DEA Plans To Decide Whether To Reschedule Marijuana By Mid-Year

a reply to: luthier

And smoking Chemo Drugs probably kills you. Hell smoking a "cure" would still be SMOKING. That's my point. Cell damage causes cancer, it's ignorant to think the application doesn't matter.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

And smoking Chemo Drugs probably kills you. Hell smoking a "cure" would still be SMOKING. That's my point. Cell damage causes cancer, it's ignorant to think the application doesn't matter.

What is ignorant is not using science and research to figure out the truth. What you are doing is "common sense" approach. This has been proven to not be scientifically accurate to assume.

If the compounds for a cure are only present during combustion than the risk vs reward is worth it.

They have not been able to synthesize this aspect of marijuana. They have been trying for decades.

a reply to: luthier

Alright, what about smoking coffee?

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

Alright, what about smoking coffee?

Does coffee have the same chemical makeup of cannabis?

What about drinking laquer thinner?

a reply to: luthier

MMJ shouldn't be ignored. Cannabis OIL has massive results. You don't need to smoke it, no risk.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

MMJ shouldn't be ignored. Cannabis OIL has massive results. You don't need to smoke it, no risk.

Cannabis oil does not have all the same chemical makeup as using combustion.

a reply to: luthier

And you have ANY proof smoking is superior? That's how the arguement started.

The dice example is more like 6 million sides to 200,000 for coffee(rolling 1 is cancer), but there isn't any proof smoking it has any realistic effects that work better, faster, nothing.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

And you have ANY proof smoking is superior? That's how the arguement started.

The dice example is more like 6 million sides to 200,000 for coffee(rolling 1 is cancer), but there isn't any proof smoking it has any realistic effects that work better, faster, nothing.

Uh yes there is. The chemical compounds in combustion are different than ingestion. There are studies on this.

I am including vaping in combustion.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

And you have ANY proof smoking is superior? That's how the arguement started.

The dice example is more like 6 million sides to 200,000 for coffee(rolling 1 is cancer), but there isn't any proof smoking it has any realistic effects that work better, faster, nothing.

Uh yes there is. The chemical compounds in combustion are different than ingestion. There are studies on this.

I am including vaping in combustion.

Um...link them?

Lung Health
The effect of vaporizing on the lungs is perhaps the strongest argument for using a vaporizer.

Doctors have long been wary about the use of marijuana as a medicine because of the potential risks of smoking anything. While it’s true that smoking marijuana has not been proven to cause lung cancer, the combustion of marijuana still produces several known carcinogens and tar, which can irritate the lungs and lead to chronic bronchitis.

I'd like to see.

Also combustion means it's on fire. Vapes aren't generally combustion. lol.

Unless it's lung cancer I can't possibly see it being true. How did they get lung cancer? Smoking normally.

a reply to: imjack

And my earlier point is lots of people ignore vaping. Even when knowing it exists. Even if it is correct, mass quantity of MMJ for public use will be smoked without massive education campaigns.

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

And you have ANY proof smoking is superior? That's how the arguement started.

The dice example is more like 6 million sides to 200,000 for coffee(rolling 1 is cancer), but there isn't any proof smoking it has any realistic effects that work better, faster, nothing.

Uh yes there is. The chemical compounds in combustion are different than ingestion. There are studies on this.

I am including vaping in combustion.

Um...link them?

Lung Health
The effect of vaporizing on the lungs is perhaps the strongest argument for using a vaporizer.

Doctors have long been wary about the use of marijuana as a medicine because of the potential risks of smoking anything. While it’s true that smoking marijuana has not been proven to cause lung cancer, the combustion of marijuana still produces several known carcinogens and tar, which can irritate the lungs and lead to chronic bronchitis.

I'd like to see.

Also combustion means it's on fire. Vapes aren't generally combustion. lol.

Unless it's lung cancer I can't possibly see it being true. How did they get lung cancer? Smoking normally.

I am not linking anything until you provide any studies yourself. I provided several studies by leading medical schools. You completely regect their studies. What is the point?

I said I am including vaping in combustion. Perhaps you didn't understand I meant in addition too. Meaning the process of inhaltion vs ingestion.

On top of the different body process there is also the aspect of dangers of edibles.

Unknown content, unknown dose, easily used by children who did not intend to get high. Eating some buds not only wouldn't do nearly as much harm as concentrates it doesn't look like food or liquid.

I don't smoke. So I have no dogs in this fight. I just have an issue with your methodology. There to this day have not been a link to lung cancer and marijuana.

Why is that?

Shouldn't there be a clear link if it's so very bad.

I mean there are plenty of links to alcohol, which is a liquid and cancer. What is that all about?

