Join the pack to be a non-smoker

[FourTwenty]

Check out this link...

http://washington-drug-defense.com/REEFER_MAD...

It really explains how and why marijuana has such a bad rap all these years.
DuPont had a lot to do with getting rid of hemp and also changing peoples view on it. Suddenly it became evil and useless.
Well the article says better than me.

And I totally agree with you..letus all get along and be excepting of each other and give each other space and not be judgemental.

[Free_America]

FourTwenty wrote:

Check out this link...
http://washington-drug-defense.com/REEFER_MAD...
It really explains how and why marijuana has such a bad rap all these years.
DuPont had a lot to do with getting rid of hemp and also changing peoples view on it. Suddenly it became evil and useless.
Well the article says better than me.
And I totally agree with you..letus all get along and be excepting of each other and give each other space and not be judgemental.

You won't get much argument from most of us. The problem is many of your 420 friends think that your smoke of choice is some benign herb when the fact is that when you burn any organic you get most of the same carcinogens that are in tobacco, so all of the things you described in your first post apply to smoking anything. We can all get along as long as we don't demand everyone conform to our expectations.

[Sheri]

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>You won't get much argument from most of us. The problem is many of your 420 friends think that your smoke of choice is some benign herb when the fact is that when you burn any organic you get most of the same carcinogens that are in tobacco, so all of the things you described in your first post apply to smoking anything. We can all get along as long as we don't demand everyone conform to our expectations.

http://burningissues.org/car-www/pdfs/WoodSmo... or this
http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/candles.html
or especially this one,
Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers
ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2008)— A new study finds that the development of bullous lung disease occurs in marijuana smokers approximately 20 years earlier than tobacco smokers.

----------
A condition often caused by exposure to toxic chemicals or long-term exposure to tobacco smoke, bullous lung disease (also known as bullae) is a condition where air trapped in the lungs causes obstruction to breathing and eventual destruction of the lungs.

At present, about 10% of young adults and 1% of the adult population smoke marijuana regularly. Researchers find that the mean age of marijuana-smoking patients with lung problems was 41, as opposed to the average age of 65 years for tobacco-smoking patients.

The study "Bullous Lung Disease due to Marijuana" also finds that the bullous lung disease can easily go undetected as patients suffering from the disease may show normal chest X-rays and lung functions. High-resolution CT scans revealed severe asymmetrical, variably sized bullae in the patients studied. However, chest X-rays and lung functions were normal in half of them.

Lead author Dr. Matthew Naughton says, "What is outstanding about this study is the relatively young ages of the lung disease patients, as well as the lack of abnormality on chest X-rays and lung functions in nearly half of the patients we tested."

He added, "Marijuana is inhaled as extremely hot fumes to the peak inspiration and held for as long as possible before slow exhalation. This predisposes to greater damage to the lungs and makes marijuana smokers are more prone to bullous disease as compared to cigarette smokers."

Patients who smoke marijuana inhale more and hold their breath four times longer than cigarette smokers. It is the breathing manoeuvres of marijuana smokers that serve to increase the concentration and pulmonary deposition of inhaled particulate matter – resulting in greater and more rapid lung destruction.

This paper is published in the January 2008 issue of Respirology.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/...

[FourTwenty]

This link is from a more reputable source.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

There are a lot more studies out there that are published that are showing that the smoke from marijuana is not harmful in the way that you have depicted in your posting.
I go for regular check ups to my lung specialist and there are never any problems.
People who are smoking shit off the street and do not know what it is laced with or are smoking moldy weed, are subject to lung problems.
It is not the marijuana that is bad, it is how it is cured, dried and cut.
Pure and organic weed is a totally different story and there is no way that would make anyone sick.
So these studies are often done with street weed, not pure organic weed. They don't know enough about marijuana to know the difference. I know, I have been around these people who do these double blind studies and they really are in the dark.

At least Scientific American is a a know publication and well respected amongst the medical community.

[FourTwenty]

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>You won't get much argument from most of us. The problem is many of your 420 friends think that your smoke of choice is some benign herb when the fact is that when you burn any organic you get most of the same carcinogens that are in tobacco, so all of the things you described in your first post apply to smoking anything. We can all get along as long as we don't demand everyone conform to our expectations.

Totally not true!

[Sheri]

FourTwenty wrote:

This link is from a more reputable source.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
There are a lot more studies out there that are published that are showing that the smoke from marijuana is not harmful in the way that you have depicted in your posting.
I go for regular check ups to my lung specialist and there are never any problems.
People who are smoking shit off the street and do not know what it is laced with or are smoking moldy weed, are subject to lung problems.
It is not the marijuana that is bad, it is how it is cured, dried and cut.
Pure and organic weed is a totally different story and there is no way that would make anyone sick.
So these studies are often done with street weed, not pure organic weed. They don't know enough about marijuana to know the difference. I know, I have been around these people who do these double blind studies and they really are in the dark.
At least Scientific American is a a know publication and well respected amongst the medical community.

