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

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36276083]Source[/QUOTE] I meant 102.8 GPA [img]http://screensnapr.com/e/Jjgghe.jpg[/img] I am a upcoming sophomore, and that is my end-of-year final averages for those classes. PREAP is the pre-requisite of AP (Advance placement) Which are the most advanced classes you can take as a freshman.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36276285]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.[/QUOTE] not even the strongest of anti-pot movements make the claim that marijuana kills people. I don't know what has given you the idea that people die from it.

[QUOTE=skynrdfan3;36276500]not even the strongest of anti-pot movements make the claim that marijuana kills people. I don't know what has given you the idea that people die from it.[/QUOTE] Never have I claimed that marijuana kills people, smoking it however can kill you.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36276538]Never have I claimed that marijuana kills people, smoking it however can kill you.[/QUOTE] can you find a case of this happening?

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36276538]Never have I claimed that marijuana kills people, smoking it however can kill you.[/QUOTE] Yes if the smoke causes fire and your house down or it fills the room and leaves no oxygen left or other shenanigans, then sure. But smoking it, alone, nothing else, just marijuana and rolling paper, or marijuana in a bong [B]can not kill you.[/B] Post your source if you are so convinced that it can. A legitimate source.

[QUOTE=skynrdfan3;36276692]can you find a case of this happening?[/QUOTE] Smoking anything will not directly kill you (in normal circumstances), but it can cause and bring forward various things that will kill you (various lung diseases mostly). This is quite common knowledge. Having smoke in your lungs (shit, anything in your lungs really) isn't going to be good for them. Especially considering they are only really meant to process gases, not the matter found in smoke.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;36276732]Smoking anything will not directly kill you (in normal circumstances), but it can cause and bring forward various things that will kill you (various lung diseases mostly). This is quite common knowledge. Having smoke in your lungs (shit, anything in your lungs really) isn't going to be good for them. Especially considering they are only really meant to process gases, not the matter found in smoke.[/QUOTE] Can you name one of these diseases/conditions pot indirectly causes? People attribute lung cancer and scarred lungs to tobacco smoking because it directly causes that by killing cilia and leaving tissue open for infection. To my knowledge nobody has discovered pot having any of these effects, or similar. Not to say it has no negative effects at all on the lungs (i have some extra phlegm in my throat) but life threatening or life altering? Doubtful. In fact it's a bronchiodilator and can be used to slow some cancers.

[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] I kinda did post a source of counter evidence just a few posts up on the same page Here:[url]http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/01/11/marijuana-not-bad-your-lungs[/url]

[QUOTE=hexpunK;36276181] 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] Why would I waste my time and the time of others and posts stuff that have already been posted in the thread?

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36263112]Never said it wasn't. But you have to be outright delusional to say smoking weed is better than smoking cigarettes.[/QUOTE] Please see my post earlier outlining all ~500 chemicals that are in cigarettes, some of which are used to clean cars and preserve foods.

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36278990]Please see my post earlier outlining all ~500 chemicals that are in cigarettes, some of which are used to clean cars and preserve foods.[/QUOTE] you mean that list of chemicals which you provided no citation for [editline]1[/editline] even if you did provide a proper source you probably wouldn't even understand what it means or what purpose the chemicals serve

[QUOTE=Sanius;36279131]you mean that list of chemicals which you provided no citation for [editline]1[/editline] even if you did provide a proper source you probably wouldn't even understand what it means or what purpose the chemicals serve[/QUOTE] You are an idiot. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Sanius;36279131]you mean that list of chemicals which you provided no citation for [editline]1[/editline] even if you did provide a proper source you probably wouldn't even understand what it means or what purpose the chemicals serve[/QUOTE] Oh my fucking god You are wrong, just [B][I][U]admit[/U][/I][/B] it already. I provided a source and other people provided even MORE sources that had government-backed info.

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36279959]Oh my fucking god You are wrong, just [B][I][U]admit[/U][/I][/B] it already. I provided a source and other people provided even MORE sources that had government-backed info.[/QUOTE] wrong about what? also you haven't posted any links in this thread. people have provided sources for your claims which so far have all been unreliable and clearly biased

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36279959]Oh my fucking god You are wrong, just [B][I][U]admit[/U][/I][/B] it already. I provided a source and other people provided even MORE sources that had government-backed info.[/QUOTE] slow the fuck down and take a moment to realize what sanius is actually asking what sanius is asking is pretty much standard in any college or vocational school english classroom hes just asking you to provide a proper citation to go with the material you found jesus christ dude

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36258580]Everyone? Weed doesn't burn that well afaik. [url]http://weedfarmer.com/joint_rolling/mix/mix.htm[/url][/QUOTE] Are you fucking stupid?! I've lit hundreds of pipes and the herbs lit up just fine. People blend tobacco in their weed because they either don't like the taste of it or they need more fill in the pipe or joint they are about to enjoy.

