For the record, I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

I'd also mention that I brought up this thread with my brother last night. He's a respiratory therapist. He said, hands down, marijuana is more devastating to the lungs than cigarettes. I'm going off of what he told me, so I can't speak to how completely accurate this is, but he said, for example, that 1 joint a day is has the same amount of effect on the lungs as about a pack of cigarettes. 1 bowl or blunt a day (depending on size) is somewhere closer to 2 or 2 1/2 packs. Also, marijuana contains between 2 an 3 times the amount of cancer-causing chemicals that tobacco contains. Furthermore, he said regular marijuana users have a greater frequency of throat and mouth cancer than cigarette smokers - although not more than those who use smokeless tobacco. His last point was to mention that regulation and inspection of the tobacco for the most part prevents the introduction of fungi, mold and other micro-organisms in the smoking process. He told me that if you really want to argue the negatives of smoking, have someone witness patients cough up pieces of their lungs after smoking pot that has been tainted with fungus or mold.

 

As far as the fungus or mold, it's another poor argument, IMO. People's marijuana usually isn't molded, and if it was legalized, it would rarely, if ever be molded.

As far as the fungus or mold, it's another poor argument, IMO. People's marijuana usually isn't molded, and if it was legalized, it would rarely, if ever be molded.

 

I'd agree with you that legalization would pretty much eradicate any issues with parasites. As for being a poor argument....all I can say is that my brother works at Good Samaritan Hospital in Clifton, and they see lung abscesses from smoking tainted pot "about once every month or two". I personally had never even heard of that occurring until he mentioned it. He said it occurs more frequently among lower income users who have an attitude of "I'll smoke whatever I can get my hands on", based largely on their inability to buy anything of better quality.

The comparison is not apples to apples. THC is the active component in marijuana that makes you get high. THC acts on endocannabinoid receptors in the brain, which then alters the release of many transmitters from nerve endings - particularly those located in limbic regions of the brain, which control emotions, and euphoria. Alcohol, on the other hand, gives you a buzz by altering the way that serotonin reacts with neurons. Serotonin, among other things, has to do with self-confidence, a feeling of safety and security, sleepiness, appetite, and digestion. Chemically they are different things and are involving different parts of the brain's chemical and nervous operation. Most drugs have a far greater effect on the limbic regions of the brain than they do on serotonin levels. Therefore, you could much more easily link the effects of marijuana to "hard drugs" than you can link alcohol.

 

A few other points: Alcohol is regulated, marijuana is not. Alcohol producers have government standards and inspections, marijuana producers do not. Alcohol is purchased in sealed containers that were sterilized prior to the product being bottled/canned, marijuana is not. Marijuana contains more cancer-causing chemicals than tobacco, alcohol does not.

I understand all that, I've researched marijuana and alcohol myself BUT alcohol is more addicting and more harmful than marijuana from what I've found. People have died from alcohol poisoning and get violent when drinking. Zero medical deaths are associated with marijuana, and use of cannabis tends to reduce violence.

I have heard those same things about marijuana and its effects as well. Add in the fact that 85%(complete guesstimate) of regular marijuana smokers also smoke cigarettes and you can truly see the amount of damage done to the lungs. There aren't many strictly marijuana smokers out there to get accurate data to show how damaging marijuana truly is to the lungs.

 

 

That being said I am also for the legalization of marijuana and still would rather have my college age kid fool with marijuana instead of cigarettes. Knowing my kids, they would dabble in weed temporarily but become long term cigarette smokers.

I understand all that, I've researched marijuana and alcohol myself BUT alcohol is more addicting and more harmful than marijuana from what I've found. People have died from alcohol poisoning and get violent when drinking. Zero medical deaths are associated with marijuana, and use of cannabis tends to reduce violence.

 

Well my point is not to disprove that alcohol is a drug. It is. That's fact. I'd also agree with you that it's more addicting than marijuana, and maybe even your argument about cannabis reducing violence. My point is that I think use of marijuana/cannabis far more likely to lead you to take harder drugs. I would think it would be as simple as taking the number of people who drink and use cocaine, for example, and comparing it to the number of people who smoke pot and use cocaine.

