Drugs are bad...mmm'kay

[CosmicSpork]

At least it was enough for you guys to explore the link further than the splash page.

To be honest I could tell it was bollocks from the splash page...

 

[CircinatePhoenix]

-snip-

 

[xman]

I would like to point out to the people claiming that vaporizing marijuana negates the effect of the smoke that while the latter is true, it does not negate the negative effects in general: THC and the cocktail of ~15 other trace compounds that provide the high, while less addictive than nicotine or even caffeine, are far more carcinogenic than nearly any other substance people take into their bodies.

Can you provide the proof for me please?

 

[borrofburi]

THC and the cocktail of ~15 other trace compounds that provide the high, while less addictive than nicotine or even caffeine, are far more carcinogenic than nearly any other substance people take into their bodies.

Source?
EDIT: oi, nevermind, xman already beat me to it; anyway, I am asking because of a combination of not believing you because I have heard differently, not believing you because I just don't generally believe people (I try to believe only evidence ("try" being the operative word)), and wanting more info because what you're saying is interesting.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Actually, I heard that there's more carcinogens in marijuana smoke, but the nicotine in cigarette smoke makes the toxins more potent/absorb more fully in your lungs. So I think the risk is equal or less for marijuana and cancer.

 

[derkvanl]

Just some information with sources.

Top 20 UK, most dangerous drugs, first video


full playlist, 5 videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR3gIuWYnQo&feature=PlayList&p=1172CE3B886057D8&index=0

Center for medicinal cannabis research

Science and Technology - ninth report

Marihuana facts and myths, with sources

The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse

Inhibition of Cancer Cell Invasion by Cannabinoids via Increased Expression of Tissue Inhibitor of Matrix Metalloproteinases-1

 

[xman]

Actually, I heard that there's more carcinogens in marijuana smoke, but the nicotine in cigarette smoke makes the toxins more potent/absorb more fully in your lungs. So I think the risk is equal or less for marijuana and cancer.

My suspicions lie here as well.

Thanks for that, derkvanl. I'll check it out.

 

[CircinatePhoenix]

-snip-

 

[Aught3]

I'm guessing B

 

[xman]

I'll take C.

 

[psychointegrator]

Actually, I heard that there's more carcinogens in marijuana smoke, but the nicotine in cigarette smoke makes the toxins more potent/absorb more fully in your lungs. So I think the risk is equal or less for marijuana and cancer.

This is why I have left this topic untouched for so long. You make claims which are truly depressing as it seems you are perhaps highly intelligent, yet follow this path which demonstrates the power of propaganda, a disconnection from critical thinking (as I said previous, you are resonating equal to that of a Christian mind) and laziness.
My view is based on more than this one post that I am currently responding to as of course in this one, your guess almost makes sense. However, if you knew anything about cannabis, you would not conclude it would be equal to that of tobacco.

Additionally, smoking cannabis is beyond irrelevant and it is intentionally used by the DEA to make its use sound harmful. A vaporizer resolves this moot point about the harm of ganja. It is only moot in respect to that anyone who keeps on smoking vs vapor is being silly.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891
Cannabis Smoke Versus Tobacco Smoke
There is more information from the link than what is provided below.

Cannabis smoke contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke, including greater concentrations of certain aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzopyrene, prompting fears that chronic marijuana inhalation may be a risk factor for tobacco-use related cancers. However, marijuana smoke also contains cannabinoids such as THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) and CBD (cannabidiol), which are non-carcinogenic and demonstrate anti-cancer properties in vivo and in vitro. By contrast, nicotine promotes the development of cancer cells and their blood supply. In addition, cannabinoids stimulate other biological activities and responses that may mitigate the carcinogenic effects of smoke, such as down-regulating the inflammatory arm of the immune system that is responsible for producing potentially carcinogenic free radicals (unstable atoms that are believed to accelerate the progression of cancer).

Cannabis smoke, unlike tobacco smoke, has not been definitively linked to cancer in humans, including those cancers associated with tobacco use. However, certain cellular abnormalities in the lungs have been identified more frequently in long-term smokers of cannabis compared to non-smokers. Chronic exposure to cannabis smoke has also been associated with the development of pre-cancerous changes in bronchial and epithelium cells in similar rates to tobacco smokers. Cellular abnormalities were most present in individuals who smoked both tobacco and marijuana, implying that cannabis and tobacco smoke may have an additive adverse effect on airway tissue. The results suggest that long-term exposure to cannabis smoke, particularly when combined with tobacco smoking, is capable of damaging the bronchial system in ways that could one day lead to respiratory cancers. However, to date, no epidemiologic studies of cannabis-only smokers have yet to reveal such a finding. Larger, better-controlled studies are warranted.

