|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Biggie9
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Demeralda schreef:
Pot is harmless for CONSENTING ADULTS. Sorry, I'll always believe that.
so be it.
but the pot that was smoked a couple of decades ago, is not the pot you smoke today.
the THC content in today's pot is much higher and thus more dangerous, IMO.
How good is the labeling on your baggie? do you trust your dealer? does he trust his source? Same stuff from the same source each time. where is the quality control and safety control?
oh, and you are smoking. ingesting the constiuent by-products of incomplete combustion [smoke/gases et al].
just give it up. and the alcohol too.
and some people do graduate from pot to other stronger drugs. just as they go from beer/wine to liquor to other "recreational" drugs to harder stuff. |
_________________
Biggie |
|
Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:23 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Not exactly
Harmless
Marijuana linked to lung cancer
Smoking marijuana may cause life threatening disease
Marijuana damages DNA at least as much as tobacco and may have a link to lung cancer, according to a study of mothers and their new born infants.
Researchers in America have found that blood from marijauna smokers has nearly three times as many DNA mutations as that of non-smokers.
Marijauna smoke contains many of the carcinogenic chemicals found in cigarette smoke, but, unlike tobacco, has never been linked to the kinds of genetic mutations associated with lung cancer.
But Dr Marinel Ammenheuser and her colleagues at the University of Texas Medical Branch now have evidence that marijauna smoking causes the same kind of damage to DNA as tobacco.
Damaged cells
Dr Ammenheuser said her group studied a group of pregnant women who were marijauna smokers, but who did not use other drugs, and did not smoke tobacco.
She said: "We did a test to detect changes in a particular gene in the DNA in their white blood cells, and found that the marijuana smokers had three times as many DNA damaged cells as the non-smokers.
"We did the same test on the blood cells for the umbilical cords of the new-borns of some of the marijuana smokers. These infants likewise had three times as many damaged cells as those of non-smokers."
Hundreds of chemicals are produced when marijuana leaves and buds are burned in the smoking process.
It is therefore very hard to say which are damaging the DNA. However Dr Ammenheuser is confident that one group of chemicals called poly-aromatic hydrocarbons are responsible.
Worse than cigarettes
Marijuana: worse than cigarettes?
Dr Ammenheuser said: "We can't actually make statements about cause and effect from our study, but we can say that marijuana smoking probably increases your risk of getting things like lung cancer, in much the same way that we know that tobacco smoking increases this risk.
"My research indicates that smoking just a few marijuana joints seems to cause as much DNA damage as ten or more cigarettes.
"I think it is because marijuana smokers hold the smoke in their lungs for longer and do not use low tar, filtered marijuana joints.
"And they generallly smoke the joints down to a very small butt, which increases their exposure to the cancer causing chemicals."
Dr Ammenheuser admitted that proviing marijuana causes cancer is difficult because most smokers also use cigarettes, or use tobacco as an ingredient in a joint |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:08 am |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
| and bacon gives you cancer, and grilling steaks gives you cancer, etc. |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:27 pm |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
Besides which:
Mary Jane Trumps Joe Camel
By Mary Beckman
ScienceNOW Daily News
23 May 2006
It seems logical that inhaling enough smoke will give you lung cancer. But a new study of Los Angeles residents suggests that smoking marijuana--even more than 22,000 joints in a lifetime--doesn't increase cancer risk. The results surprise many researchers, who point out marijuana has other ill health effects.
Decades of research have shown that cigarette smoking dramatically increases the risk of certain cancers. But controversy surrounds the risk of smoking weed. A 1999 study of blood donors suggested a link between marijuana and head and neck cancer, but a larger study in 2004 found no such connection. Still, work in the lab suggests marijuana can be dangerous. For example, pot smoke contains more of some cancer-causing chemicals than cigarettes do, thanks to the filterless nature of joints.
In hopes of settling the debate, pulmonologist Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues assembled the largest study to date. They identified cancer patients through the University of Southern California Tumor Registry, which compiles cancer data in Los Angeles County. From 1999 to 2003, 611 Los Angelinos age 60 and under came down with lung cancer, and 601 developed head and neck cancers, each a kind of malignancy that smokers would most likely suffer from. The team then identified more than 1000 control individuals in L.A. who did not have cancer. The researchers matched these individuals to cancer patients by age, gender, and other factors such as the neighborhood in which they lived. In confidential interviews, Tashkin's group determined marijuana usage as well as other risk factors for cancer such as cigarette smoking.
