Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cannabis 'worse than tobacco'
BBC News ^ | 10 July 2002

Posted on 07/10/2002 7:15:32 AM PDT by SheLion

Cannabis poses a greater threat to health than tobacco, lung experts have warned.

The warning comes on the day that Home Secretary David Blunkett is due to make a Commons statement about the future of government drug policy.

Many young people are simply not aware that smoking cannabis may put them at increased risk of respiratory cancers and infections .

Dame Helena Shovelton:

The Home Affairs Select Committee has recommended that cannabis is downgraded from a class B drug to class C. This would mean that possession would lead to a caution, rather than arrest.

The British Lung Foundation is currently carrying out a review of research into the impact of smoking cannabis on health.

Preliminary results suggest that the drug is at least as harmful as smoking tobacco - and may carry a higher risk of some respiratory cancers.

Ignorance

BLF chief executive Dame Helena Shovelton said: "Many young people are simply not aware that smoking cannabis may put them at increased risk of respiratory cancers and infections.

"The government spends millions of pounds a year on smoking cessation and public education about the dangers of smoking, yet smoking cannabis is at least as harmful as smoking tobacco and, indeed, may carry a higher risk of some respiratory cancers."

She said regardless of cannabis's legal status, many young people will make their own decision about whether they wish to use it or not.

"The government have a public health responsibility to ensure they do so with full knowledge of the risks associated with smoking cannabis," she said.

"Fifty years ago, people thought smoking was a good thing. Now it is described as a public health disaster - we don't want to see the same thing happen with cannabis."

Under estimate:

The report is also expected to warn that research carried out in the 1960s and 1970s may underestimate the impact of today's cannabis since it is much more potent than the cannabis smoked then.

The average cannabis cigarette smoked in the 1960s contained about 10mg of D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the ingredient which accounts for the psychoactive properties of cannabis, compared to 150mg of THC today.

British Lung Foundation chairman Dr Mark Britton said: "There is an urgent need for more research into the effects of cannabis on respiratory health so that we can feel confident in the advice we give to young people.

"As a respiratory consultant physician, I see the devastating consequences of smoking-related lung diseases, such as emphysema and chronic obstructive airways diseases, every day and I am fearful that long-term cannabis smoking may be linked to similar conditions."


