"Marijuana Smoke Contains Higher Levels Of Certain Toxins Than Tobacco Smoke"

[brokey]

Data isn't always accurate. There simply isn't enough research done with marijuana.

 

[Guest]

I dont know about the effects of cheese on cannabis Red but in 80 days or so I'll know about the effects of cheese cannabis on me,and thats all that counts!

 

[Storm Crow]

Scientist, click the link in my sig and start reading! - Granny

 

[demonicaardvark]

the study doesnt say anything about whether the levels of these toxins are high enough to cause concern, from what ive read tobacco doesn't contain a toxic level of ammonia, so whose to say that 20x this amount is toxic either? without actual numbers this is pretty meaningless in my opinion.

 

[MoeBudz^420]

Well, let's just look at the numbers...Cannabis is and has been used by millions of ppl for tens of thousands of years. But gee, they can't come up with 1 documented death caused by cannabis alone. (The odd allergy aside - allergy is bad with anything. ie. Peanuts)

If it was so toxic, you'd think they'd have a documented case, or more like many cases. I smell Harperspeak, & wouldnt doubt that this is funded by the gov't. If they want to keep their funding, better agree with gov't ideas, eh? "Oh, its toxic" is nothing new asfar as propaganda goes. Repeat, repeat, repeat...

I'd be way more concerned about the deadly pollutants being belched from factory smokestacks and exhausts countrywide, and being poured into our fresh water than the so-called "toxic" cannabis smoke. Imo it is this that's causing all the cancers etc. Our environment is being poisoned, and it sure ain't cannabis that's doing it...


Peace

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

Paz....Anyways what I meant is that we are just (relatively speaking), as a society, starting to encourage, be interested in, and allow scientific studies on MJ. I'm speaking in general terms, very general. I'm completely aware of the world beyond the US, hehe.

wrong, and you are still unware the world extends beyond usa boarders...
speaking in general terms the ONLY conlusion you can reach regarding Cannabis is that it has been used around the whole world through all methods whether it is smoked, eaten or rubbed as oil. Not only that, there have been tons of studies, some are even in BC era.

MJ research is most definitely in its infancy, as a whole. And as we can see, the cancer debate is still out. Many studies claim there's a link, and many do not.

as already said, no, mj studies are not in its infancy; rather, it is people's infantile minds which are incapable of understanding the researches already perfomed.

We are just now at a time when the people whom really used weed starting in the 60s are being examined. This is essentially the 1st generation we can truly examine as a sample group that has members smoking for a lifetime. People before the 60s didn't smoke as much MJ, and there weren't as many smoking it. We are now just getting the 1st wave of a true sample to study, ironically at a time when the world is opening up to MJ research more & more. We will have to wait more generations to get the waves that started in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s. It seems like the cancer thing is out on a conclusion, either way, until we have more time, more studies, and more samples.

so are you saying only people in the 60s "really used weed" ? isn't that because you are still thinking only modern-day north american population can be scientifically studied? is this a joke or r u really saying that? where do I begin to explain to you how unscientific you are saying is? lets start by letting you become aware that even non-smoking north americans from the 60s have more chances of having cancer just because of the american life-style than tons of other peoples around the world: how then are you going to link the cancer of an american to his herb-smoking habits when you are not even considering all the mcdonalds the dude has eaten?

you are also saying mj probably causes cancer, but you know, the conclusion that it does not is final, either way everyone who has been smoking their whole lives for hundreds of years of history who did not get cancer are not exceptions, ergo: mj does not cause cancer.

 

[RED145]

LOL,give the guy a break Paz!!!He is a scientist just starting his Journie!!LOL

how then are you going to link the cancer of an american to his herb-smoking habits when you are not even considering all the mcdonalds the dude has eaten?

Told ya it makes a difference if he was eating cheese or not,lol

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

Red, do you think this guy gets paid or just comes in to get a kick?

 

[RED145]

LOL,you know how ya were in your first year of college Paz,head all full of ideals and gonna force em on everyone,right or wrong!!
I think he just got his textbooks and started reading ahead is all....But really gang,we all should stop smoking marijuana because it is bad for you!!
Unless,you coat your stomach with cheese first,then its ok to smoke!!

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

if you mean cheese the strain, count me in!

 

[JJDubz]

$5 says this is "the leader" and is just trolling these forums to get attention.

ban this annoying shit disturber.

 

[RED145]

JJ,yer on,I think it's Journies back for another round!!

