Yeah, I know, I had read that too. But as of last year the most current research (that I am aware of) actually showed a net decrease in lung cancer risk amongst moderate pot smokers versus not only cigarette smokers but also against people that didn't smoke at all. I found it to be a thoroughly bizarre result. Which is why I say that I am dubious until a lot more research is done.
I'm still going to operate under the assumption that smoke is an irritant and likely carcinogen, period. But all research I've seen has shown it to be far far less of a health risk than tobacco in every area of research. That being said, the amount of studying done on tobacco dwarfs the amount done on marijuana, so until a respectable amount of work has been done with pot, I'll take all the results with a grain of salt. Here's a WaPo article on research at UCLA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html Judah On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Charlie Griefer <[email protected]> wrote: > > i remember hearing that smoking weed had 4x the tar of smoking a cigarette. > ... sigh. googling. brb. > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I would really think that the smoke was just as carcinogenic but it >> seems, currently, to not be true. My intuition tells me that smoke >> should be carcinogenic, period, but the most recent research doesn't >> show a link between lung cancer and marijuana smoke inhalation. If >> anything it shows a slight counter effect. But quite frankly I'm not >> going to believe that until I see it replicated and, ideally, a >> mechanism is figured out. >> >> And what that really means to me is that we really ought to study >> marijuana consumption much more carefully (and with less prejudice). >> Unfortunately that isn't easy in the current political climate either. >> So much for science-based policy. >> >> Judah >> >> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I would hope that we are smarter than that. I gather that the smoke is >> > just as carcinogenic and everything about secondary smoking probably >> > applies. Not only that, but there's the issue of a contact high. So >> > no, I don't think it would be favorably viewed. >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:40 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> No one minds people smoking tobacco at home (away from their kids), or >> >>> outside (but not near me). >> >>> >> >>> It isn't any of my business. >> >> >> >> The problem with you response is that it's internalized. I asked how >> >> society would view it. >> >> >> >> Today we have people that want to tell smokers where they can and >> >> can't smoke. We fund anti-smoking campaigns with tax dollars from the >> >> general fund and yet we fund cancer research with cigarette sales tax >> >> money. States have sued tobacco companies and won or settled based on >> >> medical issues that arise from smoking. >> >> >> >> If non-tobacco products were "legalized" in all 50 states would that >> >> not lead to the commercialization of such products? Might it not lead >> >> to the same cycle as the tobacco industry fell into, where over the >> >> course of 50 years smoking went from glamorized to demonized? >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:287287 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
