Smoking a joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer
 

Makes sense to me..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080129/..._cannabis_dc_2

Bullshit.

I agree with torn

Please pass it this way...

I've never been anti-pot as I used to smoke it in the 70's. I have become more against it as I watched my teenage son go downhill from smoking and selling it. He ended up robbing a person with a gun to get money to buy more pot to smoke. Now will be in prison for 10 to 20!

So to say it's not bad for your lungs/health or will lead some people to do about anything to get it makes no sense to me.

If that was true I would've been dead a long time ago. I remember reading a story a year or so ago that said pot inhibited some types of cancer, I'll believe that one ;)|potleaf|

yup, I read those ones too. Statistics can always be manipulated into whatever someone wants them to say.

Without getting into the social/legal areas, from a purely health conscious point of view I'll continue smoking pot over drinking booze any day.

Puff puff pass.

It's the zig zags that causes cancer not the weed. I love that sticky part when it gets to the end though.

Glass is the way to go :)

Sounds like alot of people didn't read the article or are in complete denial.

So, I guess those two studies last year, and the other studies in previous years, that found that grass had a protective effect on lung cancer, were just horrible hippie propaganda then.

Will those filthy medical hippies never give up?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...501729_pf.html

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/new...ht-lung-tumors

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000508/m...o-cause-cancer

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html

Dirty medical hippies, daring to release studies that don't claim grass causes cancer - haven't they read this 20 year old much debunked propaganda? Why do they hate america?

well, I read the article
That's an awfully small sample group. How many of those patients did smoke more than one j a day for 10 years, or 2/day for 5? And the line 'after adjusting for other variables' is kinda vague too. Did the person(s) who smoked the pot also smoke cigarettes? Or work in a high risk environment?

I'm not saying smoking it isn't bad for your lungs. Any smoke inhalation is bad. But I don't know if this particular study shows clearly that there's that much of an increased risk by pot smoking alone.

or maybe I am in denial :D |potleaf|

I smoked my share back in the 80's but don't anymore. Don't want it, don't miss it, never got addicted. Inhaling any smoke has to be bad but 20 times doesn't sound right. Then again what do I know!

You know, Meatman is from New Zealand & he always mixed his dope with tobacco - said it was a very common thing back home.

So maybe 1/2 tobacco - unfiltered - and 1/2 dope is the cause?

I used to do a lot of drugs, pot, acid, mushrooms, peyote, coke, pretty much everything except heroin and speed. The only drugs I became addicted to were legal ones, nicotine and alcohol. I still smoke and I'm still an alcoholic.
The governments spend big money on persecuting folks who smoke an innocuous little plant that is not physically addictive, and ignore the taxable physically addictive drugs because they are an income source for them.

You speak as if those 2 are in the same class :D

Well, 20x's more likely but most smokers smoke 20+ cigs a day and a moderate pot smoker probably packs a few bowls or has a good roll each day..it levels out....

Puff Puff Give

I used to hang out with a girl who once banged cold coffee because she couldn't get any speed, her legs turned purple and she stayed in the hospital for a while, as soon as she got out she started cranking again.
That kind of shit scares me.
Heroin I don't know much about, never even seen it, but I know myself too well to try anything new that is physically addictive. Smoked opium once and enjoyed it way too much. I'm sure I'd love heroin.

|thumb
I saw one of those articles in high times.

I suppose it depends how big you wrap 'em |potleaf|

I vote double diddly dog bullshit too.
I'm living proof of it. I smoke a minimum of a pack and a half to 2 packs of cigs a day and since Katrina, a minimum of 5 3.5 to 4 gram joints a day.

I use a rolling machine so I don't roll those pregnant hooters that are quarter inch of paper on each end and a gram or 2 of reefer in the middle.
According to that, I'm smoking bout the equiv of a carton of cigs of cancer a day.

Pre 2005, I smoked cigs about the same rate and prolly a minimum of 2 joints a day. Shouldn't I have died sometime in the early 90's?