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: 07055; 100right; 70s; 7up; 80s; acapulcogold; acapulcored; acetone; acid; addicted; africanblack; africanred; africanwoodbine; airhead; alamoutblackhash; alcohol; alicebtoklas; all; alveoli; americantobacco; angola; antismokers; are; arrested; atombomb; atshitshi; auntmary; awful; babybhang; bale; bambalacha; bammer; banannapeels; bash; bbcnews; behindliberallines; belyandospruce; best; bhang; bigbamboo; bikini; billthedrill; binky; blackganga; blackgungi; blackgunion; blackmoblackmoat; blackoil; bobmarley; bobwassocool; bogus; bong; bowlofbuddha; braindeadening; braintumor; bronchialproblems; brownierecipe; brownies; bster; bttt; bud; buds; bullsht; bump; bust; busted; buster; butts; buzz; buzzer; buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz; camel; canadianskunkweed; cancer; cancerouslungs; cannabis; cannabissativa; carcinogenic; caveatemptor; cheaphigh; chemicals; chickenlittle; cigar; cigarettes; cigerettesmokers; classbdrug; classcdrug; clip; cloroxcuisine; closetloadie; cocaine; coke; cometogeather; common; confederateflag; corruption; crank; criminality; crystalmeth; cupcakes; cyanide; dakmar; dangersofcannabis; darkdarkgreen; davidblunkett; deadsmoker; deamonized; detrimental; dimensio; doobie; doral; drag; drink; drpepper; drug; drugbusts; drugpolicy; drugtsar; dui; dumpsterdiver; easywider; enhancedbutter; enjoycoke; euphoric; eva; eve; everyonetogeather; florida; freep; freeped; freeper; freeping; freerepublic; ganja; get; goreislove; greenbutter; greenlizard; hash; hashsmokers; hate; hauerf; hawaii; health; healthdepartment; heartdisease; helenashovelton; hellraiserii; hemingwaysghost; hemlock; hemp; hi; high; higher; higherstill; hysteria; ignorance; illegal; indianhay; indica; individualliberty; indo; indonesianbud; insanepothead; instantzen; is; jae471; jane; jimjones; joecamel; jollygreen; joysmoke; juanita; juanvaldez; juju; kali; kaya; kentuckyblue; kermit; kevlar; keyword; kgbkillergreenbud; kickstick; killerweed; kilter; kindbud; konagold; kools; krippies; kumba; kushempeng; kutchie; lakbaydiva; laughinggrass; leeatwater; legal; legalize; legalized; libertarians; lid; lightstuff; llesca; lobo; locoweed; lordhavemercy; love; lovelies; loveweed; lungargument; lungexperts; marijuana; marijuanabutter; marijuanasmokers; marijuanavaporizer; marlboro; marlborolights; maryjane; medicalmarijuana; monkeyshine; morewasted; nascar; naturalbreasts; negligible; newyears; newyork; niconazis; nicotine; nolongerlurker; norml; not; onehitter; pallmall; panamared; paraphernalia; paulusinvictus; pc; pepsi; philipmorris; pipesmoke; pipetobacco; pipetoke; poison; poppies; poppy; pot; pothandle; pothead; potheadworld; potholder; potsmokers; pottedmeat; pottokers; prohibition; prohibitionists; psychological; psycoactive; pufflist; rate; reproductive; reproductiveorgans; respiratorycancers; rhesusmonkeys; rjr; roach; roachclip; rollingpapers; rollingstone; rollingstoned; salem; sauteedmarijuana; secondhandsmoke; sexes; shelion; sink; skeeter; smoke; smoked; smokelesscigarettes; smoker; smokers; smokes; smokevstoke; smokin; smokingbans; snitch; steveb; stimulents; stirner; stomach; stoned; stoners; stuntdevelopment; take; taken; takes; tarblackened; tax; territon; testicles; tetrahydrocannabinol; texas; thaistick; thc; the; them; theotherone; thread; thunderingsilence; thymebutter; tictac; tincture; tobacco; tobacconazis; toecancer; toke; token; toker; tokes; tokesandsmokes; uncommon; undertheinfluence; unlawful; unpc; uranium; us; vantage; vaporization; wakeandbake; waste; wasted; waterbong; we; weed; weedinducedbreasts; windminstrel; windows; winston; wisenheimer; wod; wodlist; wodmj; wolfie; you; zarf; zonked
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 next last
"Fifty years ago, people thought smoking was a good thing. Now it is described as a public health disaster - we don't want to see the same thing happen with cannabis."

OH REALLY! It's nasty to smoke a regular cigarette, but Lord Have Mercy, don't let nothing happen to the WEED!

1 posted on 07/10/2002 7:15:32 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *puff_list; Just another Joe; Gabz; Great Dane; Max McGarrity; Tumbleweed_Connection; red-dawg; ...
Yes! Protect the WEED! It's ok to smoke WEED but heaven help us if we smoke tobacco!
2 posted on 07/10/2002 7:17:32 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
This has always been one of my major beefs with cannibus.

It has always also been one my major beefs with the "enlighted" who wouldn't be caught dead smoking tobacco.

So to summarize: marijuana is like a combination of the worst parts of alcohol and tobacco. It makes you stupid, it can be addictive, causes cancer and gives off second hand smoke.
3 posted on 07/10/2002 7:18:59 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
So being Anti-Weed helps your Pro-Smoking Jihad how?
4 posted on 07/10/2002 7:19:16 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
So to summarize: marijuana is like a combination of the worst parts of alcohol and tobacco. It makes you stupid, it can be addictive, causes cancer and gives off second hand smoke.

