More teens smoke pot than cigarettes, says CDC survey - Polidicks

Sweet as bro just making sure, a lot of shit storms are created on this topic because of misunderstandings and misinformation

UNGH!!! NO MORE OF THIS DISGUSTING DEVIL'S WEED, PLEASE!!! All the people who inject themselves with HASH are SATANISTS. Not only do they worship the dark by smoking Old Scratch's Herb but they also worship him by having gay sex while high. Glory hole technology is used in bongs. All of America is worshipping the bong devil... What has this woworld come to come to be

[QUOTE=KorJax;36260460]Anyways about the article: it doesn't suprise me. Marijuana has several things going for it over cigs: 1. It is much healthier for you 2. It gets you high 3. It's not addictive (only psychologically) 4. It is just as "cool" to do, if not more these days. Why smoke something bad for you that's going to get you addicted for life when you can smoke some marijuana, get something out of it, and be able to walk away the next day without craving some more? And not have to worry about getting lung cancer (unless you turn into a pot head and just smoke an assload)?[/QUOTE] lol healthier stop thinking it's completely harmless.

[QUOTE=Ghost656;36270766]lol healthier stop thinking it's completely harmless.[/QUOTE] What harm does it actually do then that can't be attrtibuted to the smoke itself?

What's with all this stuff about weed being able to "bring out" mental illnesses? What's the difference then? Couldn't you say the exact same thing about everything else? Cigarettes don't cause cancer, they just bring it out if you're already predisposed to it. I had a friend who 'got schizophrenia' by smoking weed. I don't know how that works, but from what I've heard it happened because he started smoking when he was young. Does it really make any difference whether it somehow pulled out an already existing schizophrenic inside him, or if it caused it to happen? And is my understanding correct when I say that schizophrenia usually only happens when you smoke it while you're still young, or can it happen whenever?

From what I know it just brings out shit that's already there, I imagine that there would be other triggers such as a really stressful situation or any other perception altering drugs would do the same to him.

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18283689[/url] [QUOTE] Experts are warning that the public dangerously underestimates the health risks linked to smoking cannabis. The British Lung Foundation carried out a survey of 1,000 adults and found a third wrongly believed cannabis did not harm health. [B] And 88% incorrectly thought tobacco cigarettes were more harmful than cannabis ones - when the risk of lung cancer is actually 20 times higher.[/B] The BLF said the lack of awareness was "alarming". Widely used Latest figures show that 30% of 16-59 year-olds in England and Wales have used cannabis in their lifetimes. A new report from the BLF says there are established scientific links between smoking cannabis and tuberculosis, acute bronchitis and lung cancer. Part of the reason for this, say the experts, is that people smoking cannabis take deeper puffs and hold them for longer than when smoking tobacco cigarettes. [B] This means that someone smoking a cannabis cigarette inhales four times as much tar as from a tobacco cigarette, and five times as much carbon monoxide, the BLF says. [/B] Its survey found that young people are particularly unaware of the risks. Some studies have also suggested cannabis increases the chances of developing mental health problems such as schizophrenia. Almost 40% of the under-35s surveyed - the age group most likely to have smoked it - thought cannabis was not harmful. [B]However, smoking one cannabis cigarette increases the chances of developing lung cancer by as much as an entire packet of 20 tobacco cigarettes, the BLF warned.[/B] Its chief executive, Dame Helena Shovelton, said: "It is alarming that, while new research continues to reveal the multiple health consequences of smoking cannabis, there is still a dangerous lack of public awareness of quite how harmful this drug can be. "This is not a niche problem - cannabis is one of the most widely-used recreational drugs in the UK, with almost a third of the population having tried it. "We therefore need a serious public health campaign - of the kind that has helped raise awareness of the dangers of eating fatty foods or smoking tobacco - to finally dispel the myth that smoking cannabis is somehow a safe pastime." The BLF's report says there should be a public education programme to raise awareness of the impact of smoking cannabis and increased investment in research into the health consequences of its use. Peter Reynolds, leader of Clear, which used to be known as the Legalise Cannabis Alliance, suggested the BLF had been highly-selective in its use of research. He added: "It is clear that this report was written not as a scientific document but as campaigning propaganda. "As such it is misleading, inaccurate and dangerously irresponsible." [/QUOTE] Thank you and have a nice day.

