G
Guest
Guest
i hate that kind of rolling paper. it burns too fast.
Not too glowing health article on cannabis in BBC..
- Auteur de la discussion st.bot.32
- Date de début
This argument is completely RETARDED and made up! (prove me otherwise)
The fact that cannabis smokers may or may not (I don't do it that much) hold the smoke longer is irrelevant because nicotine smokers smoke MUCH more than we do.
What the hell if a hold my smoke a bit, it's only 1 joint vs 10, 20+ cigarettes a day for tobacco people, I've seen them chain smoking their way through packs and packs of that shit how could they even ATTEMPT to portray cannabis as more harmful than that neurotoxin called nicotine!!!! a substance that functions as an antiherbivore chemical and works very good as insecticide!! (READ MORE)
nicotine is POISON!!
and don't even get me started in its addictive properties!!! :twisted:
???????? a dit:
That argument is in my opinion not completely retarded and made up, but it's like "in the worst case this could happen". If you vaporize weed, then the situation will be complete different. But not many people have a vaporizer :wink:
(The prove otherwise):
- There are also alot of cannabis smokers who hold the cannabis smoke long in their loungs, because they think this will increase the effect.
- A lot of weed smokers that i know, also smoke cigarettes (and not less, probably even more then not-weed smokers).
- Here in Holland the most of the smokers roll the cannabis up with tobacco.
But not everybody smokes the same!
There is a lot of difference between the ways of smoking cannabis, so saying: "if you smoke cannabis, you have more risk to get cancer" is not right. There are various ways to reduce the health risks, and there are also ways to take cannabis who don't give you more risk to get cancer (by eating it).
But the ones that smoke weed and nicotine are besides the point... the "study" specifically wanted to show cannabis as more dangerous than cigarettes, which is absolutely ludicrous.
The article said
"Many people don't know that smoking a joint is more harmful to the lungs than smoking a cigarette"
this is what irks me and makes me angry!! this is FALSE and made up!
Yes. But I fail to see how a cannabis smoker with 1 joint, holding up all the smoke he could, for the maximum span he'd able to, could surpass a guy who smokes 20 or more cigs a day...
You're right, there's an important difference in the way people smoke... there are also a lot of other variables to consider when trying to study this things. I can bet you that the paid "doctors" that made this studies didn't have all factors thought out and in fact they could have altered the experiments so it showed whatever negative things on cannabis they could think up (it's been done before with monkeys)
:| ...
I refuse to believe these supposed studies when I know that marijuana should be regarded as medicine rather than the dangerous drug image the media tries to shove in my head. Specially when I've read other studies LIKE THIS that say otherwise.
silv a dit:
What I think is that I've been smoking much more than 1 joint a day for a long time, and I was able to function properly (not as good but still OK). But it's hard for an asthmatic's lungs, that's why I recently decided not to smoke anything anymore.
But Cannabis never caused me even half of the problems I had when I was smoking ~10 cigarettes/day
???????? a dit:
I know that they are generalizing "smoking weed".
But my reply was my own vision about the relation between smoking weed (with or without tobacco) and health problems.
I didn't reply on the article, but on the subject :wink:
I've heard for years that this isn't false.
Where is the prove that a joint is less harmfull then a cigarette?
In Holland it's usual that they smoke a joint (most of the time a mixture of 1, or almost 1 cigarette and weed/hash).
If you use 1 cigarette in a joint, then that joint will be at least as harmfull for you as a cigarette.
That's true. But the most of the weed-smokers also smoke cigarettes.
OK this is not in the article, but i was giving my own vision, based on my own experiences.
That's a bit strange.
But often political discussions often start because of a media-hype.
Interesting. I will read some more articles.
But sometimes both sides say things that are (a bit) true.
An article on Azarius is from a very different point of view then the government (like fire and water).
You can say from both sides that it is possible that they aren't (very) objective.
Some other contradictory studies:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... 414B7F0000
http://www.webmd.com/news/20000508/mari ... use-cancer
I must say, though, that I finally have been able to keep away from weed for a while, and feel great. For me, it's hard to stop smoking it when it's around, and it really slows me down. But, that's not the weed's fault, it's mine.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... 414B7F0000
http://www.webmd.com/news/20000508/mari ... use-cancer
I must say, though, that I finally have been able to keep away from weed for a while, and feel great. For me, it's hard to stop smoking it when it's around, and it really slows me down. But, that's not the weed's fault, it's mine.
why dont we agree here and now that whenever someone comes up with a "new" horror story about Herb that we just say with a straight honoust face: Oh i'm sorry did you hear the propaganda, no dont worry its as natural as it gets and its a medicine. 