 

[Crazy Composer]

Do yourself --deeply-- with a whiffleball bat, m'kay, journies? You're a goddamn government agent, you bastard. You peddle misinformation, you are worthless to the free peoples of earth. You are yet another bull horn trying to turn light into darkenss.

But the government pays so well, don't they? And Fox news is just so GADDAMN convincing, isn't it? Yeah, jeesh.

I own goats, you know? And they can get out of their pen pretty much any time they want to... but they don't... You know why? Because they know where their next meal is going to be. THIS is what's wrong with conservative types, they KNOW where the tit is, and they confuse the tit with freedom.

Scaring free thinking folks about their life choices is akin to a goat who is trying to convince another goat to stay in the pen, because at least you'll be fed on time. Well, at ICMAg, you're on the outside of that fucking pen, and we're ALL black sheep out here, able and willing to eat the grass we find all by ourselves. To hell with your fear-mongering, republican-sponsored studies, they are not welcome here, where most of us know better.

journies, you are known to us... try again. And don't think we won't track your simple ass down again. You better get to the chapel, they've begun speaking in tongues without you! And the snake-handling is next! Better git!

Scientist, pfffft!

 

[Stoner4Life]

I'm going to try not to make this sound like I hate you, I just hate what your profession stands for. Everyone has and is entitled to an opinion, I read yours, now read mine.

Unfortunately, the wife and I foresee a lot more "bad" info as the research rolls in. People will sneer at it, will call it bias....some research will get shot down, some will stand supported, some will be improved....it is the way science works, and the way science should work.

Oh please! Science is supposed to be UNBIASED something you people know nothing about. Most scientists make their jing off of government funded (big tobacco & pharmaceuticals too) studies, and THAT'S who YOU'LL favor! Even if/when you work out of a university it is govt. funded work. it is bvllshit.

Only recently is it that the world has taken an interest in studying MJ.

NO! Only recently has cannabis gained acceptance in the mainstream of the world & now the govt. needs to prove they've been right all along. Now we'll see all of your govt. funded studies, most of which will contain the same info & language you've been bvllshitting us with.

It took years of study for tobacco myths to be put to rest. The same will have to do for MJ.

WTF are you talking about??????? Years of study FINALLY put to rest tobacco myths? Are you really trying to convince me that although you (scientists) knew cigs contained shyt like arsenic for decades that the harm involved was just a fvcking myth to you scientists? EVERY scientist knew goddamned well CIGS WILL KILL YOU! The public finally demanded the truth & the tobacco lobby could not support their lies with the $$$$$$$ they funded (yeah scientific) previous studies with!


And you'll NEVER get my attention or respect if your studies include the government invented name 'marijuana', let be even more facetious doc....... do you guys call livers 'filters'? After all the liver is the filter in the human body. No you don't! Then why the hell do you call cannabis 'marijuana'? Before cannabis was outlawed in the 30's there was no such thing as marijuana. When you guys say marijuana, I/we say govt. minions.......

Here's my final thought, if the studies putting cannabis down were correct then where are all those blood spitting, lung wrecking stoners hiding in their final days? They're NOT filling the hospital wards so they must be dying miserably elsewhere.

now go tell your cohorts to take that govt. study & shove it where the sun don't shine, we're NOT so easily fooled after being fvcking lied to by our govt. & you scientists for decades.

Hey if this sounded sorta like 'over the top' in a reply just know that I like to tell it like it is and @ 50+ yrs old and a CANNABIS smoker since Sept. of '69 I can tell you that you're trying to blow smoke up the wrong asses.

On a more personal note, you sound like a government mole.

Welcome to the forums.

 

[baykt]

^^ poetry in motion! well said, S4L!

 

[devilgoob]

Stop posting this mentally retarded shit. We know "smoke" contains toxins. But thc and cannabinoids are anti-tumoral. Stop posting things about weed being bad, we don't care, we dont care about cancer, because numerous studies have found it doesnt cause cancer. They probably had a damn MACHINE pull the smoke through at a far greater speed than a human and THEREFORE creating more toxins. Dont believe the bullshit, see if you get cancer from smoking weed, then you can finally find it out. It all speculation UNTIL i conduct a study with all variables and controls calculated by ME. Since thc is antitumoral and schwag contain less of it, schwag would maybe cause cancer, but maybe high grade marijuana doesnt, because it simply contains more cannabinoids per gram on smoke/ash.

Anyways, if I do get cancer then cool, Im going to die like Im supposed to.

