of logical consistency in the reasoning behind such bans.

For what it's worth, I'm not a habitual smoker. I used to be, but I quit because I want to be able to actually run for more than 10 seconds, however, I'm not about to get on anyone's case for secondhand smoke (because, honestly, if I'm standing next to an idling car, it's more likely than not that I'm inhaling more carcinogens) and I'm not about to call for forcing private businesses to accommodate my personal choices. *shrug* Again, I understand public smoking bans, and agree with them...but this bar crap is nonsense.

I am a firm believe in banning smoking from many public places. If you want to smoke, do outside, at home or something. Those of us who don't smoke and hate the stuff, don't want to smell and/or inhale your crap.

If we want to go get a drink without having to inhale craptons of your smoke, we should it is our right. It isn't our fault that you chose to go smoke despite all the warnings and advice telling you not to do it and why, and get addicted to it.

As for Pot, it causes many problems, mostly when you are driving and it screws up your judgment skills, making you act much stupider and with less common sense. I have seen people, a lot of them, who smoke pot and they act VERY dumb and slow in talking and making decisions.

As for Pot, it causes many problems, mostly when you are driving and it screws up your judgment skills, making you act much stupider and with less common sense. I have seen people, a lot of them, who smoke pot and they act VERY dumb and slow in talking and making decisions.

There is nothing common about common sense. It's all a matter of perspective. What may seem like common sense to one is not common sense to another. That's just a meaningless phrase.

Weed affects everyone differently. Just because it makes some people act stupider than usual doesn't mean it does with everyone. It can be an incredibly powerful relaxant, which is why it appears that people are slower in general. Consider that when you're very relaxed, you're not going to act quickly. Your body is in a position where its overall reflexes are reduced because you're not that alert.

Yes it impairs you and makes one act "dumb", but I can say the same thing about alcohol.

Right, let me get this straight...

Cannabis smoking causes blockages in the flow of air in the lungs, whereas smoking tobacco causes emphysema - a disease in which the flow of air in the lungs is blocked...

Pot calling the kettle black? No pun intended... :rolleyes:

Oh my... excuse while I go claw my eyes out because I just googled the phrase and some muggins seems to thin the phrase is racist.

It is still a drug, and a substance we should not be using. As most of the people who use it, they try to do things they shouldn't be doing that require them to be alert. Such as driving and whatnot.

Wasn't there just a study at some US university that showed there was no lung damage when smoking pot, no matter how many joints were smoked per day and no matter how many years that went on?

I don't care anyway. I use a vaporizer, which does not burn the vegetable matter.

For those of you who say "drugs are bad, mmkay". Then don't do them but quit trying to tell me how to live my life if I am not harming anyone else.

I am a firm believe in banning smoking from many public places. If you want to smoke, do outside, at home or something. Those of us who don't smoke and hate the stuff, don't want to smell and/or inhale your crap.


I'm a firm believer in the right of the property owner to decide for himself whether to allow smoking in his establishment. And I believe it's already been mentioned that you probably have as serious a health risk standing next to an idling car or at a bus stop. But it's much more fashionable to pick on smokers than drivers of internal combustion engines.

I'm a firm believer in the right of the property owner to decide for himself whether to allow smoking in his establishment. And I believe it's already been mentioned that you probably have as serious a health risk standing next to an idling car or at a bus stop. But it's much more fashionable to pick on smokers than drivers of internal combustion engines.

Car owners aren't picked on?

Speed cameras, congestion charges, high fuel tax, etc come to mind

It is still a drug, and a substance we should not be using. As most of the people who use it, they try to do things they shouldn't be doing that require them to be alert. Such as driving and whatnot.

