that does seem bizarre, But if true it is more recent than the study I am thinking of. I'll look when I get a chance.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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:287294 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
