CNN and others fear mongering Marijuana over Tobacco - Covid19

originally posted by: rickymouse
Pot is way harder on the lungs than Tobacco. It has more chance of causing cancer and some lung issues than tobacco does when smoked.

The part about cancer is completely bs. There does not exist any proof of that claim. Stop pretending you're an expert because you smoked 50 years ago.

a reply to: game over man

i can remember when sappy bud was 20 bucks a once. that was late 70's. if he remembers when columbian gold, was columbian gold not some new strain. from what i been told the new stuff is green. in the day the real columbian gold buds were gold tinted.

any body remember
"ACAPULCO GOLD FILTERS"
no stems, no seeds that you don't need. ACAPULCO GOLD is pfffffft bad ass weed.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: game over man

any body remember
"ACAPULCO GOLD FILTERS"
no stems, no seeds that you don't need. ACAPULCO GOLD is pfffffft bad ass weed.

Man, we got a hold of some gold in college. Woooweee....
That was one fuzzy good week.

from the ADAI University of Washington,

The association between smoking marijuana and lung cancer remains unclear. Marijuana smoke contains about 50% more benzopyrene and nearly 75% more benzanthracene, both known carcinogens, than a comparable quantity of unfiltered tobacco smoke (Tashkin, 2013). Moreover, the deeper inhalations and longer breath-holding of marijuana smokers result in greater exposure of the lung to the tar and carcinogens in the smoke. Lung biopsies from habitual marijuana-only users have revealed widespread alterations to the tissue, some of which are recognized as precursors to the subsequent development of cancer (Tashkin, 2013).

On the other hand, several well-designed and large-scale studies, including one in Washington State (Rosenblatt et al, 2004), have failed to find any increased risk of lung or upper airway cancer in people who have smoked marijuana (Mehra et al, 2006; Tashkin, 2013), and studies assessing the association between marijuana use and cancer risk have many limitations, including concomitant tobacco use and the relatively small number of long-term heavy users – particularly older users. Therefore, even though population-based studies have generally failed to show increased cancer risk, no study has definitively ruled out the possibility that some individuals, especially heavier marijuana users, may incur an elevated risk of cancer. This risk appears to be smaller than for tobacco, yet is important to consider when weighing the benefits and risks of smoking marijuana. (Tashkin DP, 2013). More research on marijuana smoking and cancer is needed.

Learn About Marijuana Science-based information for the public

one reason there aren't many studies is weed was and still illegal at a federal level. and to illegally do a study could land one in jail.

Eighteen states (plus the District of Columbia) allow cannabis use for certain medical conditions. Despite that, scientists have a harder time doing research on the potential medical benefits of marijuana than they do on "harder" drugs like ecstasy or magic mushrooms. The public may think of pot use as no big deal, but federal laws make it difficult for researchers to obtain legal supplies. Clinical researchers can get permission from the DEA to grow or create restricted compounds like '___', MDMA or psilocybin in the lab; not so with cannabis.

Why It's So Hard For Scientists To Study Medical Marijuana


ETA: last i heard there is only one contractor allowed to grow marijuana for medical research they are in MS and what they wind up giving researchers is a powder that is nothing compared to the marijuana sold on the street or in dispensaries

a reply to: watchandwait410

I thought more doctors smoked Camel than any other brand.

a reply to: rickymouse

There is far more evidence that cannabis cures cancer than causes it. I've got pages upon pages of studies if you care to take the time to review them.

a reply to: Lucky109www.webmd.com...

How many other legit articles do you want, I can probably find fifty.

originally posted by: netwarrior
a reply to: rickymouse

There is far more evidence that cannabis cures cancer than causes it. I've got pages upon pages of studies if you care to take the time to review them.

That evidence relates to ingesting cannabis, not smoking it. There is a difference you know. Yes, eating brownies reduces some cancer risks.

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: rickymouse

$75/lb you don't know what you're talking about.

Tobacco makes you sharper, weed makes you dumber is false.

That was the going rate back in the seventies for homegrown. You sold it for ten bucks a big ounce. Usually you tossed in some extra since it was so cheap. It was fifteen for mexican and twenty to twenty five for a lid of columbian or jamaican or rainbow. A few of the bags went for about thirty five bucks an ounce.

Tobacco contains nicotine which is an acetelcholinesterase moderate inhibitor. It increases level of that neurotransmitter acetylcholine which makes you think better. All cannabinoids dampen signal transmission slowing the transmission of signals which can make proper memory making less effective and can slow brain waves too much to acheive high level thinking. The effect can be dampened for days.