Followed by a friendly smile.
and if they continue to be unbelievers ask them over, share 8)
Followed by a friendly smile.and if they continue to be unbelievers ask them over, share 8)
Gratefully_dead
Elfe Mécanique
JosVU a dit:why dont we agree here and now that whenever someone comes up with a "new" horror story about Herb that we just say with a straight honoust face: Oh i'm sorry did you hear the propaganda, no dont worry its as natural as it gets and its a medicine.
and if they continue to be unbelievers ask them over, share 8)
i agree man! unless of course its a cop talking then its probably best to just shut up and swallow those shrooms in your mouth you silly psychonaut :wink:
HappyMind a dit:
Where are the lung cancer victims because of cannabis use??
where are the harmful additives in joints???
where are are the deaths because of lung, heart and vascular diseases??
where are ANY deaths attributed to cannabis use???? versus estimated 12 million deaths in the last 40 years attributed to nicotine?????
Please, do tell where you have heard "for years" that a joint is more harmful than a cigarette... As you say, all these studies are biased and one should read them all with a good bag of salt but, thrust me, even the politically oriented legislators know that they can't condemn cannabis by comparing it to nicotine because they know they are going to LOSE.
I think or maybe rather thought that the fact that cannabis is healthier than tobacco was widely known and accepted...
Find 2 very old guys, a heavy tobacco user and a heavy cannabis user, compare their health and ask them how they feel and then come back here and discuss your findings.
I take it that you neither smoke nicotine or ganja and perhaps you're young and reading things and making your mind and all that; don't believe anything I say, read for yourself and learn the facts, they are there for you.
Read this topic and visit the links given by daytripper and do some thinking:
http://www.psychonaut.com/index.php?opt ... =0&lang=nl
G
Guest
Guest
happymind, why has the tobacco so many additives ?
and why don't you drink a tobacco tea ?
and why don't you drink a tobacco tea ?
GOD
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
The BBC is owned by the British government and represents the views of them and the British establishment , it is not neutral . The British government is an American puppet government and does what it is told to do . These reports come from pseudo studys that can not be taken seriously . How for example can they prove "Another found bullous disease - a form of emphysema - occurs 20 years earlier in cannabis smokers." if the studys didnt go on for 20 years . These "studys" have probably only indicated that tabaco is even more deadly when mixed with canabliss . When they answer the questions raised by Caduceus and as few others here we can start to talk about who has actualy proved what , and untill then its all propoganda .
If canabliss causes cancer where are the millions of Africans , Indians , Jamacans , Pakistanis and Afghanis with lung problems and lung cancer ?
If canabliss causes cancer where are the millions of Africans , Indians , Jamacans , Pakistanis and Afghanis with lung problems and lung cancer ?
Gratefully_dead
Elfe Mécanique
GOD a dit:
A-fucking-men!
jj
Neurotransmetteur
The whole "public health" premise is that each of us are like cells in a societal superorganism, with the state acting as the brain, or like cogs in the machine.
It's a perspective deeply rooted in "public health policies." They own your body.
Democracy means "we the people" give certain limited powers to a subset of the populace, aka "the government" so they can do things like arrest theives and the like, but the whole thing has gotten terribly out of hand.
When it is we who decide what we put into our bodies, then we can hire people who can do studies that produce useful information.
I've read some studies that although vaporizers reduce some harmful smoke constituents, they perform at a level far less satisfactory than you might think. Many of the chemicals of concern are still being produced at levels not far from those found in smoke.
If Cannabis were legal, honey oil would be freely available.
I seem to recall that someone in the medical Cannabis business developed a cannabinoid "atomizer" that sprays a cool cannabinoid mist into the throat.
You won't see them advocating the legalization of that, though.
It's a perspective deeply rooted in "public health policies." They own your body.
Democracy means "we the people" give certain limited powers to a subset of the populace, aka "the government" so they can do things like arrest theives and the like, but the whole thing has gotten terribly out of hand.
When it is we who decide what we put into our bodies, then we can hire people who can do studies that produce useful information.
I've read some studies that although vaporizers reduce some harmful smoke constituents, they perform at a level far less satisfactory than you might think. Many of the chemicals of concern are still being produced at levels not far from those found in smoke.
If Cannabis were legal, honey oil would be freely available.
I seem to recall that someone in the medical Cannabis business developed a cannabinoid "atomizer" that sprays a cool cannabinoid mist into the throat.
You won't see them advocating the legalization of that, though.