Why Growing Numbers of Baby Boomers and the Elderly Are Smoking Pot

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Um, yes there is. In fact, anyone that has been around doesn't need a scientific body to point out short-term or long-term effects of smoking period...let alone smoking marijuana. If it's burning, there's carbon monoxide...that's for starters. People that take a tok don't exhale like a cigarette, they hold it in as long as they can.

There are over 400 chemical compounds in pot, one of them gets you high. They have already been able to extract THC for ingestion without smoking. You don't need to smoke it to get these "medicinal" benefits.

i've been around - and kept up to date with the latest marijuana studies. can you provide any evidence to support your assertions. if anyone has any worries about smoking - then use a vaporiser

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Butters 0]

Quote

Um, yes there is.

No, there is not. There are opinions based on uncontrolled studies.

Quote

In fact, anyone that has been around doesn't need a scientific body to point out short-term or long-term effects of smoking period...let alone smoking marijuana.

I'm not concerned with opinions.

Quote

If it's burning, there's carbon monoxide...that's for starters.

Agreed.

Quote

People that take a tok don't exhale like a cigarette, they hold it in as long as they can.

I'm not concerned with generalizations.

Quote

There are over 400 chemical compounds in pot, one of them gets you high.

We know at least one of them gets you high. We know at least some of them have negative health affects. We do not know anything about most of them.

Quote

They have already been able to extract THC for ingestion without smoking. You don't need to smoke it to get these "medicinal" benefits.

Agreed, hence my post regarding vaporization, ingestion, etc...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

if anyone has any worries about smoking - then use a vaporiser

There may still be health risks when using a vaporizer. But then there are risks in many of the things we choose to do. I guess it's all about weighing the benefit against the risk.

[billvon 3,120]

>I'm not concerned with opinions.

Well, then, the fact of the matter, eliminating everything unprovable, is that pot smokers are criminals. Sounds like you have an OPINION that that should not be so.

These debates get very stupid very fast. Pot is a drug that's bad for you, despite pot smoker's claims. It's very akin to tobacco in that respect (which was also once touted by 'doctors' as a stress reliever.) The question we should be asking is - if it's similar to tobacco, should it be dealt with in the same way? All these absurd arguments ("it's healthy" "it's the biggest crop in the US so that means it's good") cloud the issue and make it very easy to prove that pot should not be legalized.

"It should be legalized because it's healthy!"
"No, it's provably not, so it stays illegal."

Do you really want to reduce the issue to such a stupid argument?

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

There may still be health risks when using a vaporizer. But then there are risks in many of the things we choose to do. I guess it's all about weighing the benefit against the risk.

Yes, and it this particular instance the question is who should be able to weigh those benefits against those risks.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>I'm not concerned with opinions.

Well, then, the fact of the matter, eliminating everything unprovable, is that pot smokers are criminals. Sounds like you have an OPINION that that should not be so.

These debates get very stupid very fast. Pot is a drug that's bad for you, despite pot smoker's claims. It's very akin to tobacco in that respect (which was also once touted by 'doctors' as a stress reliever.) The question we should be asking is - if it's similar to tobacco, should it be dealt with in the same way? All these absurd arguments ("it's healthy" "it's the biggest crop in the US so that means it's good") cloud the issue and make it very easy to prove that pot should not be legalized.

"It should be legalized because it's healthy!"
"No, it's provably not, so it stays illegal."

Do you really want to reduce the issue to such a stupid argument?

you're the one who picked out 'the biggest cash crop' bit. my point was the money that can be saved by legalisation
(i know you respect money)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Butters 0]

Quote

>I'm not concerned with opinions.

Well, then, the fact of the matter, eliminating everything unprovable, is that pot smokers are criminals.

You do realize that it isn't illegal everywhere ... don't you?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

There may still be health risks when using a vaporizer. But then there are risks in many of the things we choose to do. I guess it's all about weighing the benefit against the risk.

Yes, and it this particular instance the question is who should be able to weigh those benefits against those risks.

My answer to that question is that it should be up to each individual (adult).

[billvon 3,120]

>You do realize that it isn't illegal everywhere ... don't you?

At a federal level it is.