Cannabis consumers who desire the rapid onset of action associated with inhalation but who are concerned about the potential harms of noxious smoke can dramatically cut down on their intake of carcinogenic compounds by engaging in vaporization rather than smoking. Cannabis vaporization limits respiratory toxins by heating cannabis to a temperature where cannabinoid vapors form (typically around 180-190 degrees Celsius), but below the point of combustion where noxious smoke and associated toxins (i.e., carcinogenic hydrocarbons) are produced (near 230 degrees Celsius). Because vaporization can deliver doses of cannabinoids while reducing the users intake of carcinogenic smoke, it is considered to be a preferred and likely safer method of cannabis administration than smoking marijuana cigarettes or inhaling from a water pipe. According to the findings of a recent clinical trial, use of the Volcano vaporizing device delivered set doses of THC to subjects in a reproducible manner while suppressing the intake of respiratory toxins.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

This is why I have left this topic untouched for so long. You make claims which are truly depressing as it seems you are perhaps highly intelligent, yet follow this path which demonstrates the power of propaganda, a disconnection from critical thinking (as I said previous, you are resonating equal to that of a Christian mind) and laziness.
My view is based on more than this one post that I am currently responding to as of course in this one, your guess almost makes sense. However, if you knew anything about cannabis, you would not conclude it would be equal to that of tobacco.

Additionally, smoking cannabis is beyond irrelevant and it is intentionally used by the DEA to make its use sound harmful. A vaporizer resolves this moot point about the harm of ganja. It is only moot in respect to that anyone who keeps on smoking vs vapor is being silly.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891
Cannabis Smoke Versus Tobacco Smoke
There is more information from the link than what is provided below.

Cannabis smoke contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke, including greater concentrations of certain aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzopyrene, prompting fears that chronic marijuana inhalation may be a risk factor for tobacco-use related cancers. However, marijuana smoke also contains cannabinoids such as THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) and CBD (cannabidiol), which are non-carcinogenic and demonstrate anti-cancer properties in vivo and in vitro. By contrast, nicotine promotes the development of cancer cells and their blood supply. In addition, cannabinoids stimulate other biological activities and responses that may mitigate the carcinogenic effects of smoke, such as down-regulating the inflammatory arm of the immune system that is responsible for producing potentially carcinogenic free radicals (unstable atoms that are believed to accelerate the progression of cancer).

Cannabis smoke, unlike tobacco smoke, has not been definitively linked to cancer in humans, including those cancers associated with tobacco use. However, certain cellular abnormalities in the lungs have been identified more frequently in long-term smokers of cannabis compared to non-smokers. Chronic exposure to cannabis smoke has also been associated with the development of pre-cancerous changes in bronchial and epithelium cells in similar rates to tobacco smokers. Cellular abnormalities were most present in individuals who smoked both tobacco and marijuana, implying that cannabis and tobacco smoke may have an additive adverse effect on airway tissue. The results suggest that long-term exposure to cannabis smoke, particularly when combined with tobacco smoking, is capable of damaging the bronchial system in ways that could one day lead to respiratory cancers. However, to date, no epidemiologic studies of cannabis-only smokers have yet to reveal such a finding. Larger, better-controlled studies are warranted.

Cannabis consumers who desire the rapid onset of action associated with inhalation but who are concerned about the potential harms of noxious smoke can dramatically cut down on their intake of carcinogenic compounds by engaging in vaporization rather than smoking. Cannabis vaporization limits respiratory toxins by heating cannabis to a temperature where cannabinoid vapors form (typically around 180-190 degrees Celsius), but below the point of combustion where noxious smoke and associated toxins (i.e., carcinogenic hydrocarbons) are produced (near 230 degrees Celsius). Because vaporization can deliver doses of cannabinoids while reducing the users intake of carcinogenic smoke, it is considered to be a preferred and likely safer method of cannabis administration than smoking marijuana cigarettes or inhaling from a water pipe. According to the findings of a recent clinical trial, use of the Volcano vaporizing device delivered set doses of THC to subjects in a reproducible manner while suppressing the intake of respiratory toxins.

The only one who has fallen prey to " propaganda, a disconnection from critical thinking, and laziness" is you. Your need to justify drug use is so overwhelming that you abandon critical thinking and only accept things that make it OK to use drugs. That's really fucking weak and pathetic.

BTW, if you live in the U.S. and you do illegal drugs, you're a goddamned idiot. Getting high isn't worth getting busted, losing your job, and all the other non-medical problems caused by using illegal drugs. If you don't know or can't accept that, then maybe you need to get some help for your drug problem. I'm not talking about "what should be" or "in a perfect world." If you get injured at work, and you have even a trace of an illegal drug in your system, you not only lose your job but also get stuck with 100% of the medical bills. Maybe having a job and not being bankrupted doesn't matter to you, but it should.

