Smoking marijuana may not harm lungs
- Thread starter DreamMachine
- Start date
- Status
in the time it takes to pack and smoke one bowl, I can down a beer... you're trying too hard.
Also, shut up....
edit: and before you bring it up, yes they're also smoking a joint. But they're also drinking. So i guess everyone who goes on a lunch break that drinks on their free time is gonna partake no?
way more
Member
It's a scientific journal and it's purpose it the pursuit of truth.
Lol, this guy Tom Penny is lamer than AbsoluteZero.
Dude Abides
Banned
Hold the phone, folks. NeoGAF poster Buckethead understands scientific peer review better than the Journal of the AMA. Jesus revealed the invalidity of this study to him in a dream.
You get drunk off one beer?. Sorry to hear that. Getting High = drinking 1 beer. Good one !!!!
try harder...
If you're curious, you do in fact come off as though you have no idea at all what you are talking about.
Drinking 1 beer isn't the same for everyone... smoking one "bowl, joint, or blunt" (ha) isn't the same for everyone, nor would they take the same amount of time to ingest... drinking 3 shots takes less time than drinking one beer... operating heavy machinery under the influence of either drug is proven to be dangerous, yet one is legal and the other isn't....
Also Alcohol goes into your blood and can fuck up your kidneys if you make it a habit.
Dude Abides
Banned
Apparently Tom Penny has never heard of the 3-martini lunch. Or the eye-opener. Or people who keep a bottle of scotch in their desk drawer at the office.
Buckethead
Banned
I could infer a pro-pot bias but let's just have a friendly conversation and be respectful to one another even if we disagree.
Yes, the article and thread title is highly misleading.
Comments regarding bias, misinformation, and rationalization should be directed there. I should have been more specific.
Too large was a poor choice of words, the lack of specificity is the main concern. There's little mention of consistency of use, modes of inhalation, etc. I shouldn't have said it was unscientific, rather a poor study or at least one that raises more questions than it answers.
Does anyone doubt that cigarettes are more physically harmful than marijuana? I'm not denying that fact nor am I dismissing the obscene policies and laws in the United States regarding marijuana, it's legality, "schedule 1" status, etc., etc..
I was referring to the merits of personal use. If eating a chocolate bar is bad for you and has adverse health affects - it has adverse health affects.
It doesn't matter if eating pizza is worse for you, that doesn't diminish the negative traits that chocolate possesses.
If we're ever going to make progress on this issue - there needs to be a level of honest and good faith discussion.
I can see that you are still posting biased and unfounded opinion as fact.
I rarely post in "drug" threads making your post as confusing as it is baselessly accusatory.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
People don't exist in a vacuum. You draw the line for what counts as "affecting other people" differently then some of us.
Poimandres
Member
That's not the reason people don't get smashed at lunch time. It's because work is generally harder while you are drunk, and it would be harder while you are stoned. That won't stop some people from doing it... but those people are most likely doing it already anyway!
There is no correlation... between people who would smoke cigarettes and people who would smoke pot at lunch time.
Well I could have swore I got into a debate with you around a year or two ago on the subject, and you were also really bizarrely stone walling the evidence and just kneejerking a lot. But maybe it was some other guy. I never made any assertion about the frequency of your participation in drug threads, just that any time I saw you talk about drugs it was out there.
But I've searched and can't find our old debate in search, so I'll take your word for it. Must have been some other guy. I'm going to search some of the old drug debates I've been in and find out who I could have you confused for.
Edit: Maybe BakedPigeon, but he smoked weed at one time. I don't think you did anything other than try it once or something?
The_Technomancer said:
We're all going to die one day. The only impact killing yourself faster has is that the moment comes sooner rather than later. So your family has to grieve earlier. Nobody should have a right to dictate what someone puts in their body, much less make laws by it.
FantasticMrFoxdie
Mumber
Yeah, misleading title. I imagine its still harmful inhaling all that combustible material, but interesting that its somehow less than cigarettes.
EDIT: What a terrible article.
EDIT: What a terrible article.
FTW
Thank you for the reply, this was a more thoughtful rejoinder than I expected.
To the point- while your second I can agree with wholeheartedly- that bad is bad when compared to nothing- I'd argue that the following sentence is problematic for two reasons:
1. The study itself did not set out to find or conclude that marijuana had zero adverse health effects
2. If chocolate was illegal, the fact that pizza, a legal substance, had more substantial adverse health effects would make a study like this extremely relevant to the issue of its regulation and use- and not, as you said, "baseless rationalization."
Buckethead
Banned
No recollection of that. I disagree with drug and alcohol use but I consider myself very reasonable and understanding when it comes to people's personal freedoms.
I disagree in many ways; if you get lung cancer and then go on welfare it affects everyone.
But I take issue with misinformation and lazy journalism.
See how we've gone from:
"Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function."
to
"Smoking marijuana may not harm lungs"
to
"Marijuana doesn't harm lung function"
Look how quickly we've devolved.
Yes I apologize for lack of specificity of what I was replying to and why.
The comments probably came off as a bit trollish.
And yes, metaphors only go so far.
I guess I agree with your point. News journalists are always doing that with scientific studies. Just look at how often they bastardize readings of new scientific discoveries.
Anyway, I've always said that if we lived in a society where drugs were legal, you should sign off your rights to go on welfare or whatever if you decide to do drugs. It'd be part of the process of even buying the stuff - you'd have to use your ID, which would search a database showing that you've waived your rights for such a thing. That's part of the informed decision adults would have to make before they decided to do these things. If they want to pay for a health care with a higher premium, that'd be the option for them. Otherwise, they must deal with the consequences.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
well, thats good. at least it can still hurt lots of other things that matter. at least it ain't the lungs, though!