Yet, this report states that they "don't want the same thing to happen to cannibus."

I think they are trying to "protect" it for it's medical benefits?

5 posted on 07/10/2002 7:21:38 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Considering the amounts ingested cannabis is not even close to tobacco. The nanny state needs to link them to exert control over both. The WOsD and the war on tobacco are soon to become one. Get the government out of the multi billion dollar business of regulating what relatively mild stimulents law abiding citizens wish to use.
6 posted on 07/10/2002 7:23:03 AM PDT by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Many young people are simply not aware that smoking cannabis may put them at increased risk of respiratory cancers and infections .

Not that I'm advocating anything relating to pot smoking, but it humorous that not a single shred of evidence is presented in this story - not even a hint at fact - to back the assertions of the headline or of the story itself.

So we have a bunch of pols, a physician, a reporter, and the BBC itself fabricating a story on the basis of precisely nothing.

7 posted on 07/10/2002 7:24:22 AM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
High Anxieties: What the WHO doesn't want you to know about cannabis

"Health officials in Geneva have suppressed the publication of a politically sensitive analysis that confirms what ageing hippies have known for decades: cannabis is safer than alcohol or tobacco."

"According to a document leaked to New Scientist, the analysis concludes not only that the amount of dope smoked worldwide does less harm to public health than drink and cigarettes, but that the same is likely to hold true even if people consumed dope on the same scale as these legal substances. "

8 posted on 07/10/2002 7:25:08 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion; *Wod_list
The report is also expected to warn that research carried out in the 1960s and 1970s may underestimate the impact of today's cannabis since it is much more potent than the cannabis smoked then. The average cannabis cigarette smoked in the 1960s contained about 10mg of D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the ingredient which accounts for the psychoactive properties of cannabis, compared to 150mg of THC today.

Typically, the report is exactly backwards. If the modern drug is more potent, one needs to smoke less to obtain the same effect. The health hazards arise from the smoke, not the active ingredient, so the more potent it is, the less has to be smoked, with less health risk.

Furthermore, cannabis doesn't need to be smoked at all to obtain the effect - it can be baked into brownies and eaten, with nuch less deleterious health effects than smoking it - or smoking tobacco.

9 posted on 07/10/2002 7:25:43 AM PDT by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Tobacco does coat the lungs with resin. Weed would do even more because it's smoked unfiltered. The filters would reduce the THC. Heck, if they were filtered, they'd smoke the used filters in their bongs, too!
AND, tobacco does not alter perceptions. Those who drive stoned are just as dangerous as drunk drivers. The problem is the sort term loss of long term memory. They'll forget where they're driving to. They may even forget they're the driver if they get their hands on that Canadian skunk weed.
If tobacco is considered demonic, the pot is Satan itself.
10 posted on 07/10/2002 7:25:51 AM PDT by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: angkor
Well, an argument could be made that tobacco is usually filtered while a joint is not. Of course, they wouldn't want to mention that because it reveals that it's the method of intake that is the problem and not the chemicals taken. Also, I've heard that a water based filter (read: bong) is the best way to smoke the stuff, as it greatly reduces the toxins in the lungs.

I don't smoke the stuff, so I can't say for certain.
11 posted on 07/10/2002 7:26:03 AM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: angkor
I loved the last paragraph:

"As a respiratory consultant physician, I see the devastating consequences of smoking-related lung diseases, such as emphysema and chronic obstructive airways diseases, every day and I am fearful that long-term cannabis smoking may be linked to similar conditions."

12 posted on 07/10/2002 7:26:19 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
The report is also expected to warn that research carried out in the 1960s and 1970s may underestimate the impact of today's cannabis since it is much more potent than the cannabis smoked then.

Great - the more potent it becomes the less one needs to smoke to get a buzz.

