"War on Drugs"

Quote from Maverick74:

Yes I agree with that. Pot smokers tend to smoke substantially less then tobacco smokers which does minimize the dangers.

Marijuana smoke contains more tar, carbon monoxide and known cancer causing agents than tobacco. Marijuana is especially harmful to the lungs because users often inhale the unfiltered smoke deeply and hold it in their lungs as long as possible. Since the smoke is in contact with lung tissue for long periods of time, the lungs become more irritated and damaged than when smoking tobacco. Scientists know that tobacco causes lung cancer. One joint of pot deposits 11 times the amount of tar and 5 times as much carbon monoxide as a cigarette does. Many pot smokers also smoke tobacco. That is double trouble for their lungs.

From the studies which have been conducted, we know that incidents of cancer from cigarette smoking are far more numerous than cancers from smoking pot, at least in part because more people smoke cigarettes. Also, even frequent marijuana users consume less than heavy cigarette smokers. But like I said earlier, marijuana smokers do tend to inhale more deeply and keep the smoke in their lungs for a longer period than tobacco smokers. It is possible that these behaviors increase the lung's exposure to the chemical by-products of smoking. Burning marijuana for smoking releases many substances other than THC, the ingredient which produces the drug's psychoactive effects. THC does not appear to be carcinogenic, but some of the other chemicals released by both marijuana and tobacco smoke are problematic. These include tar, carbon monoxide, and cyanide. One known carcinogen, benzopyrene, though found in both types of smoke, seems to be greater in pot smoke.

Anyway, I don't want this to turn into should you smoke pot or not, I don't care if you do, or if you eat fried foods, or down a fifth of Jack Daniels every night. It's your choice and you live with it. But like I said, it would destroy the healthcare system in this country and that is how it relates to me and most everyone else. And that is very problematic.

i also saw a study by NORML - showed that any device (bong/vaporizer/filtered joint) used to clean out the tar/toxins actually cleaned out more THC - thus you had to smoke more to get the same amount of THC into you with a worse ratio of thc/tar.

so if everyone would eat it instead.. but that might cause other issues.

but this whole healthcare thing - should we start banning sports? fast cars? what about if you sleep around a lot and get HIV?
 
Quote from Virtuoso:

You could have at least provided the link to the site you just pulled that from...

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm and http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0598.html

"How does marijuana affect the lungs?
Scientists believe that marijuana can be especially harmful to the lungs because users often inhale the unfiltered smoke deeply and hold it in their lungs as long as possible. Therefore, the smoke is in contact with lung tissues for long periods of time, which irritates the lungs and damages the way they work."

So funny how you cut and paste and then fuck with the wording to make it seem like these theories about the effects of smoking marijuana are conclusive known fact... Was it really so hard to keep the Scientists believe part in there?

You really are a dildo man, lol.

Commisio, sorry I didn't provide the link. Why does that matter? I'm not the drug expert on here and I told you my only interest in this issue is a financial one, not a moral one. I don't care what you do to your body, how many times do I have to say that. I just don't care. I do care how it relates to my pocketbook, thats it. Why are you trying to make this into drugs are good or drugs are bad argument. I could care less. I don't care if you do blow, Oxy, crsytal meth, Ectasy, I just don't care. So put all this all bullshit aside. Like I said in my first post, if you are willing to sign off on health insurance and emergency room healthcare, then I will join you in your crusade. Fair enough?
 
Yup, Mav wants the government to closely watch and guard over us- for our own good, of course. Kind of like a nurturing nanny, or a protective <b>big brother</b>.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

Commisio, sorry I didn't provde the link. Why does that matter? I'm not the drug expert on here and I told you my only interest in this issue is a financial one, not a moral one. I don't care what you do to your body, how many times do I have to say that. I just don't care. I do care how it relates to my pocketbook, thats it. Why are you trying to make this into drugs are good or drugs are bad argument. I could care less. I don't care if you do blow, Oxy, crsytal meth, Ectasy, I just don't care. So put all this all bullshit aside. Like I said in my first post, if you are willing to sing off on health insurance and emergency room healthcare, then I will join you in your crusade. Fair enough?

I had no problem with you not providing the links, but if one were to go back and look at the passages you copied it is easy to see you left out key statements like, scientists believe, we think, etc to support your case and make them come accross as more conclusive/valid. Thats just cheesey bro.

And for the record I no longer smoke pot other than a few times a year, well under a dozen. The only reason I am even posting here is because I don't think the government shoud play mother and then make us pay for it. If these dumbfucks want to kill themselves then in a supposed free country they should be allowed. If our government is going to allow people to shove Krispy Kremes and Big Mac's into our fat fuck faces then they should definately let some working stiff come home from work and pull a few bong hits.