[billvon 3,120]

>my point was the money that can be saved by legalisation

And my point is that may well be true - but if the person making the argument is lying about everything else (i.e. "it's good for you") no one is going to believe them when they claim it.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>my point was the money that can be saved by legalisation

And my point is that may well be true - but if the person making the argument is lying about everything else (i.e. "it's good for you") no one is going to believe them when they claim it.

that isn't a lie - it may well be 'good' for an individual. you seem to be saying that smoking marijuana is 'bad' under any circumstances. falling out of planes is 'bad' according to you.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Shotgun 1]

I have long thought that the "medical marijuana" route to legalization is not the way to go. It should be legalized as a recreational drug and treated similar to the other legal recreational drugs. It simply doesn't make sense for it to be illegal when alcohol and tobacco are legal. And maybe it does have some medicinal uses, but to me, that whole argument is just clouding the real issue.

[billvon 3,120]

>that isn't a lie - it may well be 'good' for an individual.

In the same way that smoking can be "good" for you as well. Again, easily disproved medically - but if you want to believe it, go right ahead.

>falling out of planes is 'bad' according to you.

Nope. Not bad for you or good for you, just fun.

Just think how much of an idiot you'd look like if you tried to argue that skydiving MUST be allowed at a given airport because it would improve the health of the participants! They'd probably laugh you out of town. Now, if you wanted to argue that skydiving was a recreational activity that might bring money to the town, and as an aviation activity had a right to use the airport, you might be taken a little more seriously.

[hwt 0]

There are over 400 chemical compounds in pot, one of them gets you high. They have already been able to extract THC for ingestion without smoking. You don't need to smoke it to get these "medicinal" benefits.

there are about 400 chemical compounds in a slice of bread, whats your point??

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>falling out of planes is 'bad' according to you.

Nope. Not bad for you or good for you, just fun.

Just think how much of an idiot you'd look like if you tried to argue that skydiving MUST be allowed at a given airport because it would improve the health of the participants! They'd probably laugh you out of town. Now, if you wanted to argue that skydiving was a recreational activity that might bring money to the town, and as an aviation activity had a right to use the airport, you might be taken a little more seriously.

now if i smoke a spliff every day for thirty years or did a skydive every day for thirty years - which is more likely to kill or injure me?

just think how much of an idiot you'd appear if you went around claiming that skydiving was safe? i know many people who have died skydiving but none who have died smoking dope. what about you bv do you want to be taken seriously?

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

>falling out of planes is 'bad' according to you.

Nope. Not bad for you or good for you, just fun.

Just think how much of an idiot you'd look like if you tried to argue that skydiving MUST be allowed at a given airport because it would improve the health of the participants! They'd probably laugh you out of town. Now, if you wanted to argue that skydiving was a recreational activity that might bring money to the town, and as an aviation activity had a right to use the airport, you might be taken a little more seriously.

now if i smoke a spliff every day for thirty years or did a skydive every day for thirty years - which is more likely to kill or injure me?

just think how much of an idiot you'd appear if you went around claiming that skydiving was safe? i know many people who have died skydiving but none who have died smoking dope. what about you bv do you want to be taken seriously?

dAMN. wHERE'S MY PIPE. aND THE MJ. HAVE TO GET THE MAGLIGHT AND THE GUN TO GO FIND THEM. DAMNED MAKERS MARKAND STOPTO FEED THE DOD A BIG CA N OF ALPO AND SMOKE A CAMEL WIDE WHILST I'M LOOKING OR I THINK I HAVE A MACANUDO LAYING AROUND SOMEWHERE

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Meso 38]

Weed is bad for you, there's no disputing that. But guess what, cigarettes are far worse. Let's look at facts, I know a good bunch of guys who love their weed, and they smoke maybe 1-2 joints a day which is a fair bit when it comes to marijuana, but all these people can go a few days or a week without smoking.

Then we have my other friends who smoke cigarettes, 1-3 packs a day, let's average it down to 25 cigarettes a day. Now 1 or 2 joints by the stoner to 25 cigarettes by the smoker... That's a lot more lung damage. And these guys can't go a day without a smoke. And there lies the major difference.

I've had family members die from lung cancer caused by excessive smoking so I know the dangers. And cigarettes are far more dangerous, unless becoming slightly dimwitted and sloth-like is a danger, because that's basically weeds main effect.