Mind clarifying?
It can still harm the lungs, and I'd proffer than the lungs are the organ by far harmed the most by the ingestion of THC through smoke inhalation.
Thread title should really just be renamed to the study name
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
maybe it does
maybe it doesnt
but after smoking it you will be paranoid enough to think it does anyway and the resulting stress will give you high blood pressure.
maybe it doesnt
but after smoking it you will be paranoid enough to think it does anyway and the resulting stress will give you high blood pressure.
Count Dookkake
Member
So I take it this Magic Flight thing is a quality product?
Since I went to e-cigs, I have been considering making that switch, too.
Since I went to e-cigs, I have been considering making that switch, too.
Grinchy
Banned
As soon as someone calls weed a "gateway drug" I know it's time to bail out. Yes, that's what the cartoon dog told you in that video you watched in the 3rd grade, but that doesn't make it true.
If anything, alcohol is the gateway drug. I never tried anything until I had gotten drunk for the first time. Then it was open season.
If anything, alcohol is the gateway drug. I never tried anything until I had gotten drunk for the first time. Then it was open season.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
it gives me a headache.
cause people act like idiots when they are high around me. they are so loud and obnoxious.
No.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
weed also made me lose all my friends because i decided to stop hanging out with them cause they all smoked all the time and nothing else and i didn't
disappeared
Banned
Then you're smoking with the wrong crowd.
That's because friends bond when they smoke out. Just like how a lot of people bond drinking alcohol together.
Well I know that, it just sucks that he lost out on friends just because of that.
I usually agree with you in drug threads, but that's a really slippery slope. Do you have to get off public health care if you eat fast food twice a week? Once? If you don't exercise regularly?
It is.
Yeah, but I don't know, I don't see why he still can't hang out with them. When my friends and I got nothing to do, there's nothing better than to light a couple bowls up and chill. And of course, not everyone smokes, so I don't see why he can't get along with them.
Its the best portable vape available, bar none.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
Just don't think you're good to drive and we're cool.
NEOPARADIGM
Banned
The anti-drug crowd seems bloated with the notion that decriminalizing recreational drug use would spawn some drugged-out loser culture. Stop kidding yourself, everyone over 16 or so who wants to be on drugs already is.
There are people who are comfortable with altering their state of mind, can handle it no bones about it, and understand the ways in which various substances can enhance their lives; then there are other people who are idiots. That's it.
It's quite a bit like the gun debate, actually: pro-drug folk are saying "Drugs don't fuck up lives, stupid people fuck up their lives."
I'm unconvinced chronic television-watching isn't more harmful to society than recreational drug use. Stupid people do stupid shit. There are ignorant assholes everywhere. That's what's wrong with the world. The "drugs are bad" propaganda machine is for fucking children.
Adults can handle drugs to the same extent they can handle life in general. Some dude who lost everything to cocaine, okay. And in his "sober" alternate life he became a degenerate gambler and lost everything that way. Who's to fucking say?
Let people be who they want to be, goddamn it already.
There are people who are comfortable with altering their state of mind, can handle it no bones about it, and understand the ways in which various substances can enhance their lives; then there are other people who are idiots. That's it.
It's quite a bit like the gun debate, actually: pro-drug folk are saying "Drugs don't fuck up lives, stupid people fuck up their lives."
I'm unconvinced chronic television-watching isn't more harmful to society than recreational drug use. Stupid people do stupid shit. There are ignorant assholes everywhere. That's what's wrong with the world. The "drugs are bad" propaganda machine is for fucking children.
Adults can handle drugs to the same extent they can handle life in general. Some dude who lost everything to cocaine, okay. And in his "sober" alternate life he became a degenerate gambler and lost everything that way. Who's to fucking say?
Let people be who they want to be, goddamn it already.
I think that it's difficult to be able to try to do that for something like fast food, but certainly I'd be for altered/pricier benefits for people with severe obesity. Unless they can prove their obesity is due to some disorder and not just a lack of self-control or something.
I mean really, ideally, I'd be for universal health care, where the shared added tax burden (which in reality would be much cheaper than what we pay on average for health care now) would make all of these points obsolete - the relative impact of this sort of thing would be absorbed in an all-inclusive system, but that's not the case now so I'm just thinking up alternate methods to do this for the time being. If it'd be feasible or not, who knows... but I do know making drugs legal is feasible and the right thing to do.
Yeah, but not all drugs have equivalent health effects, and not even all methods of ingestion (vaping/edibles vs. smoking). I guess this is really two issues (the second being how "universal" is universal health care), but I just felt that your initial proposal was a little extreme.
That's the hot smoke burning your throat. It's mitigated when using a bong to some extent. But a vape is much better for you.
I completely agree.
That's an interesting idea. Alternatively, a person that ends up in the hospital with a broken leg would pay higher medical fees if traces of a hard drug in the bloodstream suggest that the injury happened due to impairment.
Buckethead
Banned
Amir0x's idea isn't unreasonable but good luck getting that past the unions.
But I will say this as far as health/obesity goes in the corporate world, the metric is entirely incorrect as-is without the complexity of adding drugs into the mix.
But I will say this as far as health/obesity goes in the corporate world, the metric is entirely incorrect as-is without the complexity of adding drugs into the mix.
i dunno, avatar quote
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
Pot just makes me feel shitty as hell, so I've regulated to only doing it during really active, fun nights. I waterfalled on Christmas and was a fucking mess, and I felt like shit for the next two days.
way more
Member
I heard it causes your blood to flow backward.
- Status