 

[derkvanl]

The only one who has fallen prey to " propaganda, a disconnection from critical thinking, and laziness" is you. Your need to justify drug use is so overwhelming that you abandon critical thinking and only accept things that make it OK to use drugs. That's really fucking weak and pathetic.

Read back your own words. You really gave a good self-description.

BTW, if you live in the U.S. and you do illegal drugs, you're a goddamned idiot. Getting high isn't worth getting busted, losing your job, and all the other non-medical problems caused by using illegal drugs. If you don't know or can't accept that, then maybe you need to get some help for your drug problem. I'm not talking about "what should be" or "in a perfect world." If you get injured at work, and you have even a trace of an illegal drug in your system, you not only lose your job but also get stuck with 100% of the medical bills. Maybe having a job and not being bankrupted doesn't matter to you, but it should.

hmmmm......... propaganda? critical thinking?

Sry for you, but psychointegrator hit the nail on the head. You discuss like a christian.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The only one who has fallen prey to " propaganda, a disconnection from critical thinking, and laziness" is you. Your need to justify drug use is so overwhelming that you abandon critical thinking and only accept things that make it OK to use drugs. That's really fucking weak and pathetic.

Read back your own words. You really gave a good self-description.

BTW, if you live in the U.S. and you do illegal drugs, you're a goddamned idiot. Getting high isn't worth getting busted, losing your job, and all the other non-medical problems caused by using illegal drugs. If you don't know or can't accept that, then maybe you need to get some help for your drug problem. I'm not talking about "what should be" or "in a perfect world." If you get injured at work, and you have even a trace of an illegal drug in your system, you not only lose your job but also get stuck with 100% of the medical bills. Maybe having a job and not being bankrupted doesn't matter to you, but it should.

hmmmm......... propaganda? critical thinking?

Sry for you, but psychointegrator hit the nail on the head. You discuss like a christian.

Wow, that's just bad reasoning on your part. Pointing out reality is "discussing like a Christian"? Or are you too immature to accept that reality doesn't conform to your wishes?

If you do illegal drugs and get caught, you get in trouble. That's a fact. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but if you can't accept it you're delusional.

 

[Eidolon]

Im curious. So far the majority of this debate has been fact vs. fact on both sides. But lets go from facts, to ideology and philosophy.

So instead of debating whether cannabis should be legal or not, lets discuss why.

For the pro legalization side, Why do you want this drug legalized? What is in it to gain, and what is in it to lose?

For the banning it side, why should it remain illegal, and what are the drawbacks to that versus positive potentials.

My side is of course for keeping it illegal, but I want to see why others take their positions.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Im curious. So far the majority of this debate has been fact vs. fact on both sides. But lets go from facts, to ideology and philosophy.

So instead of debating whether cannabis should be legal or not, lets discuss why.

For the pro legalization side, Why do you want this drug legalized? What is in it to gain, and what is in it to lose?

For the banning it side, why should it remain illegal, and what are the drawbacks to that versus positive potentials.

My side is of course for keeping it illegal, but I want to see why others take their positions.

My "side" is a middle ground, where marijuana is illegal, but decriminalized. We don't lock people up for simple possession, for instance. We don't have laws that say if you get popped for weed, you go to jail for the same time as someone who has had 3 DUIs. We use education and rehab instead of police and prison.

We stop listening to idiots who claim that marijuana is just like heroin, and also stop giving any respect to morons who say that marijuana is "just an herb" and similar nonsense. The fact is that marijuana isn't generally good for you, but it isn't the worst possible bad thing either. You CAN be addicted to marijuana, it DOES have negative effects, but occasional pot smoking isn't really any worse than occasional drinking. Let's stop the lying against it, AND the lying for it. Some dude smoking weed isn't goddamned Pablo Escobar, but if he's smoking all the time he's probably a pretty big loser.

 

[borrofburi]

The only one who has fallen prey to " propaganda, a disconnection from critical thinking, and laziness" is you. Your need to justify drug use is so overwhelming that you abandon critical thinking and only accept things that make it OK to use drugs. That's really fucking weak and pathetic.

Ah yes, there's that lovely iJoe reasoning: if A doesn't agree with me it's because A is trying to justify his immoral lifestyle. Ironically, that's the exact same logic the god-hates-fags and scientologists use. But of course, I am only saying this because I'm a liar trying to justify my immoral lifestyle (in your own view, of course).

 

[derkvanl]

Im curious. So far the majority of this debate has been fact vs. fact on both sides.

I haven't seen any fact that is in favor of the War on Drugs, except the drugs are bad argument till now.

But lets go from facts, to ideology and philosophy.