Quarter pounds of homegrown were usually twenty five, quite a bit higher.

a reply to: rickymouseAt the bottom of the webmd page you linked it says
"Any link between marijuana smoking and lung cancer isn’t clear now, but researchers have a chance to move beyond some of the problems that have made studies unclear in the past."

So no that is not proof. It just proved you wrong.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: rickymouse

Maybe you have respiratory problems to begin with? Or were smoking dirt weed? Many professional athletes smoke tons of weed and their leagues now allow it. Tobacco is much more harmful to all parts of your body! Not just the lungs.

Smoking anything, is going to have "some" effect, been smoking the best there is for 35 years.

Hey, it has not been legal for thirty five years, you must be exaggerating, you have only been smoking since it has been legal.

RIGHT

Er, um..why yes..of course!

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: game over man

any body remember
"ACAPULCO GOLD FILTERS"
no stems, no seeds that you don't need. ACAPULCO GOLD is pfffffft bad ass weed.

Man, we got a hold of some gold in college. Woooweee....
That was one fuzzy good week.

Was that sappy bud the stuff that tasted kind of moldy? It was good and potent and had it's own special flavor.

a reply to: rickymouse

the sappy bud that we smoked here in the panhandle of fl tasted and smelled like a pine tree. and yes it was very potent.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: rickymouse

the sappy bud that we smoked here in the panhandle of fl tasted and smelled like a pine tree. and yes it was very potent.

Never had one that tasted like pine trees. Not that I remember anyway

a reply to: rickymouse

You have not seen any of my links. You cannot possibly make that sort of declaration without pulling it out of someplace dark and smelly.

What sort of cancer interests you? I have 22 pages of links. To start the National Institutes of Health directly refute your statements that cannabis and tobacco are equally carcinogenic.
NIH

It should be noted that with the development of vaporizers, that use the respiratory route for the delivery of carcinogen-free cannabis vapors, the carcinogenic potential of smoked cannabis has been largely eliminated.

a reply to: game over man

Who cares? Like 12 people still watch this snip. Let it go. CNN is garbage.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: rickymouse

the sappy bud that we smoked here in the panhandle of fl tasted and smelled like a pine tree. and yes it was very potent.

Ahh, the 80's

Many of the old school genetics are gone.

originally posted by: Lucky109
a reply to: rickymouseAt the bottom of the webmd page you linked it says
"Any link between marijuana smoking and lung cancer isn’t clear now, but researchers have a chance to move beyond some of the problems that have made studies unclear in the past."

So no that is not proof. It just proved you wrong.

www.verywellhealth.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... this is only cancer of the nuts, nothing to worry about.

a reply to: vonclod

yes it was a very fine time to be a teen/ young adult.

originally posted by: netwarrior
a reply to: rickymouse

You have not seen any of my links. You cannot possibly make that sort of declaration without pulling it out of someplace dark and smelly.

What sort of cancer interests you? I have 22 pages of links. To start the National Institutes of Health directly refute your statements that cannabis and tobacco are equally carcinogenic.
NIH

It should be noted that with the development of vaporizers, that use the respiratory route for the delivery of carcinogen-free cannabis vapors, the carcinogenic potential of smoked cannabis has been largely eliminated.

Now that would be correct, vaping cannabis, using the proper liquid does not cause cancer. It is the carcinogens in the smoke itself that causes the rise in cancer. I thought a bong would be safer, but evidently what is put in bongs can effect safety. But through a bong it is much milder on the lungs. Nicotine is not a carcinogen either, it is the carbon compounds in tobacco that cause cancer.

Also, some of the chemicals they use on Cannabis can be cancerous too, they use similar chemistry on tobacco and that really increases the cancer risk. If you grow your own tobacco or cannabis, not commercial stuff, it is much safer in my opinion. Plus there is that GMO crap that comes from South America that has some really bad properties.

I liked it when things were more natural, the people growing cannabis did not put too much chemicals on it for growing, so it was weaker but cleaner. Now, a lot of chemicals are used in growing the stuff in South America. When it is legal and they are monitoring it's growth in the facilities, it will probably be much safer again, you never knew what they stuck on it,a pound was purchased one time of Mexican that smelled like cheap perfume, but it was only thirty five bucks a pound. it was given all away, nobody liked it because it tasted terrible..