Statistical analysis revealed that smoking joints did not increase the risk of coming down with these cancers. About half of cancer patients and controls smoked marijuana, but more than 80% of cancer patients were current or former cigarette smokers. Even heavy tokers--who reported smoking a total of about 22,000 joints over their lifetime--did not have increased risk compared to nonsmokers. The researchers will present their findings tomorrow at the American Thoracic Society International Conference in San Diego.
The results surprised Tashkin. "I wouldn't give [marijuana] a clean bill of health, but at least this study says if there is a risk, it's very small," he says. Still, he says, marijuana has been shown to suppress the immune system and may increase the risk of pneumonia.
As for why marijuana use doesn't seem to increase cancer risk, pulmonary critical care researcher John Hansen-Flaschen of the University of Pennsylvania points out that cigarette smokers puff a lot more cigarettes than do marijuana users--a smoker with a 2-pack-a-day habit lights up 292,000 cigarettes over 20 years, for example. That's probably because marijuana isn't nearly as addictive as tobacco, says epidemiologist Steve Schwartz of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, who conducted the 2004 study.
Studies will say what people want them to say. That will not convince me.
It's not for you to decide who can do what because it MIGHT lead to a "gateway drug".
We thinner people might gang up and decide that you can't have McDonald's because it's a gateway to other trans-fats. I mean, please. Where does it stop then?
We all die sometime. Runners die of heart attacks. Smokers live to be 94. Teenagers get hit by cars. I'm sure someone somewhere has choked to death on tofu.
In the meantime, I intend to eke every pleasure out of this life. So I'll go on drinking, smoking, enjoying drugs I like and having as much sex as possible. Ty for your concern though  |
|
|
|
Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:53 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
I wonder if that gals whole name was Mary JANE Beckman? That would be pretty cool. By the way Ill bet every guy on here is wondering if this remark can be attributed to you.   
quote:
having as much sex as possible.
Just wondering.  |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:09 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
well..personally, i haven't smoked anything in 15 years except salems
and i'm TRYING to quit those.....pressure, pressure.....  |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:12 pm |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
| That was an original! I probably should have qualified it to say as much GOOD sex as possible. Ah, the glories of being single AND a pervert... |
|
|
|
Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:23 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
delted for poor taste
Last edited by twotap on Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:04 pm |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
| Okay go look It's not a huge pic, but... |
|
|
|
Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:38 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Gumby schreef:
Ted you already know how much I disagree with you on this point. It isn't one factor that causes crime it is many factors, one of which happens to be lack of jobs. Another one is lack of education which twotap mentioned and you agreed with.
Well, the problem with that whole idea is! If you take that assumption that no jobs equates to higher crime. Then we should see some evidence that somehow might support that idea, even remotely. But there isn't anything that even comes close to making an arguement for it.
For some reason a high drop out rate for local schools seem to follow a pattern of higher crime.
For some reason, every time someone tells me lack of jobs creates high crime. I do a few checks. Just simple demographic analysis. I check the crime rates and unemployment rates to look for trends. THERE ARE NO TRENDS!! that show they are related in way shape or form.
I do find trends to show as crime rises, companies move. But so do the majority of employable workers. So the populations decrease.
I also found that when crime actually is addressed and is drastically reduced. unemployment rates began to fall substainally. |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:48 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
how many more prisons you wanna build ted.
i don't know what your reading, but feel free to come by
and i'll SHOW you SEVERAL people who have given up looking
for jobs because there are none. there are only so many mcdonalds
and burger kings in my area. once unemployment is exhausted, that
individual is no longer counted as jobless. your on a different planet.
by the way, the people i'll show you range from 17 to 50......
you wanna see the real world?? these folks are reduced to accepting
handouts and rummaging bottles and metals. thank god for the
various agencies that are in flint to actually help them. but you?
round them up and jail them...... 
what a meanie you are!! Gumby is 100% correct!!
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR
Last edited by last time here on Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:18 pm |
|
|
Gumby
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Well, the problem with that whole idea is! If you take that assumption that no jobs equates to higher crime. Then we should see some evidence that somehow might support that idea, even remotely. But there isn't anything that even comes close to making an arguement for it.
For some reason a high drop out rate for local schools seem to follow a pattern of higher crime.
For some reason, every time someone tells me lack of jobs creates high crime. I do a few checks. Just simple demographic analysis. I check the crime rates and unemployment rates to look for trends. THERE ARE NO TRENDS!! that show they are related in way shape or form.
