Posted on 03/26/2006 3:18:10 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
SMOKING three cannabis joints will cause you to inhale the same amount of toxic chemicals as a whole packet of cigarettes, according to research published in France today.
Cannabis smoke contains seven times more tar and carbon monoxide, the French National Consumers' Institute concluded in research published in the April edition of its monthly magazine.
The institute tested regular Marlboro cigarettes alongside 280 specially rolled joints of cannabis leaves and resin in an artificial smoking machine.
The tests examined the content of the smoke for tar and carbon monoxide, as well as for the toxic chemicals nicotine, benzene and toluene.
"Cannabis smoke contains seven times more tar and carbon monoxide than tobacco smoke," the institute's magazine says.
Someone smoking a joint of cannabis resin rolled with tobacco will inhale twice the amount of benzene and three times as much toluene as if they were smoking a regular cigarette, the study says.
Smokers of pure cannabis leaves will also inhale more of these chemicals than from a normal cigarette, though the amount varies depending on the quantities.
"Smoking three joints every day – which is becoming frequent – makes you run the same risks of cancer or cardio-vascular diseases as smoking a packet of cigarettes," the magazine says.
Cannabis is "by far" the most popular illicit drug in France, it says. The number of cigarette smokers and people drinking alcohol fell in 2005, while the number of cannabis users has increased in France in the past five years.
"Yep. They actually prevent cancer. And people smoking pot drive better, too. And George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew pot and sat around and smoked it (with the slaves they owned)."
"These lies make Reefer Madness look like a Discovery Channel documentary."
Yes but as usual the lies are your own strawman creation.
You need professional help.
"If legalizing pot for adults resulted in a doubling of teen use, would you still favor legalization?"
Again you're clueless.
How would you control for the likelihood that the "doubling" was just more accurate reporting since people no longer feared admitting to something that was previously illegal?
You wouldn't. You're not interested in objectivism - you're interested in your agenda, at any expense. Especially truth.
"Dopers would use filters?"
Apparently not. You and Paulsen are both dopes.
I haven't seen either of you filter your inane inaccurate statements.
Nope. All of those statements were made by pro-legalization supporters.
Zero signal to noise ratio.
"The pro-drug posters on this forum almost have me convinced that the FAA has no constitutional power under the Commerce Clause to regulate purely intrastate flights. Nosy jackbooted busybodies."
More lies.
No one is "pro drug"
We're against the rise of the police state and loss of civil liberties fueled by your drug war.
Would you?
Hey Dumbo.
Why didn't you HIGHlight THIS sentence?
"It is unclear exactly when he took the drug and whether he was impaired at the time of the crash because marijuana can stay in the body for long periods of time."
Perhaps because it cast doubt on the inaccurate point you were trying to make?
You're sure fast and loose with the truth for a sober guy.
"The answer is that the U.S. Constitution does not allow for one set of laws for reponsible people and one set of laws for irresponsible people. Too bad the irresponsible drug users ruined it for you."
Bullsh*t.
Drinking is legal.
Drinking and doing irresponsible things like driving or beating your wife are not.
I almost think you'd have to be drunk to make posts this stupid.
Those posters on this forum against the rise of the police state and loss of civil liberties fueled by the drug war almost have me convinced that the FAA has no constitutional power under the Commerce Clause to regulate purely intrastate flights.
Better?
The argument was that responsible people should be allowed to do drugs. I responded to that argument.
"How do you know that marijuana use caused the crash for sure?"
He doesn't.
In fact he didn't highlight the part that said they had no idea whether he was high at the time.
He had metabolites in his system. They could have been from 2 weeks earlier.
Paulsen one replied to me that Bob Marley died of cancer.
He didn't reply after I pointed out that it was SKIN CANCER on his TOE that killed him... that he grew up in Jamaica where it's sunny and went barefoot as a youth. Also, he refused to have it treated because of his religious beliefs.
My tagline says it all.
Lots of lies, heresay, inuendo and misdirection on these threads from the other side. And let us not forget their straw man arguments.
"Ooooh. Cannabis is harmless and you have a 1930 report which says so."
Another stupid jerky strawman red herring comment all rolled up in one - and you smoked it. Sucker.
There was a lot more than 1 study from 1930, but the only way you could counter the plethora of evidence was by mischaracterizing it.
You don't know truth, and you have no honor.
I've known pot smokers with both.
Using your addled logic, you should try smoking it.
"Which one? The 1814 double-blind study or the follow-up 1836 trial using paid volunteers?
I tend to give less credence to a study where they pay people. Also, didn't Soros fund both of those?"
Yeah, Soros was funding studies in the 1800's. Smart guy.
"Look at you! You'r so proud you read further than you posted it twice, you cutie, you. Keep trying, hon."
Someone should catalog all of RP's inanities.
"I think everyone but you understood the point I was making."
Actually... everyone but you understands the points you make.
That's what's really funny.
"Uh-huh. And I bet it's not easy either, right?
Of course, on the very next pot thread, you or some other pro-pot legalizer will try to convince me that growing your own is really inexpensive and easy -- it's just a weed, dude!
You guys and your arguments du jour -- whatever makes your point, you'll say it. Your side is consistent in its inconsistency."
As a socialist dupe you obvuously lack a basic education in economics.
It WOULD be inexpensive and easy - if it were legal.
There are great risks associated with it now. The potential cost of growing a plant is very high - jail.
You are lucky that farming is illegal, but lying and disinformation are not. You'd be effed.
Well said.. -- And of course, paulsen will have to pretend he doesn't get it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.