13 posted on 07/10/2002 7:26:40 AM PDT by Dakmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
There have been conflicting studies over the years about the lung effects of smoking marijuana. Some have shown bad effects, others have not. However, marijuana does not need to be smoked to have the effect that users seek. It can be eaten or blended into drinks. The only advantage to smoking is that it requires less marijuana than ingesting it through the gut by drinking or eating. In other words, smoking is a response to the artificially high price that its being illegal causes. Lower the price to what similar dried vegetation costs (parsley, oregano) and users could avoid whatever health dangers smoking poses.
14 posted on 07/10/2002 7:27:15 AM PDT by Stirner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: angkor
So we have a bunch of pols, a physician, a reporter, and the BBC itself fabricating a story on the basis of precisely nothing.

Isn't that how most Editorials read today? Half-truths and bogus studies. And they hope the general public will believe it all.

15 posted on 07/10/2002 7:27:55 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
gives off second hand smoke.

It just died a sudden death, unless the anti-smoking-Nazi liberals are hypocrits. Could it be?

16 posted on 07/10/2002 7:29:14 AM PDT by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Those who drive stoned are just as dangerous as drunk drivers. The problem is the sort term loss of long term memory. They'll forget where they're driving to. They may even forget they're the driver if they get their hands on that Canadian skunk weed.

Wanna buy a bridge? If you believe what you posted I guess you'll believe anything.

17 posted on 07/10/2002 7:30:21 AM PDT by Dakmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dakmar
The report is also expected to warn that research carried out in the 1960s and 1970s may underestimate the impact of today's cannabis since it is much more potent than the cannabis smoked then.

Pure myth.

18 posted on 07/10/2002 7:30:30 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: angkor
So we have a bunch of pols, a physician, a reporter, and the BBC itself fabricating a story on the basis of precisely nothing.

Sounds like someone involved with the report, which hasn't yet been completed, is giving reporters a summary preview.

I do agree with SheLion. I expect any evidence of the deleterious effects of pot to be met with thundering silence by the tobacco nazis.

19 posted on 07/10/2002 7:30:44 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Furthermore, cannabis doesn't need to be smoked at all to obtain the effect - it can be baked into brownies and eaten, with nuch less deleterious health effects than smoking it - or smoking tobacco.

Are you familiar with a drink called the Green Lizard (I think that's what its called)? Over-proof rum spinkled with ground pot. It's readily available in the Jamaica.

20 posted on 07/10/2002 7:31:46 AM PDT by jae471
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Actually, the "new way" to smoke the weed is by vaporization... using a device which heats up the weed to the point that the THC is emitted in vapor form, but not enough to cause rapid carbonization (burning) of the plant. You just breath a lot of hot THC filled air, not smoke.
21 posted on 07/10/2002 7:32:06 AM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
It just died a sudden death, unless the anti-smoking-Nazi liberals are hypocrits. Could it be?

Most pot smokers already smoke in private or with other smokers and do not subject others in public to their smoke.

22 posted on 07/10/2002 7:33:06 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
DON"T ANYONE TOUCH MY WEED!! NOW COME OUT WITH YOUR HANDS UP!!!!!
23 posted on 07/10/2002 7:33:56 AM PDT by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
I'd respond but I forgot.....(toke, toke)
24 posted on 07/10/2002 7:35:26 AM PDT by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
You are misinformed.
25 posted on 07/10/2002 7:35:51 AM PDT by KEVLAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
I know, but it's just so much fun using ill-thought out lies against their creators.
26 posted on 07/10/2002 7:35:57 AM PDT by Dakmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
The BEST way to smoke cannabis is using a vaporizor. This doesn't even burn the weed, it just heats it up to the point that the THC vaporizes. So technicaly, it isn't even "smoking".

Either way, I prefer to smoke my weed. Unfortunately, a bong isn't practical for my life style so I just stick with my one-hitter most often.

Weed should be legal, but I can live with its current status. It is still dirt cheap, easy to find, and I kinda like my status as an outlaw. I used to sell the stuff and I always felt like a bootlegger durring prohibition. High risk but an even higher reward (pun not intended).

