Refer to the facts!

Thanks soz!

I think marijuana's numbers would be higher if it were legal but still far under the numbers for tabacco.

I'd put it a little above alcohol.

0 Replies

I'm not so sure about that, although i don't imply that i can categorically contradict CdK. I lived in North Carolina until 1984. Early in 1984, i read in the the Raleigh paper that the state estimated that the value of the marijuana crop exceeded that of the tobacco crop in 1982. In 1982, more than 850,000,000 pounds of processed tobacco were produced in North Carolina--home of R. J. Reynolds. That speaks volumes about the relative value of reefer and tobacco as estimated by the descendants of generations of tobacco farmers.

I say this with acknowledgement that the value of legally produced marijuana would not approach the "street value" of a contraband item.

0 Replies

Oops, just realized you were speaking of addiction . . . never mind . . .

0 Replies

You had me wondering for a second. ;-)

0 Replies

Yeah, pot is not as valuable as the black market prices. But it is about three times so when compared to tobacco. What Im so irked about is the fact that alchol and tobacco are more physically harmfull and yet they are legal, while their less harmfull more palatable sister remains under prohibition! whats up with that?

0 Replies

bongstar420 wrote:

whats up with that?

Racism.

0 Replies

fishin. use of street value in todays world is an indicator of the volume of pot that is used. With decrim, pot would, of course fall in price, but the market would be assured just like alcohol.Production centers, agricultural investment, proicessing, marketing. It could supplant tobacco, well it could.

Bongstar-You have no evidence that pot is not as harmful as either tobacco or alcohol. An interesting side benefit of pot that is now being studied in detail, is the theory that prolonged use has a gradual effect in dulling cognitive and creativity

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Bongstar-You have no evidence that pot is not as harmful as either tobacco or alcohol. An interesting side benefit of pot that is now being studied in detail, is the theory that prolonged use has a gradual effect in dulling cognitive and creativity

Bongstar also has no evidence that Pluto does not have a race of one-eyed pot-heads.

The theory that long term marijuana use impairs cognitive abilities will probably have substantial validity.

Still, we already know that alcohol does this and worse.

I disagree with bongstar in that I believe tabacco is not as harmful as pot (though tabacco is more physically addictive).

But his claim that alcohol is more dangerous to health is bourne out by currently known facts and just about every study on the topic.

0 Replies

Its based solely on the fact that the sample population of pot smokers is not as well known, and further, the illnesses unique to pot (besides lung cancer just like tobacco) are not even studied. The entire comparitive scoring between alkcohol and pot is baseless until the data are equivalent..
BESIDES, bongstar was comparing pot to both smoking and alcohol.
The largest (statistically) danger related to alcohol is " trauma". at least the portion of event trauma that involves reflex could be quite similar for pot smokers/drivers. However,since smoking pot seems to surpress violence, that event trauma associated with fighting would, of course be less.

0 Replies

The evidence is the fact that there are no known health cases that can be attributed to only the use of marijuana.

If you have any way to access a case than Id like to know about it too.

0 Replies

0 Replies

no you are wrong bongstar. Post morts on pot smokers have revealed certain brain lesions that seem to be unique to pot smoking. Youd have to look intio the Jounal of the Academy of Forensic SCience. They publish at least one article a year about uses of pot and its associated lesions.
The fact that these lesions were not manifest in any sickness was because the patient was already dead of some other cause, like an event trauma (driving under the influence of pot).

You are a bit of a zealot in your "smoke weed" campaign. I think that you should spend some more quality time and explore the possible dark sides before you prosilatize .

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

no you are wrong bongstar. Post morts on pot smokers have revealed certain brain lesions that seem to be unique to pot smoking. Youd have to look intio the Jounal of the Academy of Forensic SCience. They publish at least one article a year about uses of pot and its associated lesions.
The fact that these lesions were not manifest in any sickness was because the patient was already dead of some other cause, like an event trauma (driving under the influence of pot).

You are a bit of a zealot in your "smoke weed" campaign. I think that you should spend some more quality time and explore the possible dark sides before you prosilatize .

Thank you for that info, but how is it that I am not dull and lacking creativity after 7 years of heavy use? Im more on it than I was when I was 10? Is it because I havent started aging yet. Maybe, but you have to conside the use it or lose it philosphy in health care. Sure its bad for you, and sure bad things might happen. The thing is that pot doesnt make you stupid, not thinking makes you stupid. Just like not exercising makes you weak. Right?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Its based solely on the fact that the sample population of pot smokers is not as well known, and further, the illnesses unique to pot (besides lung cancer just like tobacco) are not even studied. The entire comparitive scoring between alkcohol and pot is baseless until the data are equivalent..

Do you seriously contend that the statistical sampling in all the studies on pot in history have been too few to draw scientific conclusions?

bongstar420 wrote:

The evidence is the fact that there are no known health cases that can be attributed to only the use of marijuana.

This is not true.

0 Replies

bongstar420 wrote:

The evidence is the fact that there are no known health cases that can be attributed to only the use of marijuana.

This is not true.[/quote]

So where are they? And why cant I find any unbiased reports with such findings? Any one could look at anything and draw any conclusion, couldnt they?

0 Replies

talk about unbiased. Youve been quoting "High Times"

Craven, my comparison between pot and alc/tobacco are merely based upon statistical sampling , yes thats true. Thats just the way it is.
However, as I said to the bongster , the JAAFS is routinely publishing post mort evidence of various lesions that also need statistical data to compare wherther that lesion is
A pot only
B Non pot
c Pot and non pot.

Bongster is not a scientist or a med researcher, its evident from his broad statements from single sources.
I just wanna make sure we try to honor the "method"
C A

0 Replies

Farmerman,

I agree that pot causes health problems. I disagree that the sum of all the case studies on pot in history are not representative of a scientifically significant statistical sampling.

0 Replies

Not high times, but possibly featured therein. High Times is a reporterm not a reasearcher. The thing is that all of the evidence you speak of is to one sided to be true. Ive read many reports, good and bad. Most will take one side or another, but that the purpose. Persuasion. These leasions are not direct causes of death, are they? And you are right, Im not any sort of a doctor or anything along that line. There also needs to be studies to determining the adc's of the thing.

Why dont you tell me about its effects of alzheimers and epileptic patients? Brand new findings............This has triggered the prescription drug lords to fund extensive research in the way of cannabis and its derivitives (mainly derivitives). Also research for untreatable ailments, cannabis, how absurd!

0 Replies

Refer to the facts!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know