Sometimes you wanna get higher
And sometimes you gotta start low
Some people think they gonna die someday
I got news ya never got to go
~Ted Nugent

I did want to add, I thought you were referring to the old studies, I didn't realize you were referring to this new one.

The new study still has to explain why the epidemiologists and pulmanologists just released a series of large studies that showed that cannabis had the effect of reducing lung cancers.

Here's an example of the older articles - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/141891.stm

these kinds of claims have been contradicted by several large studies, one released in 2006, the other in 2007.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...7F0000&ref=rss

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2696726.shtml

This new study will get peer reviewed and repeated - I'm sure the governments will fund repeat tests - so we'll see if they come up with an explanation for the different results.

This new NZ study was done with roughly 300 people, the studies above are described as large, one was done with about 2500 people, the other I thought was even more.

Denial of what???


or maybe you didn't understand the first 3 words "Smoking a joint" means the paper is being smoked too.

Sounds like you didn't read my post either. Nowhere did it say in the article that marijuana contained the carcinogens. My Aussie friend would mix chronic and tobacco too. What a waste IMO. Darn Aussies need to learn how to smoke cancerfree weed.

|thumb
(I'm half-sure you put that in there for me.)

naa i dont believe that, if so then at least 60% of the dutch community should have bin ill of cancer. Most of my friends who use that stuff mix it with the normal tabocco thing, for the record i dont smoke weed myself, but most of my friends and fam do (hell even some grow that stuff themself:D), about the lung cancer thing, some weeks ago a message came here in the news that more and more non smokers get lung cancer and not because other people smoke and they have to live in the the smokey area , no they get it because of the bad air outside, all the smoke and dirt they get in their lungs from cars and the fabriks (if i say that right) and here we get back on the facted of something mentioned years ago, its not the smoking......

I think that aswell, with all the shit in the air it's more likely to kill you than smoking weed.

Anything can cause cancer, too much sun, too little sun, too much of this, too little of that, it goes on and on.

If they spent more time trying to cure cancer than telling us what can cause it, maybe they'd have a cure by now.

I've had both parents die with lung cancer, and neither smoked pot. One had the kind from asbestos exposure (my dad) and my mom had regular old lung cancer...that after she quit smoking in the 70s and she was a light-weight when she did smoke. Not sure if the 2nd hand smoke got her, the times she did smoke, the fact she worked in the printing industry for 10 years...all I know was it wasn't pot that did it.

I too used to smoke pot, quit in 89. Living in Hawaii for 18 years, it is hard not to smoke some, lol. That shit was so strong though I was one hit and gone for hours so never smoked very much.

I knew a LOT of people over there however that never had lung cancer that smoked a HELL of a lot of pot daily. I tend to believe the studies that show it has a helpful effect against getting cancer.

in holland pot is used to ease(do i say that right) the pain for people with cancer, you will get an receip from doc if you need it, then insurrance will pay it for you, but you just can get it in every shop around the corner at every place, but then you have to pay for it yourself, to fucking funny:D
I am getting a bit tired of all those news messages, in the early days it was known that woman who used birth controle pills had a bigger chanse to get cancer, now they say the ones who use birth controle pills have less chanse on cancer...........
Its like BOB said, there is a '"chanse"you can get cancer from this or that, but they cant realy proofe it and when they proof it the next group of people will come and proofe the other way around.
The worse message i ever saw in the news was the fact that from eating peanutbutter your chanse to get cancer was higher ( posted in holland)

oh and wanna know what was worser, that (and this was last year), the company who collects money in holland to find a cure against cancer invested their money in stocks of the smoking industry, while here the people who smoke pay more taxes and have warnings on their cigaretpack like"smokers die sooner" or " smoking gives you lung cancer" yep give warnings and say all its so bad, but in the meantime invest the money you get in the smoking stocks, as soon it got public the company reacted that they didnt know their money got invested in smoking stocks, because they hire an other company to do that, YEAH RIGHT!
And i always sent money to the cancer company, i find it important that they find out new medicine to help people to get better from cancer.