27 posted on 07/10/2002 7:37:10 AM PDT by shempy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
If cannabis causes cancer, where are all the hippie cancer patients? Wouldn't you expect one study to show some correlation between smoking and cancer? Just one?
28 posted on 07/10/2002 7:39:40 AM PDT by WindMinstrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
Most pot smokers already smoke in private or with other smokers and do not subject others in public to their smoke.

Only because it's illegal. It would be pretty dumb to smoke it in the park next to the police station, aye?

29 posted on 07/10/2002 7:40:27 AM PDT by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
AND, tobacco does not alter perceptions.

Actually, nicotine is MORE psycoactive than THC. Rip a filter off of a Marlboro, then smoke it like you would a joint -- Deep drags, holding it in your lungs for a long time -- and see what the effect is. Now, smoke a joint like you would a normal cigarette -- shallow drags, in and out -- and see the effect.

Most of the effect of THC is the manner in which its ingested. Eat it, drink it -- you get euphoric and relaxed, but not really dumbed down, unless your mind has prepared you to become dumbed down.

Alot of it is purely psychological -- i've know stoners who got oregano and thought it was good stuff -- all because their mind was expecting that. A similar effect can be observed in alcohol. People use alcohol as a excuse to act stupid, when they really haven't had enough to cause the psychoactive effect.

30 posted on 07/10/2002 7:40:35 AM PDT by jae471
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
"Fifty years ago, people thought smoking was a good thing."

You are much too believing. You've got to be more skeptical. Who, who believe smoking was a good thing 50 years ago? A couple of cigarette companies promoting the smoother taste with less coughing. 100 years ago and more, people called cigarettes 'coffin nails'. "People" knew smoking wasn't healthy, they may not have known exactly, but they knew.

Second, you're taking the word of one politician on what marijuana does to the lungs. This politician is NOT unbiased, he's NOT a scientist, doctor or epidemiologist and certainly hasn't read the literature on the health effects of pot.

You have to realize that drug prohibition is a leftwing program, that has gone on so long, that it's been adopted by conservatives as their own. The Left lies. When in doubt, remember that the Left lies. Polititicians lie. Do your own homework.

In over 30 centuries of known human consumption of pot, there are zero known deaths. If smoking pot is bad, then people can eat or drink it.

31 posted on 07/10/2002 7:40:41 AM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Good God almighty. Must we debunk this kind of research on every WoD/MJ thread?

Condensed version: it is almost humanly impossible to smoke the amount of weed you'd need to achieve the levels of toxins they want you to be concerned about. The research was conducted on rats who were exposed to MJ smoke until they died. The equivalent level of smoke for humans is something obscene---on the order of several scores of joints per day . . .

32 posted on 07/10/2002 7:42:01 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
Most pot smokers already smoke in private or with other smokers and do not subject others in public to their smoke.

Have you been to a Rock concert at any time during the past 35 years? ;-)

33 posted on 07/10/2002 7:43:38 AM PDT by 07055
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dakmar
Yep...just happened to click on your post to reply. Actually, the Prohibitionists in Britain are just apoplectic about the reclassifcation, and this is the kind of last gasp (no pun intended) effort they're spewing out. Their ex-Drug Tsar (they spell it with a "T", isn't that cute) and current drug adviser (Keith Helliwell) just resigned, saying that the reclassifcation moved the UK "further toward decriminlisation than any other country". Guess he's never heard of Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.
34 posted on 07/10/2002 7:44:08 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
Here is a site that sells a vaporizer. This is the first comercially available vaporizer I have seen.

http://www.marijuanavaporizer.com/

35 posted on 07/10/2002 7:44:23 AM PDT by shempy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: WindMinstrel
If cannabis causes cancer, where are all the hippie cancer patients?

Bob Marley?

