• Pot smoking not so harmful to the lungs, study finds.
    137 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Hiurst;34156203]There's not enough confidence in the research available to say this IMO[/QUOTE] Well that's too bad, because there's far more research out there than what you've seen. Yes, there have been negative reports, but research you do on those reports and the backers of them always prove to be bias. I won't say there isn't a bias in the inverse way, but there are a great deal of fairly neutral papers that find marijuana to be a much safer substance. Please, for the love of god, find me one person who ONLY smokes marijuana who has lung cancer, lung disease, emphyzema or worse who didn't have it trigger from genetics if that is at all possible.
[QUOTE=TehWhale;34156129]Welcome back to another marijuana thread, Sobotnik. Here to spread your bullshit propaganda like you do in the others?[/QUOTE] It is as much bullshit as anything else posted good sir. Hemp never was a commercial threat to the big industries. If that was true then you would see the hemp industry growing and becoming stronger during the industrial revolution as farming methods improved, a wider market was created and increased uses for it were developed. Instead we see the opposite, where the production of hemp declined during that era. I myself have no issue with marijuana or its use. However I have an issue with people exaggerating the potential uses of hemp and marijuana.
[QUOTE=Hiurst;34156227]Lung cancer is not the only form of lung damage[/QUOTE] No shit. The post I quoted was talking about lung cancer. [editline]10th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;34156237]It is as much bullshit as anything else posted good sir. Hemp never was a commercial threat to the big industries. If that was true then you would see the hemp industry growing and becoming stronger during the industrial revolution as farming methods improved, a wider market was created and increased uses for it were developed. Instead we see the opposite, where the production of hemp declined during that era. I myself have no issue with marijuana or its use. However I have an issue with people exaggerating the potential uses of hemp and marijuana.[/QUOTE] You wanna post a source for that? Because from everything that I've heard, you're kind of making stuff up.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;34156236]Well that's too bad, because there's far more research out there than what you've seen. Yes, there have been negative reports, but research you do on those reports and the backers of them always prove to be bias. I won't say there isn't a bias in the inverse way, but there are a great deal of fairly neutral papers that find marijuana to be a much safer substance. [b]Please, for the love of god, find me one person who ONLY smokes marijuana who has lung cancer, lung disease, emphyzema or worse who didn't have it trigger from genetics if that is at all possible.[/b][/QUOTE] This is far from being the only way to find out of marijuana is damaging or not. I think you have too large of a conflict of interests to comment neutrally on this topic...
[QUOTE=Hiurst;34156258]This is far from being the only way to find out of marijuana is damaging or not. I think you have too large of a conflict of interests to comment neutrally on this topic...[/QUOTE] I have as much of a conflict as you do. My personal health is of no consequence in the issue, I'm a pack a day smoker, I couldn't care less about marijuana causing lung problems. My issue is entirely that you discount positive studies but accept negative studies, you do know there are many that are positive? Do you know who backs the negative ones? Not always, but many times there is a discrepency. Fine with me if you discount my arguments because I smoke weed, but you're discounting studies done by mostly neutral groups who didn't find as strong or as many negatives as you believe there to be.
[QUOTE=Hiurst;34156258]This is far from being the only way to find out of marijuana is damaging or not. I think you have too large of a conflict of interests to comment neutrally on this topic...[/QUOTE] With the amount of people that smoke marijuana (read: a lot), it's only logical to think that if it caused cancer, there would be at least one person with cancer resulting from their marijuana use.
Do we really need one of these studies every few days? (Posted in the news that is)
[QUOTE=Keegs;34156298]Do we really need one of these studies every few days? (Posted in the news that is)[/QUOTE] How many days ago was the last one posted?
[QUOTE=Keegs;34156298]Do we really need one of these studies every few days? (Posted in the news that is)[/QUOTE] I don't see why not. It's still news, and the frequency of threads is nowhere near enough to blot out anything more important.
How can pyrolysed plant matter [I]not[/I] be cancerous? Acceptable arguments include that cannabidiol inhibit and retards cancer growth.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;34156304]How many days ago was the last one posted?[/QUOTE] You're going to deny that FP loves to post about how Marijuana doesn't cause harm, and that they don't love to show all the studies. (Weed is cool and all but I'm just annoyed that every thread about a study showing 'positive effects' or 'no negative effects' is hoarding by FP and we have the same conversation every time.)
[QUOTE=Contag;34156326]How can pyrolysed plant matter [I]not[/I] be cancerous? Acceptable arguments include that cannabidiol inhibit and retards cancer growth.[/QUOTE] We have no way of really knowing if the pyrolyzed plant matter of cannabis actually causes cancer because of what you just mentioned. So it's kind of stupid to even bring it up as it's really neither here nor there and doesn't contribute anything to the thread.