There aren't many strictly marijuana smokers out there to get accurate data to show how damaging marijuana truly is to the lungs.

 

I'd have to disagree with what you're saying here. The chemical components in cigarettes and marijuana that cause cancer, emphysema and other problems have been identified scientifically, and I can't imagine that there are plenty of ways to test for the content of those chemicals without having to measure data directly from smokers' lungs. That, and I'm sure laboratory animals have been used in plenty of studies. They would make it very easy to gather information on the effects of marijuana use on its own.

I'd have to disagree with what you're saying here. The chemical components in cigarettes and marijuana that cause cancer, emphysema and other problems have been identified scientifically, and I can't imagine that there are plenty of ways to test for the content of those chemicals without having to measure data directly from smokers' lungs. That, and I'm sure laboratory animals have been used in plenty of studies. They would make it very easy to gather information on the effects of marijuana use on its own.

 

I don't doubt anything you are saying. Just saying that when I did my own research, which I admittedly haven't done in the last 5-7 years(I forget, side effect of my pothead days) I could never find any studies done that showed what marijuana use alone does to the body because cigarette use is so prevalent amongst regular marijuana smokers. Like RTS said, everything I have found states that zero deaths are attributed to marijuana use.

I'd agree with you that legalization would pretty much eradicate any issues with parasites. As for being a poor argument....all I can say is that my brother works at Good Samaritan Hospital in Clifton, and they see lung abscesses from smoking tainted pot "about once every month or two". I personally had never even heard of that occurring until he mentioned it. He said it occurs more frequently among lower income users who have an attitude of "I'll smoke whatever I can get my hands on", based largely on their inability to buy anything of better quality.

 

Honestly, there are probably that many people per year in Hamilton Co. who set their house on fire with a cigarette. That number is pretty small when you consider the number of pot smokers out there. I've never heard of such a thing happening in my life.

Well my point is not to disprove that alcohol is a drug. It is. That's fact. I'd also agree with you that it's more addicting than marijuana, and maybe even your argument about cannabis reducing violence. My point is that I think use of marijuana/cannabis far more likely to lead you to take harder drugs. I would think it would be as simple as taking the number of people who drink and use cocaine, for example, and comparing it to the number of people who smoke pot and use cocaine.

A survey of drug users in Amsterdam over a 10-year period by Jan van Ours of Tilburg University in the Netherlands showed cannabis users typically start using the drug between the ages of 18 and 20, while cocaine use usually starts between 20 and 25. But it concludes that cannabis is not a stepping stone to using cocaine or heroin. Four surveys, covering nearly 17,000 people, were carried out in Amsterdam in 1987, 1990, 1994 and 1997. The study found that there was little difference in the probability of an individual taking up cocaine as to whether or not he or she had used cannabis. Although significant numbers of people in the survey did use soft and hard drugs, this was linked with personal characteristics and a predilection to experimentation.

Honestly, there are probably that many people per year in Hamilton Co. who set their house on fire with a cigarette. That number is pretty small when you consider the number of pot smokers out there. I've never heard of such a thing happening in my life.

 

You may well be right about that.

 

Like I said, legalize it...I've got no beef with that. I still think I'd choose to introduce my kids to cigs over pot.

A survey of drug users in Amsterdam over a 10-year period by Jan van Ours of Tilburg University in the Netherlands showed cannabis users typically start using the drug between the ages of 18 and 20, while cocaine use usually starts between 20 and 25. But it concludes that cannabis is not a stepping stone to using cocaine or heroin. Four surveys, covering nearly 17,000 people, were carried out in Amsterdam in 1987, 1990, 1994 and 1997. The study found that there was little difference in the probability of an individual taking up cocaine as to whether or not he or she had used cannabis. Although significant numbers of people in the survey did use soft and hard drugs, this was linked with personal characteristics and a predilection to experimentation.