Your healthcare concerns are hollow, either come up with something more substantial or I suggest you play the cut and paste game on another thread. Dildo.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

Commisio, sorry I didn't provide the link. Why does that matter? I'm not the drug expert on here and I told you my only interest in this issue is a financial one, not a moral one. I don't care what you do to your body, how many times do I have to say that. I just don't care. I do care how it relates to my pocketbook, thats it. Why are you trying to make this into drugs are good or drugs are bad argument. I could care less. I don't care if you do blow, Oxy, crsytal meth, Ectasy, I just don't care. So put all this all bullshit aside. Like I said in my first post, if you are willing to sign off on health insurance and emergency room healthcare, then I will join you in your crusade. Fair enough?

Sounds ok, but i have no idea why you think dangerous drug abuse would increase in the slightest bit with the ending of prohibition.
 
Quote from Rearden Metal:

Yup, Mav wants the government to closely watch and guard over us- for our own good, of course. Kind of like a nurturing nanny, or a protective <b>big brother</b>.

Dude, where do you even get that shit from? I'm saying the exact opposite of that. I am saying I want you out of the system so gov't cannot watch you and guard you. Dude, put the freaking bowl down for a sec any type a coherent post. I want you to be completely on your own as it pertains to drugs. That means no gov't intervention at all. But I don't want you having access to emergency room healthcare and I want you to pay substantially higher premiums, not premiums that get averaged into mine so my healthcare costs double. Do you get it now? Jeez man, you guys are so freaking defensive over this. This is not a morality issue to me. I'm not saying that again.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

This is not a morality

Well its not a morality issue for me either. It's an issue of liberty and mans basic rights to do one thing becuase it is beneficial to the gov (smoke cigs) but not another (smoke weed) because its not. Its fucked up.
 
Quote from Virtuoso:

I had no problem with you not providing the links, but if one were to go back and look at the passages you copied it is easy to see you left out key statements like, scientists believe, we think, etc to support your case and make them come across as more conclusive/valid. Thats just cheesey bro.

And for the record I no longer smoke pot other than a few times a year, well under a dozen. The only reason I am even posting here is because I don't think the government should play mother and then make us pay for it. If these dumbfucks want to kill themselves then in a supposed free country they should be allowed. If our government is going to allow people to shove Krispy Kremes and Big Mac's into our fat fuck faces then they should definitely let some working stiff come home from work and pull a few bong hits.

Your healthcare concerns are hollow, either come up with something more substantial or I suggest you play the cut and paste game on another thread. Dildo.

Well as God as my witness, it was not my intention to leave out any specific parts, come on man, give me a break. I was in a hurry and did a sloppy job with it. I didn't know I had big brother editing my posts for me jeez.

But yes, I do agree with you that we need to allow individuals who choose to live dangerous lifestyles, to pay higher premiums, including those who are addicted to big macs instead of heroin. Same thing as far as I'm concerned. However Joe, as you know that would not be politically popular as its the poor and minorities in this country who have the greatest problem with living healthy and raising the cost of insurance on the poor is not going to fly with either political party.

I'm sure you understand this. So don't tell me my insurance argument is a hollow one, it is not, it's a reality. But why are you refusing to answer my first post. I never said you smoked pot a lot, I never called you a stoner, I simply asked you if you would be willing to sign off on free emergency room healthcare and if you would be willing to pay insurance premiums independent of mine? That's it? Why are you not answering this question? You don't need to attack me and my copy and pasting, just answer the freaking question, it's an honest question and I don't know the answer to it. I am very curious if for the freedom of smoking pot, would you be willing to pay a certain price, yes or no. That's it.
 
Quote from Virtuoso:

Well its not a morality issue for me either. It's an issue of liberty and mans basic rights to do one thing because it is beneficial to the gov (smoke cigs) but not another (smoke weed) because its not. Its fucked up.

Actually, I don't think the gov't endorses tobacco smoking. It's the biggest tax on the poor we have in this country. I disagree with your assertation.
 
Quote from Maverick74:


I'm sure you understand this. So don't tell me my insurance argument is a hollow one, it is not, it's a reality. But why are you refusing to answer my first post. I never said you smoked pot a lot, I never called you a stoner, I simply asked you if you would be willing to sign off on free emergency room healthcare and if you would be willing to pay insurance premiums independent of mine? That's it? Why are you not answering this question? You don't need to attack me and my copy and pasting, just answer the freaking question, it's an honest question and I don't know the answer to it. I am very curious if for the freedom of smoking pot, would you be willing to pay a certain price, yes or no. That's it.

I didn't answer it because I simply cannot understand why you think they will skyrocket if marijuana is legalized. Do you think use will tripple overnight or something? Do you not think the insurance companies know that millions of people smoke pot now? I just don't understand where you are coming from...
 
Back
Top