[QUOTE=Keegs;34156330]You're going to deny that FP loves to post about how Marijuana doesn't cause harm, and that they don't love to show all the studies. (Weed is cool and all but I'm just annoyed that every thread about a study showing 'positive effects' or 'no negative effects' is hoarding by FP and we have the same conversation every time.)[/QUOTE] No, I'm not, but I go on FP every day, and in the last 6 days at least I haven't read one, so I'm asking, when was the last one? You can go ahead and jump to conclusions of my bias, but you're baseless in it.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;34156273]I have as much of a conflict as you do. My personal health is of no consequence in the issue, I'm a pack a day smoker, I couldn't care less about marijuana causing lung problems. [b]My issue is entirely that you discount positive studies but accept negative studies[/b], you do know there are many that are positive? Do you know who backs the negative ones? Not always, but many times there is a discrepency. Fine with me if you discount my arguments because I smoke weed, but you're discounting studies done by mostly neutral groups who didn't find as strong or as many negatives as you believe there to be.[/QUOTE] Two of the studies I posted were 'positive' towards weed
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;34156236]Well that's too bad, because there's far more research out there than what you've seen. Yes, there have been negative reports, but research you do on those reports and the backers of them always prove to be bias. I won't say there isn't a bias in the inverse way, but there are a great deal of fairly neutral papers that find marijuana to be a much safer substance. Please, for the love of god, find me one person who ONLY smokes marijuana who has lung cancer, lung disease, emphyzema or worse who didn't have it trigger from genetics if that is at all possible.[/QUOTE] This is why a 20 year study isn't nearly long enough Graph for tobacco from CancerResearchUK [img]http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@sta/documents/image/crukmig_1000img-12577.jpg[/img] [editline]11th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=mugofdoom;34156346]We have no way of really knowing if the pyrolyzed plant matter of cannabis actually causes cancer because of what you just mentioned. So it's kind of stupid to even bring it up as it's really neither here nor there and doesn't contribute anything to the thread.[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you talking about? Burning any kind of organic (in the plant sense, not in the organic chemistry sense) material creates cancerous particles it doesn't matter if it's from cannabis, tobacco or tomato plants
- actually, nevermind-
[QUOTE=Hiurst;34156369]Two of the studies I posted were 'positive' towards weed[/QUOTE] They read neutral to me, but fair enough.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;34156238]No shit. The post I quoted was talking about lung cancer. [editline]10th January 2012[/editline] You wanna post a source for that? Because from everything that I've heard, you're kind of making stuff up.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.hempfood.com/iha/iha01214.html[/url] In Western Europe, nobody banned the cultivation of hemp in the 1930s but the commercial cultivation ceased almost anyhow in the decades after the 1930s. Hemp was simply ousted by artificial fibres. It is also pretty obvious to most people that in the 19th century, cotton became king. No laws were made against hemp during this century, but they were slowly out-competed. In Britain alone, in 1751 2,976,610 pounds of cotton was imported. By 1801 it had reached 56,010,732 pounds of cotton per annum. The cotton import had increased by a factor of 18 times in this time. It is no wonder that hemp lost out.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;34156361] You can go ahead and jump to conclusions of my bias, but you're baseless in it.[/QUOTE] It may seem like that from your perspective, but I am looking for studies and scientific papers about marijuana causing lung damage in another tab and the jury seems to be very out on it. There's a roughly equivalent number of studies for and against the idea. This is kind of vague because we don't know if some of the studies were influenced by a third party, or were carried out on false pretenses, or were done in any other kind of error/mal-action, but I don't think anyone has the time to look at all of them and determine this with accuracy. You're saying that the scientific scales are tipped towards marijuana not causing lung damage, but that's not what I'm seeing. You must be either getting your studies/etc from another source than me, or you have a conflict of interest as I've said. This is where my comment (and likely others') that you seem to be speaking from a biased position comes from. I'm using Google Scholar if you want to compare
I [B]do not understand[/B] why there is such a debate about whether smoking cannabis may cause lung damage. Vaporize, people! It's like studying if injecting cookie dough is dangerous, when you can just eat it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;34156411][url]http://www.hempfood.com/iha/iha01214.html[/url] In Western Europe, nobody banned the cultivation of hemp in the 1930s but the commercial cultivation ceased almost anyhow in the decades after the 1930s. Hemp was simply ousted by artificial fibres. It is also pretty obvious to most people that in the 19th century, cotton became king. No laws were made against hemp during this century, but they were slowly out-competed. In Britain alone, in 1751 2,976,610 pounds of cotton was imported. By 1801 it had reached 56,010,732 pounds of cotton per annum. The cotton import had increased by a factor of 18 times in this time. It is no wonder that hemp lost out.[/QUOTE] You realize that the prohibition of Marijuana started in the United States, not Britain right? So it doesn't really matter what was happening in Britain, only America, as that's where it all started.