[QUOTE=KnightSolaire;36271077][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18283689[/url] Thank you and have a nice day.[/QUOTE] Yup and that's for smoking it, use the same technique for standard cigarettes and you'd see similar results. Also you seem to have missed the crux of my argument. [quote]What harm does it actually do then that can't be attrtibuted to the smoke itself?[/quote]

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;36270897]From what I know it just brings out shit that's already there, I imagine that there would be other triggers such as a really stressful situation or any other perception altering drugs would do the same to him.[/QUOTE] But what does that even mean? How can schizophrenia 'already be there'? And if weed really does cause that to happen, then what difference does it make? If schizophrenia shows itself and weed helped it happen, then surely that is an argument that supports the notion that weed is harmful in some ways?

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36271274]But what does that even mean? How can schizophrenia 'already be there'? And if weed really does cause that to happen, then what difference does it make? If schizophrenia shows itself and weed helped it happen, then surely that is an argument that supports the notion that weed is harmful in some ways?[/QUOTE] Depends on age, mental state etc. It's different for everyone.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36271274]But what does that even mean? How can schizophrenia 'already be there'? And if weed really does cause that to happen, then what difference does it make? If schizophrenia shows itself and weed helped it happen, then surely that is an argument that supports the notion that weed is harmful in some ways?[/QUOTE] If I remember correctly schizophrenia has a genetic cause, or a partly genetic cause, so it's likely he was pre-disposed to schizophrenia and it may not have presented itself due to a lack of triggers, it's possible that the alteration of his perception of reality due to the weed may have been enough of a trigger to kick it off. Honestly though to say the weed is solely responsible is sketchy at best, it's entirely possible that stress could set it off. Although wikipedia says otherwise to some of my points: [quote]Cannabis is associated with a dose-dependent increase in the risk of developing a psychotic disorder[35] with frequent use being correlated with twice the risk of psychosis and schizophrenia.[34][36] While cannabis use is accepted as a contributory cause of schizophrenia by many,[37] it remains controversial.[/quote] Honestly it's still pretty sketchy but I wouldn't really say that the weed caused his schizophrenia, although it is entirely possible.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36271274]But what does that even mean? How can schizophrenia 'already be there'? And if weed really does cause that to happen, then what difference does it make? If schizophrenia shows itself and weed helped it happen, then surely that is an argument that supports the notion that weed is harmful in some ways?[/QUOTE] its genetic

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;36271162]Yup and that's for smoking it, use the same technique for standard cigarettes and you'd see similar results. Also you seem to have missed the crux of my argument.[/QUOTE] Read the article again, it says part of the problem. Stop burying your head in sand. This is exactly what smokers did years ago before all the evidence came to light.

[QUOTE=KnightSolaire;36271680]Read the article again, it says part of the problem. Stop burying your head in sand. This is exactly what smokers did years ago before all the evidence came to light.[/QUOTE] yes but they didnt have 500 different studies going on at once then did they?

