By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Would you support Marijuana if everything else became illegal?

DD_Bwest on 06 September 2013
selnor1983 said:
DD_Bwest said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
 

Ok I get that now. Still, effectively there's still a far lower health risk since most people don't smoke that much seeing as that study didn't find many "extreme" users. But I see what you're saying. Now that I think about it, the use of roaches instead of filters in joints means you're inhaling more smoke than you would with a cig, so 1 joint could be the equivalent to a couple cigs or something in terms of carcinogens inhaled.

But don't you think that we would have some solid evidence on this by now? If it does in fact significantly increase the risk of lung cancer why wouldn't, for example, the DEA be all over this with conclusive proof?


Other factors are also not taken into account.  Not everyone smokes joints,  Some smoke bongs or pipes.  Bongs ofcourse filtering the smoke in the water.  But also that brings other elements into it.  Not all pipes and bongs are glass, some contain metals not just as the structure but also as a screen.  ontop of that with matches youll be inhaling extra sulfur, and lighters youll have what ever is left from the spent butane.

 

and man.. this talk about how much is considered "heavy" or "extreme" ...  im terrified to know what i would be concidered.


Hahaha. Me to.


i've been consistant 2 grams a day, for atleast 6 years.. it was even more before but lets not get into that lol



I am Torgo, I take care of the place while the master is away.

"Hes the clown that makes the dark side fun.. Torgo!"

Ha.. i won my bet, but i wasnt around to gloat because im on a better forum!  See ya guys on Viz

Around the Network
selnor1983 on 06 September 2013
DD_Bwest said:
selnor1983 said:
DD_Bwest said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
 

Ok I get that now. Still, effectively there's still a far lower health risk since most people don't smoke that much seeing as that study didn't find many "extreme" users. But I see what you're saying. Now that I think about it, the use of roaches instead of filters in joints means you're inhaling more smoke than you would with a cig, so 1 joint could be the equivalent to a couple cigs or something in terms of carcinogens inhaled.

But don't you think that we would have some solid evidence on this by now? If it does in fact significantly increase the risk of lung cancer why wouldn't, for example, the DEA be all over this with conclusive proof?


Other factors are also not taken into account.  Not everyone smokes joints,  Some smoke bongs or pipes.  Bongs ofcourse filtering the smoke in the water.  But also that brings other elements into it.  Not all pipes and bongs are glass, some contain metals not just as the structure but also as a screen.  ontop of that with matches youll be inhaling extra sulfur, and lighters youll have what ever is left from the spent butane.

 

and man.. this talk about how much is considered "heavy" or "extreme" ...  im terrified to know what i would be concidered.


Hahaha. Me to.


i've been consistant 2 grams a day, for atleast 6 years.. it was even more before but lets not get into that lol

Im probably around 1 - 2 as well. EEEKKK. :)



Kane1389 on 09 September 2013
Kasz216 said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
 

Ok I get that now. Still, effectively there's still a far lower health risk since most people don't smoke that much seeing as that study didn't find many "extreme" users. But I see what you're saying. Now that I think about it, the use of roaches instead of filters in joints means you're inhaling more smoke than you would with a cig, so 1 joint could be the equivalent to a couple cigs or something in terms of carcinogens inhaled.

But don't you think that we would have some solid evidence on this by now? If it does in fact significantly increase the risk of lung cancer why wouldn't, for example, the DEA be all over this with conclusive proof? 

 

The "Gateway" drug arguement... while a bs correlation vs causation trick, is a much better arguement... as far as convincing people anyway.


Thank you !



Kasz216 on 10 September 2013
Kane1389 said:
Kasz216 said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
 

Ok I get that now. Still, effectively there's still a far lower health risk since most people don't smoke that much seeing as that study didn't find many "extreme" users. But I see what you're saying. Now that I think about it, the use of roaches instead of filters in joints means you're inhaling more smoke than you would with a cig, so 1 joint could be the equivalent to a couple cigs or something in terms of carcinogens inhaled.

But don't you think that we would have some solid evidence on this by now? If it does in fact significantly increase the risk of lung cancer why wouldn't, for example, the DEA be all over this with conclusive proof? 

 

The "Gateway" drug arguement... while a bs correlation vs causation trick, is a much better arguement... as far as convincing people anyway.


Thank you !


I don't say i actually support that it's a gateway drug.  It just makes a better arguement.   People who drink are more likely to do hard drugs as well.  It's no surprise people who want to get fucked up one way, want to do it another way.... and they start with the easier ways of doing so.