Ideology: Legalize it
My philosophy: Better to teach the people about drugs and fully decriminalize it through regulation and control of the natural products. Fighting it attracts criminality, which is the actual problem. Educating the people about the problems, benefits and dangerous of drug use and abuse will eventually have a more positive effect.

So instead of debating whether cannabis should be legal or not, lets discuss why.

For the pro legalization side, Why do you want this drug legalized? What is in it to gain, and what is in it to lose?

Stop criminality that it causes, make people aware all the pros and cons of use and abuse and trust in decent human mind to make the right decisions. Legalizing it will not cause the whole country to start drugs. Legalizing will stop street dealers from selling to kids because you can control age limits like on alcohol and tobacco. You can control the places where it's sold, you can control the farms where it's grown, you can tax the companies, you can have normal paid employees, you can seperate harddrugs from softdrugs, even seperate selling alcohol from selling softdrugs. It won't be necessary to dangerously cook drugs in some backyard shed or small appartment's kitchen. Environmental benefits of using marihuana fibres instead of nylon again for rope and textiles. Stopping the usage of gasoline and diesellike products for making cocaine because it's cheaper than traditional and stop the poisoning of rainforest grounds in cocaine producing countries (the farmers get shit-price for products we buy for 100$/€ a gram). Stop the weapon industry and terrorists making a great lot of money of our drugs through criminality.

For the banning it side, why should it remain illegal, and what are the drawbacks to that versus positive potentials.

Love to see a decent answer to that.

My side is of course for keeping it illegal, but I want to see why others take their positions.

Why? Can't think of a good answer to that yourself?

 

[Eidolon]

I haven't seen any fact that is in favor of the War on Drugs, except the drugs are bad argument till now.

The "war on drugs" is too broad of a term to use as it encompasses not just the illegality of drugs but the actual combat against them in drug laden countries such as Columbia and all the other legislation on the topic. Whether or not something should be illegal doesn't necessarily mean that an entire subject should involve a global war on it.

Ideology: Legalize it
My philosophy: Better to teach the people about drugs and fully decriminalize it through regulation and control of the natural products. Fighting it attracts criminality, which is the actual problem. Educating the people about the problems, benefits and dangerous of drug use and abuse will eventually have a more positive effect.

That is already done. Maybe not as well as it should be, but it is done and it doesn't solve the problem. Look at it this way. Alcohol is legal, and its part of the anti drug education that most kids get. However, Alcohol use is still wide spread and the problems created by it have not been diminished by education.

You are giving people too much credit in their intelligence. People are dumbasses. If given the choice between doing the right thing and the dumbass thing, they will chose the dumbass thing. That is why so many dumbass things are done.

Stop criminality that it causes, make people aware all the pros and cons of use and abuse and trust in decent human mind to make the right decisions.

You can't do that, people are dumbasses. You are basing your argument on a Utopian type situation where people are smart enough to make the right decision. The fact is, they are not. If they were, there wouldn't be all the problems there are in the world. Criminalizing something ensures that those who make the wrong decisions pay for it, and deters others from doing the same.

Don't make an argument based on human goodness. Humanity has proven time and time again, that it is not good and most certainly not wise.

Legalizing will stop street dealers from selling to kids because you can control age limits like on alcohol and tobacco.

Legalizing alcohol and tobacco doesn't stop kids from getting it. They don't buy it at a licensed store, they get it from older friends, and friends of friends, the same way they get pot and other drugs. However, at least with it being underground, a 15 year olds older buddy can't just walk into a gas station and get a pack of pot to share like he can with cigarettes.

Just because something is legalized and regulated does not mean that it is inaccessible to minors, in fact it makes it that much easier to obtain because now it can be purchased legally by someone of age and then given to the minor much easier than having to find a dealer in some shady alley or basement.

Environmental benefits of using marihuana fibres instead of nylon again for rope and textiles. Stopping the usage of gasoline and diesellike products for making cocaine because it's cheaper than traditional and stop the poisoning of rainforest grounds in cocaine producing countries (the farmers get shit-price for products we buy for 100$/€ a gram). Stop the weapon industry and terrorists making a great lot of money of our drugs through criminality.

I understand you are just listing off examples, but this just seems like hippie shit to me.

My side is of course for keeping it illegal, but I want to see why others take their positions.

Why? Can't think of a good answer to that yourself?

[/quote]

I already stated my reasoning before, I wanted to see why others chose their position.

But to simplify it, I am against the legalization of drugs because, I dont' want a bunch of Cheech and Chong, hippie mother fuckers stinking up my continent with their pussy ass cry baby, "I can't handle the basic emotions of my life so I need a hit of something to make it all better" attitude and mentality.

 

[Aught3]

It seems weird to agree with a post that uses 'dumbass' half a dozen times.