Posted on 08/01/2007 6:18:22 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty
“I despise the odor of MJ (I have smelled it in public). I don’t smoke tobacco, and cannot imagine ever smoking anything.
My exposure to people that smoked pot has not been good. I have nothing good to say about dope of any kind, even dope like MJ.”
What about dope like a good Tennessee bourbon? heh
They were 18 or so. They WERE heading towards college.
you haven't learned to love short term memory loss till you've had two open heart surgeries
So you’re saying the medical researchers in the study were lying? On what basis?
A joint DOESN’T hit the lungs like 5 cigarettes? It DOESN’T cause the lung damage that showed up on the CAT scans? Did they falsify the results to prove the point they wanted?
“A joint DOESN’T hit the lungs like 5 cigarettes? It DOESN’T cause the lung damage that showed up on the CAT scans? Did they falsify the results to prove the point they wanted?”
Perhaps you should read (or re–read) my post regarding water.
Then read (or re-read) the several points I made that could also have been made in the story.
Understand now?
That’s not an answer to the question.
Why is it alarmism to tell what happens when you smoke pot, or cigarettes, or warn people of the danger of anything?
I don’t see them flipping out about it. They’re just told what they found.
Alarmism is a typical liberals reaction to global warming; *We’re all going to diiiiieeeee!!!!!” I just don’t see that here.
“That’s not an answer to the question.
Why is it alarmism to tell what happens when you smoke pot, or cigarettes, or warn people of the danger of anything?
I don’t see them flipping out about it. They’re just told what they found.
Alarmism is a typical liberals reaction to global warming; *We’re all going to diiiiieeeee!!!!!” I just don’t see that here.”
I see. I thought the logic was obvious.
Doesn’t it seem that in an article where “smoking a joint” was directly equated with “smoking five cigarettes”, it should have been pointed out that the best, most recent research shows that, unlike tobacco, smoking marijuana doesn’t cause cancer?
The other issues are similar.
there are pot snobs like my little brother that really go ape over little nuances in weed like AK-47, Mississippi Mud, etc
some smells very skunky
others more cloyingly sweet
Cigarette equivalent: 6,000
lol
“Thank you for posting a picture of mysterio.”
Ah, the ad hominem...the last refuge of the intellectually bereft.
I would agree, besides, IF joints caused that much damage there should be overwhelming evidence of that in lung cancer statistics. I knew enough people who smoked pot like fiends in high school, college and afterwards...you’d think they’d be dropping like flies, but they aren’t.
Yeah, right. Zealots. When all else fails resort to name calling.
“Are you a pot-head, libertarian or both?”
In the current climate one would be insane to admit to cannabis use. Therefore, my answer would be intrinsically untrustworthy. You’ll have to make your own assessment.
Perhaps I’ll publish a memoir in a few more years.
I already answered your other question.
“Yeah, right. Zealots. When all else fails resort to name calling.”
A rose by any other name...
Not everyone who smokes cigarettes gets lung cancer either.
If you could find enough people who smoked only pot like cigarettes for the number of years that people smoke cigarettes before they get lung cancer, then that might be a valid comparison.
Problem is, the results are likely to be skewed because of the number of people who smoke pot AND cigarettes; and finding ONLY pot smokers who smoke that heavily is probably going to be difficult.
Is this just something you think might happen, or is there some evidence of this?
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.