36 posted on 07/10/2002 7:45:05 AM PDT by 07055
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 07055
that's one. How 'bout a few thousand more?
37 posted on 07/10/2002 7:45:38 AM PDT by WindMinstrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 07055
Marley had cancer in his TOE, which then spread to his lungs and elsewhere. Are you saying that marijuana causes toe cancer?
38 posted on 07/10/2002 7:46:25 AM PDT by shempy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: WindMinstrel
If cannabis causes cancer, where are all the hippie cancer patients?

They're hiding out with all those men sporting weed-induced breasts.

39 posted on 07/10/2002 7:48:26 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
my breasts are natural, I'll have you know. Floppy, certainly, but natural.
40 posted on 07/10/2002 7:49:24 AM PDT by WindMinstrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: 07055
Most pot smokers already smoke in private or with other smokers and do not subject others in public to their smoke.

Have you been to a Rock concert at any time during the past 35 years? ;-)

Again, I say, "Most pot smokers already smoke in private or with other smokers . . . (See, I have been to a concert ; )

Okay, I admit there are some 'subjected' to the smoke who probably aren't smokers.

41 posted on 07/10/2002 7:50:35 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jae471
Alot of it is purely psychological

I've done both before. Tobacco and pot while in school. I think both are fine if used as a social type thing. I wouldn't recommend 18 wheel truck driving, though.
The brownies were the best because the buz is not so brain deadening and the taste is awful - the chocolate helps to cover that.
The old Mexican was pretty weak stuff, and the joint had to be the size of a cigar. That was best for brownies.
I've had stuff from Canada (Canadian skunk) that when used in a one hitter only took about 2 good hits and it was enough. If you did anymore, you'd have to ask what year it was!

42 posted on 07/10/2002 7:50:44 AM PDT by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Maybe if we forced bulls to smoke weed we could double milk production.
43 posted on 07/10/2002 7:50:47 AM PDT by shempy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Legalize it and require sellers to put the appropriate warning on the side of the pack. Then, caveat emptor.
44 posted on 07/10/2002 7:51:38 AM PDT by hauerf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shempy
They've actually been around for a few years now. I have a friend who is an insane pot head. He's a "wake and bake". Been so for almost all of the 15 years I've known him. He had a vaporizer at least 5 years ago. It was kind of a crude device - looks like a crystal ball, with a hose coming out of the bottom. I think there are newer devices.

I wonder if this is anything like those smokeless cigarettes they tried to come out with a few years ago. Vaporizing the tabacco might be a lot healthier for addicted smokers. Maybe the nicotine will still cause other complications like heart disease... but at least the lung risk might be reduced, as well as second hand smoke issues.

45 posted on 07/10/2002 7:52:02 AM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
yet smoking cannabis is at least as harmful as smoking tobacco

Well, then, don't smoke it. Try Alice B. Toklas' brownie recipe instead. ;-)

46 posted on 07/10/2002 7:52:42 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Furthermore, cannabis doesn't need to be smoked at all to obtain the effect - it can be baked into brownies and eaten ...

I'd like to suggest baking it in with cupcakes rather than brownies. Add the pot after pouring out the batter. Doing it that way makes it easier to regulate how much pot you ingest.

47 posted on 07/10/2002 7:53:20 AM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
Then there was the infamous TULANE STUDY using rhesus monkeys.
48 posted on 07/10/2002 7:54:01 AM PDT by Dakmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
The brownies were the best because the buz is not so brain deadening and the taste is awful - the chocolate helps to cover that.

10 years ago I had a bad brownie experience. I didn't know how much weed I should use, so I used an ounce - for one small pan of brownies. I ate one and went out to eat with some friends. About 40 minutes later - WOOOOMSHH - it came on like a big wave. Suddenly I was not fit to be in public. The next day I cut the rest of the brownies in real small pieces.

49 posted on 07/10/2002 7:55:22 AM PDT by shempy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DumpsterDiver
Actually, the best way is to make butter out of the marijuana first, then use the butter as an ingredient. Or so I've heard.
50 posted on 07/10/2002 7:55:50 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson