For you smokers of Mary Jane there has been

[theking]

...a new study (I think the news said it was in New Zealand but it may have been the Netherlands) that claims smoking one joint is equivalent to smoking 20 cigarettes...because of the carcinogens contained in the MJ. Anyone familiar with this study?

[Wolfy]

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/co...cer_Ris k.asp

[st0ned]

Yeah what a joke. Even if it's true, ima keep blazing.

[theking]

Originally Posted by Wolfy

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/co...cer_Ris k.asp

Well...that is not the newest study but non the less is one that I had not seen before. According to the new study...as I stated...the claim is that smoking a single joint is equivalent to smoklng 20 cigs.

[BlackCrayon]

Thats nothing new. I remember in grade 6 the anti drug program that came to our school said smoking one joint was equal to smoking a pack of cigs. There are many studies that say one thing or other for both sides. Who knows. One study i found interesting was that people who smoked both weed and cigs were less likely to get lung cancer than those who only smoked cigs.

[cool1]

car exhaust has tons of carcinogens.
so people should stop driving thier cars.

[WarChild]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0526083353.htm

And yet the largest study to date shows no link at all between marijuana use, even heavy use, and cancer.

[theking]

Originally Posted by WarChild

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0526083353.htm

And yet the largest study to date shows no link at all between marijuana use, even heavy use, and cancer.

If you do not know about the latest study how do you know that the 2006 results was the largest study and what the results are? I repeat is anyone familiar with the lastest study?

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by theking

If you do not know about the latest study how do you know that the 2006 results was the largest study and what the results are? I repeat is anyone familiar with the lastest study?

Yes, we already discussed it here last week. I am familiar with the new study from NZ, but the 2006 study was larger I believe.

[Spunky]

We all gotta die sometime,time to twist one up

[theking]

Originally Posted by WarChild

Yes, we already discussed it here last week. I am familiar with the new study from NZ, but the 2006 study was larger I believe.

Can you provide me with a link to the thread where it was discussed?

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by theking

Can you provide me with a link to the thread where it was discussed?

I honestly don't remember. I posted in it and it should be pretty obvious from the title. Do a search on my username.

[StuartD]

nope, never heard of it.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=803461

[WarChild]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Cp2Ntjridp0

[nico-t]

theking is a retard

[theking]

Originally Posted by nico-t

theking is a retard

And you are a stinking piece of shit...please flush.

[theking]

No matter what study says what...it simply cannot be healthy to inhale smoke into ones lungs...and if done on a daily basis it must have some kind of consequences in the long run.

[StuartD]

Originally Posted by theking

No matter what study says what...it simply cannot be healthy to inhale smoke into ones lungs...and if done on a daily basis it must have some kind of consequences in the long run.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

In short umm its not true.

No additives are added to Budz unlike almost any smoke off the counter.
What ya have read there my friend is pure propaganda.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

From the artical in small print at the bottom...

"The authors conclude large studies are needed to further examine the relationship between marijuana and increased risk of cancer."

What these clowns did was study 176 Cancer patients that already had Cancer...

Fucken morons.

[SayWhut]

Carcinogens my hairy scrotems. Did they measure the release of tetrahydrocannabinol in with the smoke? No. Bull shit propaganda so the sour crates can keep it illegal.

[TSGlider]

That one's been a bullet point in drug war propaganda for decades. The logic, back then at least, was that because you held the smoke in longer, it had a more profound effect on your lungs than tobacco. A bit of a leap in my opinion.

I don't, however, think the additives in cigarettes make them more dangerous...just more addictive.

The big difference is in the plants themselves.

Tobacco creates a dense, gummy, smoke. That's why smoke rings are better with tobacco. That's why the smell of a cigarette lingers a lot longer than a joint and that's probably why, in an apples to apples comparison, a Marlboro's worse on the lungs.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

I am waiting for a study that says...

"Living may just cause death!
Thats right the mere act of being born guarantee's a death at one point or another. Statistic prove that with each breath you take each day seals the individual fate to eventual death.
This study was performed by Miskatonic University Professor's whom concluded that merely living on the planet will lead to eventual death.
However all the professor's concluded that this will require larger studies for definitive answer as to why this happens to all livng beings. Pharmacy Companies and other interest groups please contact PHD Dr. GivemeFunding at Miskatonic University."

[woj]

As long as you don't smoke it daily you should be fine

[woj]

And without seeing original study results, one can't really draw conclusions... If for example, chance of getting cancer for non smoker is 1 in a million, and chance of getting cancer for a pot smoker is 1.2 in a million...The media would call it "20% more likely to get cancer"... That sounds dramatic, but come on, you would have pretty damn bad luck to get a disease that happens to 1.2 in a million people... and if the study was done on only 100 people, the results are pretty worthless anyway....

[rip raster]

Many of the harmful effects of smoking tobacco are not directly related to the tobacco itself but rather from many of the additives that are used in the production of a package of cigarettes. There are more than 500 additives used by the major tobacco companies for everything from keeping the cigarettes fresh to flavour, to even burning etc. Many of these additives on their own are also not extremely harmful but when burned produce a carcinogenic smoke.

So here's the thing, marijuana does not contain any of these additives. I am not saying that there are no adverse affects to smoking pot or tobacco either, but really what doesn't have it's risks these days? There will always be those advocating one thing or another and there will be those opposing them. People really have to make a personal decision based on all the information that they can get.

[sicone]

Welcome to the 80's

[digifan]

Cannabis bigger cancer risk than cigarettes: study

Tue Jan 29, 4:44 AM ET

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Smoking a joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer risk, scientists in New Zealand have found, as they warned of an "epidemic" of lung cancers linked to cannabis.