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: imjack

And my earlier point is lots of people ignore vaping. Even when knowing it exists. Even if it is correct, mass quantity of MMJ for public use will be smoked without massive education campaigns.

So what?

People have a right to make bad choices. I am comeyely against the government involvement in such a modest risk in comparison to all the other drugs on the market.

a reply to: luthier


Your study was
1. Off topic
2. Bias
3. Did not address what causes ADD

and I only fought those points.

Does Big Pharma need to cut the bull#### with pushes those drugs? Yes. It's very rare to actually have ADD, your stance it's a myth is also bull####.

So what? Well DUH. I want studies that show SMOKING can be beneficial, because smoking ANYTHING can CAUSE CANCER. If Joe had a tumor on his FOOT cancer in his LUNGS won't help much more.

This is why it's not legal everywhere and it's ONLY coming with safe options like pills, edibles etc.

The three top cancers are LUNG, breast and colon. You CANNOT IGNORE SMOKING.

a reply to: luthier

Lung cancer was the most common cancer worldwide in men contributing nearly 17% of the total number of new cases diagnosed in 2012. The top three, lung, prostate and colorectal cancers, contributed nearly 42% of all cancers (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer).

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier


Your study was
1. Off topic
2. Bias
3. Did not address what causes ADD

and I only fought those points.

Does Big Pharma need to cut the bull#### with pushes those drugs? Yes. It's very rare to actually have ADD, your stance it's a myth is also bull####.

So what? Well DUH. I want studies that show SMOKING can be beneficial, because smoking ANYTHING can CAUSE CANCER. If Joe had a tumor on his FOOT cancer in his LUNGS won't help much more.

This is why it's not legal everywhere and it's ONLY coming with safe options like pills, edibles etc.

The three top cancers are LUNG, breast and colon. You CANNOT IGNORE SMOKING.

I gave you three studies.

You are incorrect about legalization and ignorant of the voting process or the role of government.

More than half the states have mmj. They don't limit to pills or oils. The other states legalized cbd oil as well. You just can't get it.

More States have ballot measures to legalize marijuana. Once the states reach an overwhelming trend the politicians s will follow suite.

Your opinion is false based on current data trends.

Your link/quote has nothing to do with marijuana.

If you truly had a degree in science you would understand correlation/causation.

When they do lab tests on animals. They get positive cancer results in tobaco smoke and not marijuana smoke.

You haven't explained why that is. Or these are degrees of toxicity.

a reply to: imjackMarijuana initiatives are sweeping across the nation this year, and already 20 states report marijuana legalization ballot measures in the November 2016 elections, as reported by SFGate.

That means 20 more state

a reply to: luthier

I guess you're just a social and medical genius to assume smoking can't cause cancer and people won't smoke legal weed, and instead vape it massively.

The studies say they CANNOT LINK smoking weed as the cause. If you think people that only smoke weed and never smoke cigarettes, never get cancer, I'm just going to rofl into my own grave.

Thanks for the conversation.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

I guess you're just a social and medical genius to assume smoking can't cause cancer and people won't smoke legal weed, and instead vape it massively.

The studies say they CANNOT LINK smoking weed as the cause. If you think people that only smoke weed and never smoke cigarettes, never get cancer, I'm just going to rofl into my own grave.

Thanks for the conversation.

Well that's a strawman.

Smoking can cause cancer. Smoking enough marijuana can damage your lungs. Damaged lungs can lead to cancer.

Drinking liquids can cause cancer, drinking solutions can cause cancer, living in cities can cause cancer, food can cause cancer.

You can overeat poisonous food does that mean food should be illegal.

It's risk factor. Marijuana is a low risk drug. Your chances of death from advil are just as high. Especially when used with alcohol.

It's not the government's job to control human behaviour that doesn't effect someone else's liberty.

You don't make pills illegal because some people will snort them.

If people smoke pot that's there choice and right to do so. Just like driving a motorcycle.

a reply to: luthier

Cancer can have NO cause.

Transcrition errors can happen NATURALLY.

It is a strawman, I agree, it's just this strawman has dead bodies around it and crows circling.

Going to Star that though as you nailed it.
*rips bong*

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: luthier

Cancer can have NO cause.

Transcrition errors can happen NATURALLY.

It is a strawman, I agree, it's just this strawman has dead bodies around it and crows circling.

Going to Star that though as you nailed it.

Cancer can have no cause? Were you not just saying you were a researcher?

You are completely wrong in your method and logic.

There is no account of marijuana smoke leading to or being linked to cancer.

There is a link in tumor growth reduction and marijuana smoke.

Just because you repeat something over and over doesn't make it true.

In particular when evidence suggests your not correct.

Maybe there are anti tumor/cancer aspects of marijuana that counteract the potential damage?

Do you believe the goverments should play nanny to your behaviour?