[QUOTE=Sanius;36279131]you mean that list of chemicals which you provided no citation for [editline]1[/editline] even if you did provide a proper source you probably wouldn't even understand what it means or what purpose the chemicals serve[/QUOTE] Still ignoring the posts that contradict yours. Gg

[QUOTE=BigOwl;36280437]Still ignoring the posts that contradict yours. Gg[/QUOTE] what contradictory fantasy "posts" are you referring to

i like smoking cigs and weed because i enjoy both (for different reasons). I enjoy smoking in general but it's not healthy, especially cigs, and i won't be smoking those all my life. i dont know why people are so vehemently against cigarettes. why do u care so much what people do with their own bodies

Generally its because they are nosey busybodies who think their personal views and preference should be imposed upon others through authoritarian means such as legislation.

Weed's cool because it kills cancer a significant amount.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;36282576] i dont know why people are so vehemently against cigarettes. why do u care so much what people do with their own bodies[/QUOTE] Because they care about our (smokers') health! And about these innocent people around us that are 'forced' to breathe smoke. And also politicians want publicity, but that's not really a main reason oh fuck it, it is!

[QUOTE=Conscript;36277401]Can you name one of these diseases/conditions pot indirectly causes? People attribute lung cancer and scarred lungs to tobacco smoking because it directly causes that by killing cilia and leaving tissue open for infection. To my knowledge nobody has discovered pot having any of these effects, or similar. Not to say it has no negative effects at all on the lungs [B](i have some extra phlegm in my throat)[/B] but life threatening or life altering? Doubtful. In fact it's a bronchiodilator and can be used to slow some cancers.[/QUOTE]You do realise that's the first sign of cilia damage?

[QUOTE=Ownederd;36280616]what contradictory fantasy "posts" are you referring to[/QUOTE] read the thread and try again.

[QUOTE=BigOwl;36297141]read the thread and try again.[/QUOTE] all i'm reading is what i learned from my community college/vocational school english class again about citation? lmfao

[QUOTE=BigOwl;36297141]read the thread and try again.[/QUOTE] A+ arguing right here, folks. This is how you defend your credibility. "I haven't seen any sources that lend credibility to your argument, which holds the burden of proof." "Nah I've posted them here." "Oh, well, could you link them to me again?" "Nah go find them yourself." That's not how you argue. Regardless of how right you think you are or wrong you think your opponent is, and regardless of who has the burden of proof, when someone requests for you to post (or repost) your citations, you don't say "go find them yourself." [b]You post them.[/b] It's only common courtesy. Besides, you've already "posted them once" (by the way, I've yet to see a single credible source for [b]either[/b] side of this damn debate regarding the "hundreds or thousands" of chemicals in cigarettes), so how difficult is it for you to just post them again? By actively avoiding the request, you're not helping your case at all. He never saw your sources, I never saw your sources, and you refuse to post them again. All this is not lending toward your credibility. At all.

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;36297345]A+ arguing right here, folks. This is how you defend your credibility. "I haven't seen any sources that lend credibility to your argument, which holds the burden of proof." "Nah I've posted them here." "Oh, well, could you link them to me again?" "Nah go find them yourself." That's not how you argue. Regardless of how right you think you are or wrong you think your opponent is, and regardless of who has the burden of proof, when someone requests for you to post (or repost) your citations, you don't say "go find them yourself." [b]You post them.[/b] It's only common courtesy. Besides, you've already "posted them once" (by the way, I've yet to see a single credible source for [b]either[/b] side of this damn debate regarding the "hundreds or thousands" of chemicals in cigarettes), so how difficult is it for you to just post them again? By actively avoiding the request, you're not helping your case at all. He never saw your sources, I never saw your sources, and you refuse to post them again. All this is not lending toward your credibility. At all.[/QUOTE] I already posted them a few pages back. [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1189530&p=36268574&viewfull=1#post36268574[/url] Read the thread for real this time, and try once more. I'm not telling you to go find them yourself, very tact paraphrasing there though, I'm simply suggesting you read the thread before attempting to debate. Bottom line is you didn't read the thread, because if you had, you would have seen the sources. I posted them again just fine, but I can see laziness is just one of your many strong suits. Regardless of how many chemicals are in cigarettes. they're still very fucking bad for you, I don't care if you smoke them, just that you don't live in denial. Thread is over.

[QUOTE=BigOwl;36304963]I already posted them a few pages back. [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1189530&p=36268574&viewfull=1#post36268574[/url] Read the thread for real this time, and try once more. I'm not telling you to go find them yourself, very tact paraphrasing there though, I'm simply suggesting you read the thread before attempting to debate. Bottom line is you didn't read the thread, because if you had, you would have seen the sources. I posted them again just fine, but I can see laziness is just one of your many strong suits. Regardless of how many chemicals are in cigarettes. they're still very fucking bad for you, I don't care if you smoke them, just that you don't live in denial. Thread is over.[/QUOTE] yea, but then you claim a false victory for whatever trivial reason with "thread is over", and you bury your reliable sources with unwarranted retorts that are, at best, insulting and to put yourself above the person you are addressing they were simply asking for professional sources and you made it more needlessly complex than it needs to be l o l

[QUOTE=Ownederd;36305783]yea, but then you claim a false victory for whatever trivial reason with "thread is over", and you bury your reliable sources with unwarranted retorts that are, at best, insulting and to put yourself above the person you are addressing they were simply asking for professional sources and you made it more needlessly complex than it needs to be l o l[/QUOTE] implying I started the argument. for fucks sakes read the thread and get your head out of your ass.

BigOwl you are wrong. You never had any citations in the first place, you have just been farting out false statements from the start.