[QUOTE=Hiurst;34156414]It may seem like that from your perspective, but I am looking for studies and scientific papers about marijuana causing lung damage in another tab and the jury seems to be very out on it. There's a roughly equivalent number of studies for and against the idea. This is kind of vague because we don't know if some of the studies were influenced by a third party, or were carried out on false pretenses, or were done in any other kind of error/mal-action, but I don't think anyone has the time to look at all of them and determine this with accuracy. You're saying that the scientific scales are tipped towards marijuana not causing lung damage, but that's not what I'm seeing. You must be either getting your studies/etc from another source than me, or you have a conflict of interest as I've said. This is where my comment (and likely others') that you seem to be speaking from a biased position comes from. I'm using Google Scholar if you want to compare[/QUOTE] there are a few which indicate that certain cannabinoid compounds found in (you guessed it!) cannabis retard the growth of lung cancer [editline]11th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=mugofdoom;34156431]You realize that the prohibition of Marijuana started in the United States, not Britain right? So it doesn't really matter what was happening in Britain, only America, as that's where it all started.[/QUOTE] My understanding was that Britain was a huge industrial center for textiles. As in, if you were going to look at the textile industry in the West then, you would look at Britain This may be wrong, though
[QUOTE=Contag;34156422]I [B]do not understand[/B] why there is such a debate about whether smoking cannabis may cause lung damage. Vaporize, people! It's like studying if injecting cookie dough is dangerous, when you can just eat it.[/QUOTE] Because it's unclear as to whether or not it actually causes harm. Also, smoking it is the easiest way to ingest it, and you aren't going to convert the entire smoking populace to vaporizing overnight. It's kind of inconvenient. [editline]10th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Contag;34156436]My understanding was that Britain was a huge industrial center for textiles. As in, if you were going to look at the textile industry in the West then, you would look at Britain This may be wrong, though[/QUOTE] Yeah I have no idea if that's true or not, but it doesn't really matter as it was the US textile industry that was threatened by it, not the British textile industry. The rest of the world just followed suit after American influence grew.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;34156431]You realize that the prohibition of Marijuana started in the United States, not Britain right? So it doesn't really matter what was happening in Britain, only America, as that's where it all started. Yeah I have no idea if that's true or not, but it doesn't really matter as it was the US textile industry that was threatened by it, not the British textile industry. The rest of the world just followed suit after American influence grew. [/QUOTE] It started in America, but when they did (The 1930s) worldwide developments had already made hemp a unprofitable crop, in comparison with say cotton. The law was in no way made to protect industries from hemp ruining their profits. The law was made by people who at the time had yet to fully study these plants in detail and properly record the effects they had on a human. Also the rest of the world simply stopped growing it. It simply was not a cash crop anymore. Italy did not ban it yet the practice died out by itself. The USSR used to be a huge producer, but isn't anymore.
It's one of these threads again. I don't want to be a downer on the parade fellas, but we get it. Weed is good for you/it won't harm you. Maybe weed might not hurt your lungs, you can develop a psychological addiction to it (yes, despite it being a 'herb', if you're inclined to say that). You can't just look at one factor and say "Oh okay this is basis enough." Too much of anything is bad for you, I hope everyone realises this.
[QUOTE=archangel125;34155558]Cannabis is probably the most benign and useful substance known to man, no joke. Not necessarily to be abused as a recreational drug (Though that's really okay, too) but for a whole bunch of medical applications.[/QUOTE] I don't think people should overuse it, it turns them into very boring people who want to do nothing other than that, and they have mannerisms that your momma warned you about
[QUOTE=Contag;34156422]I [B]do not understand[/B] why there is such a debate about whether smoking cannabis may cause lung damage. Vaporize, people! It's like studying if injecting cookie dough is dangerous, when you can just eat it.[/QUOTE] i dont get why people are so extremely pro-vape, like it really matters all that much because personally even though vaping is safer i still prefer smoking a bowl to hitting a vape its just part of the experience you know?
[QUOTE=Contag;34156326]How can pyrolysed plant matter [I]not[/I] be cancerous? Acceptable arguments include that cannabidiol inhibit and retards cancer growth.[/QUOTE] Cannabidiol intake retards cancer growth. Why can't we all just vape? Still waiting for a sub-$25 vape. Pipes and roll-ups are so much more economical for now.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;34156470]It started in America, but when they did (The 1930s) worldwide developments had already made hemp a unprofitable crop, in comparison with say cotton. The law was in no way made to protect industries from hemp ruining their profits. The law was made by people who at the time had yet to fully study these plants in detail and properly record the effects they had on a human.[/QUOTE] Again, I would like to quote Time Magazine's crop of the year, 1938 (if I'm not mistaken on the year), Hemp. Hemp may not have been popular at the time in Europe, but there's no denying that it was in the US. All the major people behind banning the drug were lobbyists for the paper industry, and the first law against Marijuana, specifically banned the Hemp crop, not the drug Marijuana. All propaganda from the time were outright lies, not misunderstandings of the actual effects of the drug. Anyway I don't really know what this has to do with the thread, so I'm going to drop it.
[QUOTE=Rediscover;34156498]i dont get why people are so extremely pro-vape, like it really matters all that much because personally even though vaping is safer i still prefer smoking a bowl to hitting a vape its just part of the experience you know?[/QUOTE] And its a different kinda high
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.