So, you believe that Scientific American is more resected than Respirology, one of several APSR publications, is a journal of international standing, publishing peer-reviewed articles of scientific excellence in clinical and experimental respiratory biology and disease and its related fields of research including allied health, thoracic surgery, internal medicine, immunology, intensive and critical care, epidemiology?
That's where the study was published. Smoke is smoke. Yours is no different from tobacco. Why marijuana smokers feel that they escape the risks is a sign of the effects of smoking weed. I could care less about your habit. The hypocrisy is what amazes me.

[Free_America]

FourTwenty wrote:

<quoted text>
Totally not true!

Ah yes it is. You are inhailing a burnt organic so you are inhaling the same CO2 and carbon monoxide that you claim in your original post. You show on study that claims that pot has no effect on lung cancer yet there are several more recent that say exactly the opposite.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/Addict...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090704/ap_on_re_...
The last link even shows at the end of the article that the guy who did the study that you showed recommended not smoking pot but getting it in other forms.

[stop smoking]

FourTwenty wrote:

This link is from a more reputable source.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
There are a lot more studies out there that are published that are showing that the smoke from marijuana is not harmful in the way that you have depicted in your posting.
I go for regular check ups to my lung specialist and there are never any problems.
People who are smoking shit off the street and do not know what it is laced with or are smoking moldy weed, are subject to lung problems.
It is not the marijuana that is bad, it is how it is cured, dried and cut.
Pure and organic weed is a totally different story and there is no way that would make anyone sick.
So these studies are often done with street weed, not pure organic weed. They don't know enough about marijuana to know the difference. I know, I have been around these people who do these double blind studies and they really are in the dark.
At least Scientific American is a a know publication and well respected amongst the medical community.

You really should read Sheri's article. It will tell you that many pot smokers with diseased lungs will have clean xrays. It is only through more intensive scans with higher resolution than xrays that the initial lung disease is found. Make no mistake about it, it will eventually destroy your lungs. In order to make an informed decision about your activities, you need to have the right information. Scientific American would not be the single source that I trust my life with.

[FourTwenty]

Whatever, I am not about to start convincing you all about pros of marijuana and that there are no documented cases of people dying of COPD or lung cancer from marijuana smoke.
You wanna argue this point, go ahead, I don't give a shit. I have the OK of my doctors and a license from the federal govt and everyone is 100% cool with me smoking my marijuana. My lungs are clear and healthy.
There is plenty of publications on the benefits of marijuana but a lot of them don't get removed from the internet, depending where you are.
There is still a big stigma around marijuana, like the movie, "REEFER MADNESS"
Marijuana is NOT addictive. That is a myth.
If it were that bad then there wouldn't be pot cafes all over this city!

[FourTwenty]

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>Ah yes it is. You are inhailing a burnt organic so you are inhaling the same CO2 and carbon monoxide that you claim in your original post. You show on study that claims that pot has no effect on lung cancer yet there are several more recent that say exactly the opposite.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/Addict...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090704/ap_on_re_...
It is carbon dioxide, not monoxide
The last link even shows at the end of the article that the guy who did the study that you showed recommended not smoking pot but getting it in other forms.

It is carbon DIOXIDE, not monoxide.

[Free_America]

FourTwenty wrote:

<quoted text>
It is carbon DIOXIDE, not monoxide.

Both are a byproduct of combustion.

[Free_America]

FourTwenty wrote:

<quoted text>
It is carbon DIOXIDE, not monoxide.

Plus if you look at my post I said CO2 and CO. CO2 is carbon dioxide.

[FourTwenty]

smart ass, carbon monoxide is CO
Carbon dioxide is CO2

Carbon dioxide is a waste product that leaves your body when you breathe out (exhale). If there is too much carbon dioxide in your body, you are going to feel tired and weak.

Extremely low doses of carbon monoxide - a dangerous gas found in car exhaust and produced by faulty heating equipment - may help ease symptoms of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), suggests a study by researchers at the University Medical Centre at Groningen in the Netherlands.

The study included 18 people who were given a low dose of carbon monoxide for two hours on four consecutive days. When the researchers checked the level of a certain type of immune cell linked to inflammation in lung mucus, they found it had decreased by about one third, on average, in the participants, BBC News reported. In addition, the volunteers' lungs seemed to become more resistant to the effects of an irritating chemical.
The study was published in New Scientist magazine. The Dutch team plans to conduct more studies with larger numbers of people.

One expert told BBC News he has serious concerns about the safety of this kind of treatment.

It is not all black and white....

[Ron]

I quit smoking years ago. I have a lot of friends on both sides of the smoking act. I can honestly say that I have never personally known anyone who has died from lung cancer. Have you? It seems odd to me that I don't when I know many who have died from breast and colon cancer.

Red Queen wrote:

<quoted text>
Then keep your smoke in your own homes so the rest of us can breathe. I don't give a shit if you die of lung cancer but I do care if myself or my family family members do.

[DR-M]

FourTwenty wrote:

Check out this link...
http://washington-drug-defense.com/REEFER_MAD...
It really explains how and why marijuana has such a bad rap all these years.
DuPont had a lot to do with getting rid of hemp and also changing peoples view on it. Suddenly it became evil and useless.
Well the article says better than me.
And I totally agree with you..letus all get along and be excepting of each other and give each other space and not be judgemental.

I agree 100%, i only wish the "anti" smoker on here and elsewhere would feel that way.