we need filter tipped blunts ?

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
Marijuana Bigger Risk Than Cigarettes
Posted: 2008-01-29 08:19:49
Filed Under: Health News
HONG KONG (Jan. 29) - Smoking a joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer risk, scientists in New Zealand have found, as they warned of an "epidemic" of lung cancers linked to cannabis.

Studies in the past have demonstrated that cannabis can cause cancer, but few have established a strong link between cannabis use and the actual incidence of lung cancer.

http://news.aol.com/health/story/_a/marijuana-bigger-risk-than-cigarettes/20080129065509990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001
 
Well.............

uscitizen said:
Marijuana Bigger Risk Than Cigarettes
Posted: 2008-01-29 08:19:49
Filed Under: Health News
HONG KONG (Jan. 29) - Smoking a joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer risk, scientists in New Zealand have found, as they warned of an "epidemic" of lung cancers linked to cannabis.

Studies in the past have demonstrated that cannabis can cause cancer, but few have established a strong link between cannabis use and the actual incidence of lung cancer.

http://news.aol.com/health/story/_a/marijuana-bigger-risk-than-cigarettes/20080129065509990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Click to expand...


this certainly puts a damper on all the Pot Heads who rant against smokers of tobacco eh'
 
Smoking marijuania through a vaporizer carries no risk of lung cancer. However, people like BB have banned such contraptions because they are "paraphanalia". So BB murders people.
 
LMAO..............

Watermark said:
Smoking marijuania through a vaporizer carries no risk of lung cancer. However, people like BB have banned such contraptions because they are "paraphanalia". So BB murders people.
Click to expand...


speak to your elected reps I never banned anything...I just enforced the laws...elputo!:D
 
well it might depend on the kind of cancer, might cure one kind and give you another kind. All cancers are not alike.
 
gonzojournals said:
Yet smoking is usually blamed for all cancers that the smoker may have in his lifetime.
Click to expand...

Yep in 50 yrs or so when most have not smoked in many years the queston will be , Why are people still getting lung cancer?

don't get me wrong smoking is bad and does likely cause lung cancer but it is also a smokescreen for all the other causes.
 
uscitizen said:
Yep in 50 yrs or so when most have not smoked in many years the queston will be , Why are people still getting lung cancer?

don't get me wrong smoking is bad and does likely cause lung cancer but it is also a smokescreen for all the other causes.
Click to expand...

95% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking. That is a fact.
 
There is no question that smoking causes cancer, don't get me wrong-- however, smoking has been demonised even though the food you eat is probably just as unhealthy.
 
Yes, of course, the fact that 95% of cases happen to 10% of the population is no cause for alarm at all. And, as we all know, modern medicine is completely incapable of determining the cause of cancers.
 
Watermark said:
Yes, of course, the fact that 95% of cases happen to 10% of the population is no cause for alarm at all. And, as we all know, modern medicine is completely incapable of determining the cause of cancers.
Click to expand...


We know that? Is that because a man in a lab coat says it?

We don't know anything...we have just decided as a society that it is reasonable to believe doctors.

During the Bubonic Plague doctors were trusted, too, yet their theories and cures had nothing to do with the cause or treatment of the disease.

I'm not saying it isn't true-- I'm just saying that to spout that out arrogantly makes you look foolish, as you know nothing of modern medicine other than what people tell you.

Not to mention you missed my post that said I wasn't denying that cigarettes are harmful.
 
uscitizen said:
Second hand smoke is worse than smoking according to some studies, how can that be ?
Click to expand...

And the fact is, while second-hand smoke per puff may actually be worse, no one actually achieves the amount of exposure required for it to affect them unless they live with a smoker.
 
gonzojournals said:
We know that? Is that because a man in a lab coat says it?

We don't know anything...we have just decided as a society that it is reasonable to believe doctors.

During the Bubonic Plague doctors were trusted, too, yet their theories and cures had nothing to do with the cause or treatment of the disease.

I'm not saying it isn't true-- I'm just saying that to spout that out arrogantly makes you look foolish, as you know nothing of modern medicine other than what people tell you.

Not to mention you missed my post that said I wasn't denying that cigarettes are harmful.
Click to expand...

the majority of every gfeneration thinks they have it all figured out.

btw just had a big thunderstorm here ??? darned climate change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top