Studies in the past have demonstrated that cannabis can cause cancer, but few have established a strong link between cannabis use and the actual incidence of lung cancer.

In an article published in the European Respiratory Journal, the scientists said cannabis could be expected to harm the airways more than tobacco as its smoke contained twice the level of carcinogens, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, compared with tobacco cigarettes.

The method of smoking also increases the risk, since joints are typically smoked without a proper filter and almost to the very tip, which increases the amount of smoke inhaled. The cannabis smoker inhales more deeply and for longer, facilitating the deposition of carcinogens in the airways.

"Cannabis smokers end up with five times more carbon monoxide in their bloodstream (than tobacco smokers)," team leader Richard Beasley, at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, said in a telephone interview.

"There are higher concentrations of carcinogens in cannabis smoke ... what is intriguing to us is there is so little work done on cannabis when there is so much done on tobacco."

The researchers interviewed 79 lung cancer patients and sought to identify the main risk factors for the disease, such as smoking, family history and occupation. The patients were questioned about alcohol and cannabis consumption.

In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking.

"While our study covers a relatively small group, it shows clearly that long-term cannabis smoking increases lung cancer risk," wrote Beaseley.

"Cannabis use could already be responsible for one in 20 lung cancers diagnosed in New Zealand," he added.

"In the near future we may see an 'epidemic' of lung cancers connected with this new carcinogen. And the future risk probably applies to many other countries, where increasing use of cannabis among young adults and adolescents is becoming a major public health problem."

(Reporting by Tan Ee Lyn; Editing by Alex Richardson)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080129/..._cannabis_dc_2

[nico-t]

theking is a retard

[WarChild]

I smoke quite a bit of weed. It's not unusual to wake up, smoke 2 or 3 joints and then go for my morning run. 12KM a day, 6 days a week.

I have Asthma, although it doesn't act up much as an adult, but even still I smoke weed like a chimney and I have a lung capacity well above most average people. I train up to 4 hours in a single day and never have breathing problems.

On the flip side, when I used to smoke cigarettes I had constant problems with my Asthma, couldn't do any kind of exercising without winding fast, etc etc.

So from personal observations, weed is much less harsh on at least my lungs.

[Darkland]

It all comes down to what you choose to believe. I sometimes scoff at these studies because most times you have no idea who provided the funding and why? Whether we want to believe it or not, researchers enter into experimental testing with an already preconcieved and sometimes biased notion of what they BELIEVE they will find or what they WANT to find. They literally enter into the research looking for an expected result. In this way they disregard all data that may not line up with the focus of the study. True objective research is impossible if your looking for only one outcome or they may have an agenda based on their backers.

What IS proven is that no case of lung cancer has EVER been connected with marijuana use or any other life threatening condition. I have never heard of one case where smoking pot has been the primary cause of death.

As a matter of fact there have been studies that actually showed that smoking marijuana may actually arrest the cancer if already present. Read this report which claims the opposite of what you are saying.

This one is about breast cancer:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312132,00.html

In reference to Lung Cancer:
http://www.healthrelatedinfos.com/20...ng-cancer.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052501729.html

It doesn't take much logic to see that there is this bizarre war on marijuana that basically has no value at all. I see far more commercials on the dangers of pot and how it damages your life than other drugs AND alcohol which have 100 times more health risks than pot. This is utter bullshit. It is not addictive but the PSA commercials would have you think otherwise. They also want people to believe it ruins lives. It may, but only for those people who already either have underlying mental and social problems and those with addictive personalities who could get addicted to anything.

Why don't we see any or more PSA's on the real drugs with damaging and addictive outcomes. Drugs like Meth, Heroin, Crack, Alcohol, Huffing, the list could go on forever.

Haven't you ever asked yourself why Law Enforcment spend more money every year on trying to eradict marijuana than any other drug out there. It's all propaganda and people eat it up. If you don't believe disinformation goes on in the US you are blind.

Do a search on any of what I said and you would be surprised what you find.

[Holly]

Originally Posted by WarChild

I smoke quite a bit of weed. It's not unusual to wake up, smoke 2 or 3 joints and then go for my morning run. 12KM a day, 6 days a week.

I have Asthma, although it doesn't act up much as an adult, but even still I smoke weed like a chimney and I have a lung capacity well above most average people. I train up to 4 hours in a single day and never have breathing problems.

On the flip side, when I used to smoke cigarettes I had constant problems with my Asthma, couldn't do any kind of exercising without winding fast, etc etc.

So from personal observations, weed is much less harsh on at least my lungs.

[Peter Romero]

My Mom told me that when I was 15 years old in 1980.

[DigitalDruid]

Originally Posted by sicone

Welcome to the 80's

[moneybiz]

marijuana also shrinks causes your lungs to shrink.

[Porn Farmer]

Originally Posted by moneybiz

marijuana also shrinks causes your lungs to shrink.

Are you stoned... or just retarded?

[moneybiz]

yea that came out wrong. A friend of mine from Canada smoked weed every day for like 8 years of his life and started to have breathing problems, the doc said his lungs were shrinking from smoking too much weed because of the tar hardening on his lungs.

[Bojangles]

Does it matter? People will do whatever they want.

[sltr]

The researchers interviewed 79 lung cancer patients

[Basic_man]

My mom used to tell me that 5 years ago.. there's nothing new!

[C_U_Next_Tuesday]

joints?..yuk, I like my cannibis paper free.

[viencarl]

may be they are right but i really love to smoke!!!!!!