You might want to rethink your wager. You can argue all you want, but your statements are false and foolish.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/20...-alternatives/

From the article...

According to the American Lung Association, marijuana smoke contains a higher amount of carcinogens than tobacco smoke. (Packs disputed that statment in one of his earlier posts).

A report published in the "British Medical Journal" that reviewed nine trials that compared marijuana with other pain medications found that marijuana was no more effective than codeine in controlling acute, chronic, or cancer pain.

Cancer patients in treatment with chemotherapy or radiation and other people suffering from nausea may reach for marijuana due to its anti-nausea properties. There are several other prescription options for nausea relief, such as Zofran, that do not carry the damaging risks of marijuana.

Come on, you need to check your sources. It says there are more carcinogens than tobacco and then the article goes on to list none of them nor does it cite any sources.

I read the Cheryl Hale story and am not convinced. She sounds like the woman who tells her husband she got VD from a dirty bus seat.

You cite prescription drugs but don't take into account their side effects, addictive properties or the fact that marijuana is a natural supplement that doesn't need to be smoked.

Here is just a sampling of the 7,000 chemicals and carcinogens in tobacco:

Acetone – found in nail polish remover
Acetic Acid – an ingredient in hair dye
Ammonia – a common household cleaner
Arsenic – used in rat poison
Benzene – found in rubber cement
Butane – used in lighter fluid
Cadmium – active component in battery acid
Carbon Monoxide – released in car exhaust fumes
Formaldehyde – embalming fluid
Hexamine – found in barbecue lighter fluid
Lead – used in batteries
Napthalene – an ingredient in moth balls
Methanol – a main component in rocket fuel
Nicotine – used as insecticide
Tar – material for paving roads
Toluene - used to manufacture paint

David
 

many people who use medical cannabis use a vaporizer or edibles. Where is your cancer argument then? When using a vaporizer the thc is ignited prior to the cellulose material. The THC does not contain any carcinogens. They are located in the cellulose of the plant material. Edibles are not smoked no cancer. There are also beverages that contain THC which can then be drunk. Cannabis need not be smoked like a joint or bong things have progressed. There are also oils and waxes that contain no to trace elements of carcinogens. The other statement you made is also highly flawed, I did not use it for chronic pain I had another medical use and it worked for me. I don't care if the fact that it helped me offends you or not. It worked for me and that is was I care about.

Funny how people can just make stuff up on the internet for all to believe. Check my sources? How about the American Lung Association? Will this source suffice or do you want more?

http://www.lung.org/associations/sta.../marijuana.pdf

"Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains
cancer-causing chemicals. There are 33 cancercausing
chemicals contained in marijuana.
Marijuana smoke also deposits tar into the lungs.
In fact, when equal amounts of marijuana and
tobacco are smoked, marijuana deposits four
times more tar into the lungs. This is because
marijuana joints are un-filtered and often more
deeply inhaled than cigarettes."

You're still reaching. The numbers are 33 potential carcinogens vs. 7,000 in tobacco. That information is also steeped in the "war on drugs" perspective of use and propaganda against it.

Either way, smoking is only one method of consumption and your argument is still flawed. Your position is not based in concern over people getting cancer.

Let's just agree to disagree. How about that? :)

So use of marijuana poses some health risks. So what? That's no reason to make private use by adults unlawful.

Heavy smokers who go through say two packs a day will smoke forty cigarettes in that time. Even a chronic pot smoker might only consume one or two joints a day. So there is no actual way for a potsmoker to inhale that many carcinogens. Nobody can smoke forty joints.

Also please keep in mind that pilots, surgeons, workers in chemical plants, and others who do what might be considered dangerous work generally are responsible enough not to consume alcohol while they are working. It's unlikely your cardiologist will have a couple of martinis before he does your open heart surgery. Likewise, a pilot will know not to take out his bong before taking off with a planeload of passengers.

I believe that nearly all resonsible people will figure out that there is a time and place for using marijuana. Legalizing it doesn't give people license to act like jerks.

Not an easy read but very informative
 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/


this part was particularly interesting.

"Recent work by Roth et al. demonstrates that THC treatment of murine hepatoma cells caused a dose dependent increase in CYP1A1 gene transcription, while at the same time directly inhibiting the enzymatic activity of the gene product [23]. Thus, despite potentially higher levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in cannabis smoke compared to tobacco smoke (dependent on what part of the plant is smoked), the THC present in cannabis smoke should exert a protective effect against pro-carcinogens that require activation. In contrast, nicotine activates some CYP1A1 activities, thus potentially increasing the carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoke [24]."

Please show me anywhere in my post where I mentioned SMOKING marijuana. But what I said is a fact and jives with personal experience as well (from my wife who has chronic back pain).

"The same drug may not work for different patients with the same pain source. And there are some who get relief with only a single specific drug. Medical fact."

In my wife's case, there is only a certain combination of drugs that provide any relief, none of them being marijuana (FWIW). Even the drugs that are geared toward her condition don't work.

BUT... all this isn't even the point. Why do you insist on restricting someone's right to something that DOES work if it isn't harming anyone else? The only arguments I have seen are "what if" straw man scenarios, which don't address the core issue (IMO).

best reasoning
 

This is the best argument to me so far for legalization. I want too so leave me alone. Really, I can agree with that.

I agree. Plus, folks in these sensitive positions can be tested for impairment. Not a test for THC in one's blood which, as I understand the current state of science, can yield positive results in perfectly sober people due to use days before the test. But, instead perhaps a test of manual dexterity, something akin to field sobriety tests, upon reasonable suspicion of impairment.

I think the two most troubling problems with legalization would be the potential for increased instances of driving under the influence and access by minors. But, I believe these problems can be effectively addressed by appropriate legislation. Will such legislation be perfect? No, but legislation rarely is. I was closely involved in the federal legislative process for more than 10 years and I can attest that all controversial legislation entails compromise and tough line-drawing issues. This is no different.

There are people out there, young people, old people, who are suffering needlessly from a variety of afflictions that don't need to be suffering at all. Here's one such example where nothing else helped this child.

Alex Echols, Boy With Autism, Gets Medical Marijuana To Manage Self-Destructive Rages

All this...PLUS it's really fun to be high.

Less non-violent offenders in jail, useful for a number of ailments and it's super fun.

Seems like a win/win/win.

If this is the biggest problem facing our nation (and its not) we should be OK. It might as well be legal because its about as easy to get as a six pack of beer. I'm with Barry -- tax it, regulate it, reel in the income, recover all the money spent on the "war on drugs" that can't be won and make legal money off it. Seems like a no brainer to me.

Any smoke put into the body is bad. The thing is, you don't have to smoke it.

Edit: Edibles

Yes mon...legalize it!!!!!

yay-ahh...yay-ahh!

whats next
 

Toad licking of course