1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Cannabis smoking 'more harmful' than tobacco

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Nov 11, 2002.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Smoking pure marijuana is at least as harmful to lungs as smoking tobacco, a report from the British Lung Foundation concludes. And in some key ways, it may be more dangerous.

    For example, the BLF's review of previous research highlights that just three marijuana joints a day causes the same damage to the lung's airways as 20 cigarettes, mainly because of the way joints are smoked.



    Legalization of pot would be severely thwarted when science says something like the above.
     
  2. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    Yet alcohol and tobacco will remain legal. Heck, the states are making millions of dollars off of it each year.

    I won't dispute that smoking anything is harmful to one's health. I just don't like inconsistent laws. It makes no sense to me that I am permittd to buy a carton of cigarettes and smoke them in front of children, but I am not allowed to light up a joint in the privacy of my own home all by myself.
     
  3. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    It would be interesting to know how much money has been spent on this research. I have been assuming all along that if tobacco could kill then so could cannabis, and after losing an uncle to lung cancer in 2000 and his wife in 2002 (secondhand smoke), I'm in no hurry to try either.

    Allene
     
  4. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Not sure. But I do not think this research was well-rounded.

    For instance, they concentrated more on the effects of the tobacco itself, and not what makes a ciggie or a joint.

    That fiberglass crap in ciggie's filter stays in one's lungs and damages them. Whereas you do not have a filter with a joint, it's paper and the leaves.
     
  5. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    Hmmm, we know diesel fumes are
    seriously carcinogenic, no ban there.

    We know bicycles and swimming pools
    kill and cripple kids every year, yet no
    ban.

    We even know high fat foods will kill
    with certainty but we don't ban it.

    hypocrisy

    n 1: an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction
    [syn: lip service] 2: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities
    or beliefs that you do not really have
    <small>Source: WordNet 1.6, 1997 Princeton University </small>

    This definition provided for those of you in doubt.
     
  6. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    My father smoked roll-your-own cigarettes. The pancreatic cancer that killed him at 49 was at least in part due to those cigarettes.

    Allene
     
  7. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    I wonder if this "study" accounted for the radically different methods of smoking pot vs. tobacco?

    Tobacco is simply inhaled and exhaled.

    Pot, if I recall correctly ;), is inhaled and then <u>held in one's lungs for as long as possible</u>, in order to maximize the "contact time" and thus increase one's buzz.

    I recall a similar "study" over 20 years ago that pointed out the same thing, until another study came along and pointed out the differences in the drug delivery method.
     
  8. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Not to mention using a bong to cool the smoke, etc.
     
  9. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    Fortunately nobody has discovered that pot baked in brownies causes any harm. :)
     
  10. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    You want my address?
     
  11. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    That anybody is either surprised or disputes the findings of the British study that it is bad for you is a bit amusing to me.

    It doesn't take a genius to figure out that inhaling thick or dense smoke regardless of its source is significantly bad for you--especially if it happens regularly and over a long period of time.
     
  12. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    i can vouch, from experience, that doing a triple binger of seriously dank vermont kindy skunk kaya from a 6 foot graffix bong is something that will knock you on your ass and hurt for quite sometime, if you can even manage to get that much smoke in your lungs all at one time.

    another thing to avoid - doing 55 bong hits in a row to acheive the title of 'all time bong master'. while the pride will last for years and lesser potheads will tremble with fear and respect when you walk by, the pain doesnt wear off for quite awhile.

    oh one last thing - if you are going to EAT marijuana, do NOT eat a large bud of really good fresh weed. eat a small amount. the THC metabolizes through the digestive system in an entirely different way than it does through the respiratory system. trust me, eating a huge bud is scarier than taking too much acid ANYDAY.

    ;)
     
  13. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    I agree with you on this one. I find it amazing that people needed studies a few decades ago to prove that smoking tobacco was causing harm to people. Wasn't it common sense even a hundred years ago? If something makes you cough, maybe you shouldn't be doing it fifty times a day, every day of your life!

    I wonder if sniffing gasoline everyday is bad for me...? Were there any studies done to answer this? Maybe I should do it anyway until I see a surgeon general's warning label on the gas pumps.
     
  14. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.

    What I don't understand is the following:

    Firefighters and fire victims get treated for inhalation if they breath in smoke. Yet it's cool and hip to take a cig/bud/cigar/pipe, ignite the plant materials, and inhale that shit in.

    Am I the only one that sees the irony?
     
  15. John R. Beanham

    John R. Beanham Typical Aussie Male

    Anyone who smokes Tobacco or Pot is a MUG, that deserves everything that happens to them, without complaint or legal action.

    John.
     
  16. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.

    Actually, I must disagree with you on that.

    I don't think big tobacco should get off scott free for this. I remember "camel bucks" when I was growing up, and i remember all the cool things we got when we redeemed them - things like cd players, skateboards, etc. We didn't smoke, my dad did, yet all the things that we redeemed were things pretty much aimed at kids. The fact Joe Camel was cartoonish pretty much proved that BT was taking aim at the next generation of smokers.

    Also, older smokers who now need metal lungs because of lung cancer/emphysema deserve to get paid - BT denied that tobacco was addictive back in the early 90's during a congressional hearing - I remember, I watched it happen live. BT needed to pay up for their, IMHO, criminal acts.

    However, today, we all know what's up with tobacco and other like drugs - smokers who pick up the habit today don't deserve any retribution because they made informed choices.
     
  17. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    That is, forgive the expression, a half-assed argument. If you had it your way Ken, you could swallow your monitor and then sue Dell for damages.

    The vices of tobacco and alcohol have been grandfathered in. I think most people recognize this as well as recognizing that we, as a society, don't need to add more health risks and intoxicants for people to consume. IMO, there will never be majority support for legalizing something that is at least as damaging as tobacco.

    Teaching our kids about making healthy choices which will contribute to their longevity and quality of life is a more worthy pursuit than trying to find a constitutuional right to self intoxication which, BTW, does not exist.
     
  18. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    I have never advocated allowing frivolous law suits and
    I would certainly ask you to not put words in my mouth.

    What I was pointing out is we make choices everyday.

    Electricity and gas kill a small amount of people every year.
    We believe the good these utilities provide outweigh the bad.

    We allow coal fired electrical generation plants to belch smoke
    into the atmosphere even though we know these pollutants are
    causing trouble hundreds of mile away. Again, we believe the
    electricity they produce is important and we are making strides
    to reduce these emissions.

    We allow many identified dangers to continue to exist here. So
    why is it you feel you have a right to tell Shiny what he can put
    into his pipe? Are you afraid he will spill some on his lap and bring
    a frivolous suit or is this just another ploy for control?

    Hey, thanks for the lesson in Constitutional law. Obviously
    we have differing interpretations of pursuit of happiness.

    <small>I thought you conservatives were big on government not telling people
    what to do. Apparently you missed the definition I provided.
     
  19. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    The only thing I asked you to put in your mouth was a monitor. I used an absurd example to illustrate your absurd argument. [explanation for Ken ends here]

    If I tell Shiny what to not put in his pipe, I do that out of concern and compassion for him. If you don't see the caring and compassion written in to the laws we live under then you have a very cold heart. Your selfishness is evident about your attitude towards your perceived rights of self destruction at the expense of others.
     
  20. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    I have still never advocated lawsuits for frivolous matters but let's not
    introduce facts into a good read.

    I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was a compassionate conservative issue.
    So, you are telling me you wish to forbid Shiny to smoke whatever he
    chooses as a favor to him. Why, isnt that exceptionally liberal of you?

    No, but seriously, thanks for clearing that up.
     

Share This Page