 

[The Scientist]

This isn't to troll, it's to bring info out into the community. If you would rather not read it, then do not. We're not forcing you. There are, however, people out there that enjoy getting knowledge, and enjoy keeping up with what is going on in the scientific world regarding MJ. So that is who this benefits.

As scientists we play devil's advocate many times to critique work. That's what I am considering myself to be doing now. And from my perspective, it really seems like a lot of people just want to block their ears and say, na na na, I can't hear you! It's unfortunate.

It's interesting to see people be in doubt of a simple molecular determination of a gas. This is something that is easy to do nowadays. You can't just say it isn't accurate...because it is not. So people then resort to saying the method is wrong. Ok, show us. Too many people seem to just shrug these things off without a valid reason. It's just bias doing the work, shrugging it off.

PS: The wife & I are not moles of any kind. We're a couple of warm & fuzzy people that enjoy the herb just as much as you do. Just because we play devil's advocate doesn't make us the devil. Peas.

 

[The Scientist]

speaking in general terms the ONLY conlusion you can reach regarding Cannabis is that it has been used around the whole world through all methods whether it is smoked, eaten or rubbed as oil. Not only that, there have been tons of studies, some are even in BC era.

Scientific studies in the BC era? I'll pass on that, thanks

as already said, no, mj studies are not in its infancy; rather, it is people's infantile minds which are incapable of understanding the researches already perfomed.

I guess we just disagree. MJ research is most definitely in its infancy compared to alc and tobacco.

so are you saying only people in the 60s "really used weed" ? isn't that because you are still thinking only modern-day north american population can be scientifically studied? is this a joke or r u really saying that? where do I begin to explain to you how unscientific you are saying is? lets start by letting you become aware that even non-smoking north americans from the 60s have more chances of having cancer just because of the american life-style than tons of other peoples around the world: how then are you going to link the cancer of an american to his herb-smoking habits when you are not even considering all the mcdonalds the dude has eaten?

I didn't say anywhere that the only people that really used weed were in the 60s. What I am trying to explain here is that the people from the 60s were the 1st generation to heavily use MJ whom could be studied by advanced science of the post 90s. Up until now, we have not had advanced science like we do today, and we have not had the chance to use that science on generations that heavily used cannabis. This is part of the reason why MJ research is in its infancy.

The McDonald's thing: This applies to tobacco research too. It is not some impossible hurdle for a scientist to overcome and it should obviously and is obviously accounted for in most accurate studies.

Paz, nobody cares about "research" in the before christ era. That is crazy. Hell, even the research done in the 70s wasn't too great and it was most definitely limited. Same for the 80s, and 90s. Now we see advances in both technology & in gov't that will allow us to open up doors for MJ research.

you are also saying mj probably causes cancer, but you know, the conclusion that it does not is final, either way everyone who has been smoking their whole lives for hundreds of years of history who did not get cancer are not exceptions, ergo: mj does not cause cancer.

Again, I don't trust your BC-era research. I don't even trust the poster here telling us he hasn't seen bad things from 40 years of smoking. Why? We could find many saying the same about tobacco.

The cancer thing: As I said, it's still undetermined

Hundreds of years smoking and not getting cancer? Again, I don't trust BC-era research.

 

[Babbabud]

Yea and I dont trust your scientific study saying MJ is harmful. There have been too many studies saying the opposite. I trust my own 40 years of observation way more then i ever would a study such as this one. Where did they get the funding for this study .... prolly the first question that should be asked.

 

[Crazy Composer]

If you were a scientist, you'd have gathered enough data in your threads as both journies and the scientist, to know you shouldn't try alarming a community that already knows better than you ever will.

Smoking is not good for you, living under power lines is not good, eating McDonald's, saturated fats, eating vegetables grown with radioactive fertilizers is not good for you, etc. etc. etc... You're at a site chok full of folks who know smoking isn't the best thing you could do, but have decided the risk is worth the reward. This is what this site is all about, people who have made that decision and are now celebrating the lifestyle so many others have turned away from.

Marijuana is a gift from Jah, God, whatever you call it. The grant that made your study possible is a gift from conservative douchebags, interested only in scaring people away from freedom with "studies". They are losing this battle, they know it, and they are doing whatever they can to frighten people away from the herb.

You won't have an audience for ignorance here, schmientist. Me and all my healthy, cancer-free, hardcore pot smoking friends and family won't let you lie without calling you on it.