dedbr

Cannabis bigger cancer risk than cigarettes: study - Yahoo! News

I thought we needed to talk about this study. It says that one joint is equivalent to a pack of cigarettes. I really would like to see the whole study, but it seemed pretty conclusive to me.

I don't think the herb affects me near as bad as cigarettes, but that's just how I feel. I could be wrong........


Some Where In Ded Land...........Bunker City, USA....

__________________
Though my soul may set in darkness,
It will rise in perfect light.
I have loved the stars too fondly,
To be fearful of the night." Sarah Williams

Our Posting Guidelines (Check 'em Out!.....)

steakii

I guess its time to start vaporizing. I have noticed that weed makes me produce much more phlegm than cigarettes do, but i havent been smoking either for long enough(3 year each off and on alot) to notice a significant difference in actual damage to lungs. That is an interesting study. Most stoners believe that weed doesnt cause cancer, now there is a study that links the 2.

dedbr

I think maybe it's time to get off our high-horse about this and admit that there are negative consequences to smoking herb even though we like to think that there aren't.

You can't have it both ways, can you? It might be better to admit that it does do some harm, but the benefits far outweigh the problems it may cause..............


Some Where In Ded Land........

gravity0u812

i believe the only real harm is in how it is taken, the heat from smoking is the only really bad thing for you, hence the ice filled waterpipe. then it is far less harmless than an asprin. well that and those munchies, i guess that could make an argument for something bad.... maybe not?

[Mod note : Please learn to use the edit function and multi-quote posts. Posts in quick succession like this is considered turbo-posting which is covered in the posting guidelines, please review. Warning issued]

gravity0u812

[/quote]

i think its quite the opposite actually, which is a good thing

jbs4life97

And I'm sure the cigarette company's don't have anything to do with these "studies".

gravity0u812

of course they do, back in the 40s 50s and 60s it was cool even expected to smoke. all from them. and look at it now.. all lies.

just like reefer madness, said it woulod make you crazy, pot wold make you rape women and steal from your grandmother. i think not...

Dark

That had nothing to do with the cigarette companies

__________________
Dear Ndugu,

gravity0u812

o no i was just showin how everything was manipulated in the past to make the point they wanted to get across, that it was ok back then. and reefer wasnt.

and look where we are now. in the opposite side of the fence. kinda funny really

RT_Fufkin

You know, I've read this news story a few times and I have many, many questions, such as: Were these "joints" smoked by the group containing tobacco? were they also regular smokers of tobacco? Also, they don't really give the real metric, just a bunch of medical double-speak. "In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking." -- HUH? what does that mean? does it mean that all of these 79 cancer patients all at least smoked once a day for 10 years? How come there was no one quoted in this story from Mary Jane's side? That's not fair or balanced reporting at all. Also, I couldn't find this study anywhere on the European Respiratory Journal website, and when I went to the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand's site I found that many funds to perform these studies are from large pharmacy corporations.

I dunno, I'm just ranting...