Just like alcohol...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070731/hl_nm/britain_cannabis_dc;_ylt=Ap.Trs4KUgFefi4QXaOEZUys0NUE

Supposedly here now, marijuana is more dangerous than over because it damages the way lungs work, whereas cigarettes just cause emphysema. Lucky cancer stick smokers. I'm sure those who smoke 2.5 packs of of cigarettes a day are glad they arn't those silly one joint a day pot smokers with their habit that is 2.5 times more dangerous to the lungs than the single cigarette. That's all we need, more reasons for idiots to keep banning marijuana.
That's not a reason to keep banning marijuana.

It's a reason to ban joints and say "vapourizers only" :p

Ok seriously though even that isn't a reason in itself to ban marijuana. The defensibility of something and the defensibility of the legality of it are two different things, maybe not completely separate, but still not the same thing. Rather than focusing on the drug itself, we should focus around the issues surrounding its legalization, especially with regards to the question of whether or not a ban on the drug would be doing more harm than good. EDIT: Link to Penn & Teller episode about drug prohibition removed because I wasn't sure if it would count as spammy.

EDIT 2: Actually though, to be fair, I guess my views on regarding defensibility of the drug and that of legality are kinda inconsistent as I do believe that legalizing marijuana is a better idea than legalizing harder drugs like cocaine, heroin and ecstacy...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070731/hl_nm/britain_cannabis_dc;_ylt=Ap.Trs4KUgFefi4QXaOEZUys0NUE

Supposedly here now, marijuana is more dangerous than over because it damages the way lungs work, whereas cigarettes just cause emphysema. Lucky cancer stick smokers. I'm sure those who smoke 2.5 packs of of cigarettes a day are glad they arn't those silly one joint a day pot smokers with their habit that is 2.5 times more dangerous to the lungs than the single cigarette. That's all we need, more reasons for idiots to keep banning marijuana.

Someone I knew thought emphysema was a shopping disease.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070731/hl_nm/britain_cannabis_dc;_ylt=Ap.Trs4KUgFefi4QXaOEZUys0NUE

Supposedly here now, marijuana is more dangerous than over because it damages the way lungs work, whereas cigarettes just cause emphysema. Lucky cancer stick smokers. I'm sure those who smoke 2.5 packs of of cigarettes a day are glad they arn't those silly one joint a day pot smokers with their habit that is 2.5 times more dangerous to the lungs than the single cigarette. That's all we need, more reasons for idiots to keep banning marijuana.

I keep telling people that if you're going to compare pot to cigarettes, you should compare a single joint to a pack of cigarettes. People don't smoke pot in the same volume that people smoke cigarettes.

Yes, there are people who smoke huge volumes of pot, but they are the equivalent of multi-pack per day smokers. The average pot user smokes two or three joints per week. The average smoker goes through a pack every couple of days.

The article gives a 1 joint = 5 cigarettes ratio, which seems fairly plausible to me. When I used to smoke I used to do about 4-7 cigarettes a day. When I smoked pot, I'd actually say it was about the equivalent of, what I'm guessing, is two of their measurement of a single joint per day. That seems to be average for both populations, in my experience, too.

Car owners aren't picked on?

Speed cameras, congestion charges, high fuel tax, etc come to mind

All of which are used to:

A. Stop crime, in the case of the speed cameras

B. Raise money to keep up the maintenance of roads.

Do you realize how much money it takes to keep roads in decent shape? Now do you realize just how much road surface there is in the United States, or any other nation for that matter?

They need that money to pay for that stuff.

All of which are used to:

A. Stop crime, in the case of the speed cameras

B. Raise money to keep up the maintenance of roads.
But speed cameras don't actually catch the real speeder and simply punish the car owner, who may or may not have been at the helm at the time the vehicle was caught breaking the law.

Even if the money is raised for road maintenance, it fails in preventing people from speeding because the technology is imperfect.

Congestion and fuel taxes however are a better way of paying for the roads, since those taxes are paid by all, and don't rely on technology to lay any charges.

Speed cameras are the war on drugs; a losing cause and the taxes are the alcohol and tobacco products which people can buy...