 

Well, not to try to disprove the surveys and studies that you or I have cited, but I think we could all agree that you can find a survey or two out there to prove or disprove just about anything. Fact is, almost pretty much every hard drug user that I have talked to in my social life and in dealings with Narcotics Anonymous has said that they started using pot in their teens and they eventually worked their way to the harder stuff. I know plenty of "harmless potheads" and I've got no problem with what they do (legal ramifications aside). I also know plenty of folks addicted to smoking, and plenty of alcoholics - both functioning and non-functioning. Truth be told, I'd be happiest if my kids decided to never touch a single one of those things. But if I had a gun held to my head and someone said, "You can either give your son a cigarette or a joint. You choose." I'm gonna go with a cigarette EVERY time.

I'd have to disagree with what you're saying here. The chemical components in cigarettes and marijuana that cause cancer, emphysema and other problems have been identified scientifically, and I can't imagine that there are plenty of ways to test for the content of those chemicals without having to measure data directly from smokers' lungs. That, and I'm sure laboratory animals have been used in plenty of studies. They would make it very easy to gather information on the effects of marijuana use on its own.

Marijuana does contain about the same amount of carcinogens as an equivalent amount of tobacco, however tobacco has about a 90% addiction rate. As a former 3 pack a day smoker, I can't see a marijuana smoker putting themselves in anywhere near the same danger as a cigarette smoker.

Well, not to try to disprove the surveys and studies that you or I have cited, but I think we could all agree that you can find a survey or two out there to prove or disprove just about anything. Fact is, almost pretty much every hard drug user that I have talked to in my social life and in dealings with Narcotics Anonymous has said that they started using pot in their teens and they eventually worked their way to the harder stuff. I know plenty of "harmless potheads" and I've got no problem with what they do (legal ramifications aside). I also know plenty of folks addicted to smoking, and plenty of alcoholics - both functioning and non-functioning. Truth be told, I'd be happiest if my kids decided to never touch a single one of those things. But if I had a gun held to my head and someone said, "You can either give your son a cigarette or a joint. You choose." I'm gonna go with a cigarette EVERY time.

I can agree with most of what you say here but every (and I mean every) pot smoker I haver ever known (and there are many) started with alcohol. Those that went on to harder stuff than pot still started with alcohol which tells me they have addictive personalities and it would't have mattered if they never smoked marijuana, they would have still moved to a "greater high".

I can agree with most of what you say here but every (and I mean every) pot smoker I haver ever known (and there are many) started with alcohol. Those that went on to harder stuff than pot still started with alcohol which tells me they have addictive personalities and it wouldn't have mattered if they never smoked marijuana, they would have still moved to a "greater high".

 

Fair enough.

Well, not to try to disprove the surveys and studies that you or I have cited, but I think we could all agree that you can find a survey or two out there to prove or disprove just about anything. Fact is, almost pretty much every hard drug user that I have talked to in my social life and in dealings with Narcotics Anonymous has said that they started using pot in their teens and they eventually worked their way to the harder stuff. I know plenty of "harmless potheads" and I've got no problem with what they do (legal ramifications aside). I also know plenty of folks addicted to smoking, and plenty of alcoholics - both functioning and non-functioning. Truth be told, I'd be happiest if my kids decided to never touch a single one of those things. But if I had a gun held to my head and someone said, "You can either give your son a cigarette or a joint. You choose." I'm gonna go with a cigarette EVERY time.

 

Could it possibly be that the narc-anon folks are using hyperbolic scare tactics too? The same way as the "Above The Influence" folks do?

 

When I was 21, I got busted for a DUI. I had to go to "alcohol classes" as part of my sentence. The style of these classes were set up roughly similar to the way the AA is, using the whole "one drink and you're addicted for life, helpless to fight it" scare tactics. If anything, those classes were counterproductive for a 21-year-old college student because I recognized them to be more hyperbole than anything, when I looked around the room and heard stories of blithering morons who were in the room because they got their 13th DUI or so.

 

Really? That one drink will make me so stupid that I'm destined to a life in the gutter? No, because even then I knew my limitations. I just made a dumb mistake, simple as that, with a bit of bad luck mixed in that Johnny Law happened to be taking the same backstreet I was.

 

Something tells me those narc-anon classes use roughly the same methods. "Don't smoke that joint! You'll be addicted for life, helpless to control your reefer madness!"