I do find trends to show as crime rises, companies move. But so do the majority of employable workers. So the populations decrease.
I also found that when crime actually is addressed and is drastically reduced. unemployment rates began to fall substainally.
You are right Ted not having a job does not equal becoming a criminal. That is a no brainer. But how thick is your skull that you cannot believe that isn't what we are arguing? No job is only
part
of the formula.
You wanna see some correlation about unemployment rates and high crime. What 2 Michigan cities are annually ranked in the top 10 most dangerous cities in America? Need a hint? Flint and Detroit. Ok, now which 2 cities in Michigan are near the tops in unemployment rates? You see a trend here. |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:44 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
Again, where do you get that because Flint has high unemployment Crime is HIGH??? Why then did crime decrease by higher percentages during the years or highest unemployment?
During the late 90's unemployment in flint was rising to a high in 2000 of 14 percent. During that same period Crime in Flint seen it's biggest drops. Crime down 3% in 1998, 10% in 1999 and 20% in 2000. In New York City. There unemployment rates climbed to 10% during the same period Crime was cut by 50 percent.
Give me at least a arguable stat that shows how an educated workforce or potential workforce with an education. Cannot get a job? Anyone desiring to be employed with an educationi can find a job! They may have to move! But they can find a job.
So what part of not finding a job makes them become a criminal?
If being unemployed contributes in a major way, why then during the great depression did not crime go up significantly? If Flint had the Crime rates that we had here during the great depression, with even higher unemployement rate of then. We would be considered one of the safest cities in michigan. Not the highest in the country.
As far as pointing at Flint and Detroit for high crime rates? What are their respective drop out rates???
I want to build as many prisions as it takes to make the streets safe for honest hard working people.
So what are the education levels of those poeple not able to find a job? Do they have a criminal record? Did they graduate High school and go on to college and get a degree?
If unemployment is a contributing factor to crime, then, every place in the U.S. that has high unemployment. Should have a relational higher crime rate. unfortunately. You cannot find anywhere in the USA that shows this. As unemployment increases! There is nowhere in the US that crime followed a upward pattern of crime going up with it. And you keep mentioning Flint. Can't use those stats because they clearly show during higher perioods of Unemployment crime actually decreased. Go Figure! |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:40 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
UNEMPLOYMENT IS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR!!!!
your attempting to TWIST the discussion... by the
way, you have an open invitation.
great depression?????? what the????? 
o.k. teddy, so why??? is everyone lazy, shiftless? dumb? what?? |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:59 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
last time here schreef:
UNEMPLOYMENT IS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR!!!!
your attempting to TWIST the discussion... by the
way, you have an open invitation.
great depression?????? what the?????
o.k. teddy, so why??? is everyone lazy, shiftless? dumb? what??
Hmm, from interviews with inmates, from the extensive demographics and statistics available from simple searches online. From discussions with pastors in prison ministries. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that unemployment and poverty do NOT cause crime and are not casual to crime increases! Criminal behavior can lead to poverty! Criminal behavior can lead to unemployability. Lack of an education can lead to unemployment and lead to poverty and can leave people with a sense of hopelessness where they may turn to a life of crime. Self pity, laziness, greed, selfishness, leads to criminal behavior.
I have talked to many ex-cons who have turned their lives around. Who have been betrayed by our system. Many who after getting out of prison, went back to school. Got their education found a job. Where doing everything the right way. Then the state came up with a new law that they could no longer work in the field they had been able to find work. And the interesting thing is. That most that I’ve talked to. Have refused to give up. Have refused to go back to stealing, dealing drugs. Not all. But the key here again is. They have lost their job because they had committed certain crimes. Not, because they were employed or unemployed. The initial problem was they didn’t see a need for an education. And it was too easy to steal and deal drugs than stay in school and become employable. I’m still working on getting some of these guys on my show. To tell hard heads that make excuses for them. To stop making it easy for them to pass the buck. I don’t have a job because society owes me a job. It doesn’t matter they were provided with the opportunity to get an education just like everyone else. If they can’t find a job, they’ll jack your car, or steal your TV, or deal drugs on the corner.
The great depression save unemployment rates of 25 percent while crime rates dropped. Interesting that during times of economic growth we actually see leaps and bounds in crime.
If you can show some evidence that Higher employment equates to less crime. I'd love to see it. |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:29 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