Alcohol is also more dangerous than weed. Look at studies on alcohol related deaths (and abuse if you want) and you`ll see it's far more of a danger to society than some weed is, because while it's true that you can drink responsibly, that's a null points when taking society as a whole into account.

Let it be known I am against all of the above but weed should be far lower down on the list of the "OMG SUBSTANCE"s.

I think one should be free to do as they please as long as they don't effect their children or others around them. It's just fucking retarded when you see people who smoke in front of their kids and get drunk in front of them go on about how weed is so terrible.

[mnealtx 0]

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7374/1212?etoc

Quote

Using cannabis in adolescence increases the likelihood of experiencing symptoms of schizophrenia in adulthood. Our findings agree with those of the Swedish study and add three new pieces of evidence.

Firstly, cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of experiencing schizophrenia symptoms, even after psychotic symptoms preceding the onset of cannabis use are controlled for, indicating that cannabis use is not secondary to a pre-existing psychosis.

Secondly, early cannabis use (by age 15) confers greater risk for schizophrenia outcomes than later cannabis use (by age 18). The youngest cannabis users may be most at risk because their cannabis use becomes longstanding.

Thirdly, risk was specific to cannabis use, as opposed to use of other drugs, and early cannabis use did not predict later depression. Our findings now require replication in large population studies with detailed measures of cannabis use and schizophrenia

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/184/2/110

Quote

Results: On an individual level, cannabis use confers an overall twofold increase in the relative risk for later schizophrenia. At the population level, elimination of cannabis use would reduce the incidence of schizophrenia by approximately 8%, assuming a causal relationship. Cannabis use appears to be neither a sufficient nor a necessary cause for psychosis. It is a component cause, part of a complex constellation of factors leading to psychosis.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>now if i smoke a spliff every day for thirty years or did a skydive
>every day for thirty years - which is more likely to kill or injure me?

That's easy. There are 46 million smokers in the US; smoking kills 440,000 of them. That puts the death rate at 1 in 104. Pot is more dangerous than cigarettes.

There are 32,000 USPA members (i.e. regular jumpers) and another ~70,000 students who jump a year (tandems, one time AFF's.) With approximately 40 deaths a year, the death rate is 1 in 2500.

Some of those smokers smoke only once a day; some smoke a pack a day. Some of those jumpers jump only once, or once a week; some jump 10 times a day.

So smoking is more likely to kill you.

>just think how much of an idiot you'd appear if you went around
>claiming that skydiving was safe?

You'd look foolish. You'd look even more foolish claiming smoking was safe.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Pot is more dangerous than cigarettes.

Do you have evidence to prove this?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>now if i smoke a spliff every day for thirty years or did a skydive
>every day for thirty years - which is more likely to kill or injure me?

That's easy. There are 46 million smokers in the US; smoking kills 440,000 of them. That puts the death rate at 1 in 104. Pot is more dangerous than cigarettes.

no, it's not

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There may still be health risks when using a vaporizer. But then there are risks in many of the things we choose to do. I guess it's all about weighing the benefit against the risk.

Yes, and it this particular instance the question is who should be able to weigh those benefits against those risks.

My answer to that question is that it should be up to each individual (adult).

I agree 100% with that. I think that would be a much better ground to make the argument on than the grounds of whether it is safe or not or whether there are health benefits or not. I actually think the back-door strategy of medical marijuana is not helpful.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 3,120]

>no, it's not

See how stupid the pro-marijuana arguments get?

Stick to "it should be legal despite the risks." It's defensible.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>no, it's not

See how stupid the pro-marijuana arguments get?

Stick to "it should be legal despite the risks." It's defensible.

get your facts right...

Quote

In his October 2009 paper Nutt had repeated his familiar view that illicit drugs should be classified according to the actual evidence of the harm they cause and pointed out that alcohol and tobacco caused more harm than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis. Alcohol should come fifth behind cocaine, heroin, barbiturates and methadone, and tobacco should rank ninth, ahead of cannabis, LSD and ecstasy, he said. He also argued that smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Council_on_the_Misuse_of_Drugs

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[regulator 0]

It should be legal DESPITE the risks.