Guys, I already brought up the tricountycessation source (where the 599 chemicals come from), and addressed that [b]it is not a trustworthy source[/b]. I addressed this [b]three pages ago[/b]. Did no on even bother to read the post? I'll repeat it here. [QUOTE=Gmod4ever;36263198]I tried to find you a legitimate and trustworthy source for this. All I managed to find that was trustworthy was that apparently anyone who manufactures or imports cigarettes in the United States has to report the entirety of the ingredients to the CDC and the US Department of Health and Human Services - including ingredients considered "trade secrets." You can read about the reporting procedures on the CDC's website [url=http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/tobacco_industry/reporting/faqs/index.htm]here.[/url] However, these departments also treat the entire list of reported ingredients as trade secrets, meaning they can't be released to the public. It is because of this that I am doubting the legitimacy of [url=http://www.tricountycessation.org/tobaccofacts/Cigarette-Ingredients.html]this list of "599 of the 4000 additives added to cigarettes, including 69 known carcinogens"[/url]. For a subject as touchy as this, I don't consider any source that isn't the HHS, CDC, or some other government department to be legitimate. It's easy for the companies to obfuscate and leave out ingredients, since they don't have to publicly report them by law, and then anyone else can just be blowing smoke unless they themselves provide a legitimate source that can be checked.[/QUOTE] Again: It's easy for companies to obfuscate what they put in their products because they aren't required, by law, to list everything that goes into cigarettes, making the companies themselves not a trustworthy source. And it's even easier for third parties, such as tricountycessation, to blow smoke and make up shit. How many citations do you see on that tricountycessation? I certainly don't see any. All I see are a bunch of big claims (such as claiming to have seen these [b]trade secret and not-available-to-the-public reports[/b] these companies made to the CDC and the HHS). The only real credible source on this debate would be those reports, [b]from the CDC or HHS themselves[/b]. Of course, since they are considered entirely trade secrets, they can not be publicly made available. In short, we won't be able to reliably know what is actually in cigarettes unless someone breaks into the CDC or HHS, finds those reports, and publishes them. And then, since it won't be from the CDC or HHS themselves, we won't know if the reports have been tampered with or falsified. Basically, [b]we'll never know for sure[/b].

This debunks the recent British Lung Foundation demonising bullshit peddling nicely with citations: [url]http://wideshut.co.uk/mainstream-media-peddle-tired-cannabis-cancer-myth/[/url]

[QUOTE=KnightSolaire;36271077][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18283689[/url] Thank you and have a nice day.[/QUOTE] You really just read this and completely believe it right off the bat without any thinking? Ugh, I hate when people do that. You won't find one case that shows somebody getting cancer from smoking weed. And even if you did get four times as much tar from marijuana its not as harmful at all. The stuff in tobacco is pretty damn nasty compared to whats in marijuana. And if it was 20 times more likely to give you cancer, most of the people I know who smoke pot would be pretty fucked up right now. When they are actually completely normal. I know people who have been smoking cigarettes for not even that long and their lungs are worse than long term pot smokers.

[QUOTE=KnightSolaire;36271077][URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18283689[/URL] Thank you and have a nice day.[/QUOTE] First off they are talking about cannabis cigarettes, secondly you are a fool for believing everything you read in that article.

[QUOTE=Delta616;36274911]First off they are talking about cannabis cigarettes, secondly you are a fool for believing everything you read in that article.[/QUOTE] Yup, great arguing skills there. Call your opponent a fool, but provide no counter-evidence to support you claim that the article is incorrect. If you provided any evidence earlier in the thread, reference that if need be. But you can't just call your opponent a fool and not explain it. It makes you a fool. Smoking [B]anything[/B] is going to fuck you up to some degree. Of course there are risks to smoking even straight Marijuana. Denying it is stupid. And health benefits do not negate the fact that smoking it is still not going to be great for your lungs, other methods of consuming it? Sure they are probably better for you, I don't really know much about as I'm hardly well versed on the subject. That's the only problem I have with most of the pro-legalisation posters on here, you all seem to believe that pot is 100% beneficial to your health no matter how you intake it. Everything has downsides to it, no one drug is perfectly good for you (obviously dose and method of consumption are the main problem causers). Don't take this as me attacking you or being against the legalisation of it, but take it as me pointing out that most of you are fucking awful debaters.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;36275755]Yup, great arguing skills there. Call your opponent a fool, but provide no counter-evidence to support you claim that the article is incorrect. If you provided any evidence earlier in the thread, reference that if need be. But you can't just call your opponent a fool and not explain it. It makes you a fool. Smoking [B]anything[/B] is going to fuck you up to some degree. Of course there are risks to smoking even straight Marijuana. Denying it is stupid. And health benefits do not negate the fact that smoking it is still not going to be great for your lungs, other methods of consuming it? Sure they are probably better for you, I don't really know much about as I'm hardly well versed on the subject. That's the only problem I have with most of the pro-legalisation posters on here, you all seem to believe that pot is 100% beneficial to your health no matter how you intake it. Everything has downsides to it, no one drug is perfectly good for you (obviously dose and method of consumption are the main problem causers). Don't take this as me attacking you or being against the legalisation of it, but take it as me pointing out that most of you are fucking awful debaters.[/QUOTE] Perhaps you should read the thread for my stance / counter evidence to support my "claim" I never denied the fact smoking anything has some degree of a negative health effect, because that would be fucking retarded.

[QUOTE=redBadger;36258715]Still pathetic people in my book.[/QUOTE] I am number 2 in my class, which has about 300 kids. With a 102.8 GPA (on the scale from 0-105) and I OCCASIONALLY smoke some Kush (best cannabis out there, more expensive) Marijuana has not killed anyone, nor given anyone lung cancer. So, your ignorance is pathetic in my book.

[QUOTE=redBadger;36258715]Still pathetic people in my book.[/QUOTE] nobody cares about "your" book.

[QUOTE=SmashBrosFan11;36276062]I am number 2 in my class, which has about 300 kids. With a 103.8 GPA (on the scale from 0-105) and I OCCASIONALLY smoke some Kush (best cannabis out there, more expensive) Marijuana has not killed anyone, nor given anyone lung cancer. So, your ignorance is pathetic in my book.[/QUOTE] Source

[QUOTE=SmashBrosFan11;36276062]Marijuana has not killed anyone[/QUOTE] [citation needed]

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36276092][citation needed][/QUOTE] [url]http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20030918/marijuana-smoking-doesnt-kill[/url]

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36276092][citation needed][/QUOTE] Claiming marijuana has still requires a citation. So neither side wins until one of them proves it? Also it's easier to provide a source on death rather than on no deaths

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36260191]I suppose you also don't drink and don't have sex? What a role citizen you are.[/QUOTE] How is having sex comparable to that..

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36276133]Claiming marijuana has still requires a citation. So neither side wins until one of them proves it? Also it's easier to provide a source on death rather than on no deaths[/QUOTE] I don't think they've claimed it has killed anyone outright. Again, this is why most of you on the pro side have bad debating skills. If you make a claim such as "It hasn't killed anyone" or "it doesn't cause cancer", then you are the one with the burden of proof. Not the people who are asking you for a source. Asking for a source isn't instantly saying "I think you're wrong", it's saying "You claimed something, how did you come to this conclusion". And as I mentioned Delta, just because you posted a source earlier doesn't mean you should exclude if from later posts, either mention you posted it earlier, or directly cite it before someone has the chance to say "source pls".

[QUOTE=Delta616;36263312]Butane (lighter fluid) Methane (Sewer gas) Arsenic (Rat poison) Ammonia (Toilet Cleaner) Carbon Monoxide Methenal (jet fuel) Cadmum (Battery Acid) That is just a few of the 4000+ poisons in cigarettes that I can think of off the top of my head.[/QUOTE] You don't smoke all that, that's fucking BS. Chemical used in production doesn't mean you are going to get that chemical smokeable in final product. And 4 thousand? That's some BS.

[QUOTE=Delta616;36276116][url]http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20030918/marijuana-smoking-doesnt-kill[/url][/QUOTE] All that says is that a typical user does not smoke enough for it to affect their life expectancy, it doesn't in any way prove that no one has ever died of a condition caused by smoking weed.