6 ms·

Philip Morris makes tobacco a commodity. They'll surely treat cannabis the same way: grown outdoors with chemical pesticides and fertilizers, irradiated (not th

Philip Morris makes tobacco a commodity. They'll surely treat cannabis the same way: grown outdoors with chemical pesticides and fertilizers, irradiated (not that that would matter, I guess, but it will be), sprayed with preservatives and who know what the hell else, etc. The good growers will do so in climate-controlled, forced-flowering, sea-of-green indoor operations using massive lighting arrays and "low rider" hybrid strains that produce gigantic buds with amazing crystals. It'll be like comparing "two buck chuck" wine at Trader Joe's to a Lafite Rothschild or Screaming Eagle. Most people won't care, but there is a market for the latter like you wouldn't believe.

mattmaroon 16y ago
Yep, I think marijuana would more closely resemble the beer and wine industries than cigarettes given the differences from one strain/grower to another. It wouldn't surprise me if PM became the Budweiser of the group, but that wouldn't push out the Sierra Nevadas. It would just make them have to be better.
- Alex3917 16y ago
  "It would just make them have to be better." The best weed on the market is already close to being as good as it's going to get. The real trick is going to be establishing brands with reasonably consistent quality. Right now even if you only go to the dispensaries with the highest Yelp ratings, it's still hit or miss on any given strain. What I think you will see though is that people who smoke Philip Morris weed will start getting cancer, in the same way that smoking didn't cause cancer until PM starting making cigarettes. (Because of all the chemicals, the filters, and the fact that they're grown in radioactive soil w/ fertilizers that bind to uranium.)
  - abstractbill 16y ago
    ...smoking didn't cause cancer until PM starting making cigarettes... I would be very surprised to find out this is true. Do you have a citation?
    - Alex3917 16y ago
      I'm sure there are better sources, but here is the first one I could find from Wikipedia: http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/1/4 http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/1/4 Also, about the uranium, the typical smoker gets the equivalent of 300 chest x-rays per year from smoking American cigarettes: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html Which probably explains why even today smokers in countries that don't use American cigarettes don't have anywhere near the same increase in lung cancer risk.
      - hugh3 16y ago
        This really seems to fall into the "if this were really true, why haven't I heard of it until now?" category. There's an awful lot of people who could make an awful lot of money if they could prove that non-American cigarettes don't give you cancer.
      - louislouis 16y ago
        None of those articles you provided state "American Cigarettes increase lung cancer risks more than Non-American Cigarettes" - Where are you getting this from? Also, the equivalent of 300 chest x-rays is based on 'pack-and-a-half' smokers not typical smokers and it doesn't say anywhere specifically from American cigarettes. This is also based on a lifetime consumption I believe.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        Alex3917 16y ago
        When I say American cigarettes are more dangerous, what I really mean is that cigarettes are more dangerous than other forms of tobacco consumption, and American tobacco is more dangerous than other tobacco. For example, the levels of CEA (a cancer marker) in daily hookah smokers are so much lower than the CEA levels is cigarette smokers that they're actually statistically indistinguishable from non-smokers. Similarly, countries who don't grow tobacco in the same fields year after year using phosphate fertilizer have vastly less radioactive material in their tobacco. http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/5/1/19 http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/5/1/19 http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/sources/tobacco.html#footnote http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/sources/tobacco.html#footnote The research on what about smoking actually causes cancer isn't very good yet, but if you combine the research that has been done with the data that shows the different points in history where lung cancer rates vastly increased or decreased, it starts to paint a pretty clear picture. For example, according to wikipedia, "From the 1950s, the incidence of lung adenocarcinoma started to rise relative to other types of lung cancer.[135] This is partly due to the introduction of filter cigarettes. The use of filters removes larger particles from tobacco smoke, thus reducing deposition in larger airways. However the smoker has to inhale more deeply to receive the same amount of nicotine, increasing particle deposition in small airways where adenocarcinoma tends to arise." Again, there is no safe form of smoking, but all evidence points to the fact that smoking cigarettes made from American tobacco is vastly more dangerous than the ways in which people have used tobacco historically.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - chc 16y ago
    You're saying the fact that smoking causes cancer is unrelated to the fact that chewing tobacco also causes cancer?
    - SCVirus 16y ago
      Inhaling any burned plant material causes a slight increase in (primarily lung) cancer risk. Inhaling burned tobacco has an above average ability to cause cancer. Common commercial cigarettes, in general, have other ingredients that become carcinogenic when burned. Nicotine, while not directly cancer causing, depresses the immune response in the affected areas, increasing cancer risk in those areas. This also affects chew, gum, inhalers, etc. Due to the nature of the rapid regeneration of the mouth and throat, this is likely a significant factor in the increased caused risk for chewed tobacco. Additionally, chewed tobacco can cause Leukoplakia, which increases the risk of Oral cancer. Cancer risk (most to least): Smoking, chew/dip, inhalers, gum, snuff.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  And I can't help feeling that is the kind of industry we should avoid encouraging. I mean; heavy pot smokers are pretty non-functioning and it seems a shame to risk more lively minds to that drudgery. This has always been a really difficult choice for me; because on one side I strongly feel that everyone should have their own choices and do what they want. But then on the other side I've seen first hand how easy it is to lose yourself to pot... and can't help feeling that exposing more people to that isn't a great thing.
  - zackham 16y ago
    Heavy drinkers can be pretty non-functioning as well, and result in arguably more collateral damage. Most anything can be abused.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      Absolutely. So, from a rational perspective, why add one more problem to the melting pot? (which is my main point I think)
      - seasoup 16y ago
        Because making it illegal does not make it go away. It certainly hasn't made it difficult to get for those that want it bad enough. Instead, it drives casual users away that know how to control themselves away.
      - zackham 16y ago
        My point is that a potential for abuse is not a specific enough criticism. Drinking and driving is illegal because it endangers property and other people, public drunkenness is illegal because it is a nuisance, smoking in public buildings is illegal (at least here) because it is a health hazard to others; things should not be outlawed for their _potential_ for abuse, the effects of their abuse should be outlawed. I recognize that at this point we probably have a difference of opinion that is difficult to argue past, but I wanted to clarify my position.
- theBobMcCormick 16y ago
  Everyone always assumes it'll be the tobacco companies that'll take over once pot becomes legalized, but why? Why not the beer and liquor companies? Personally, I think it'd be a riot to see some Budweiser Bud. :-)
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

mattmaroon 16y ago

Yep, I think marijuana would more closely resemble the beer and wine industries than cigarettes given the differences from one strain/grower to another. It wouldn't surprise me if PM became the Budweiser of the group, but that wouldn't push out the Sierra Nevadas. It would just make them have to be better.

Alex3917 16y ago
"It would just make them have to be better." The best weed on the market is already close to being as good as it's going to get. The real trick is going to be establishing brands with reasonably consistent quality. Right now even if you only go to the dispensaries with the highest Yelp ratings, it's still hit or miss on any given strain. What I think you will see though is that people who smoke Philip Morris weed will start getting cancer, in the same way that smoking didn't cause cancer until PM starting making cigarettes. (Because of all the chemicals, the filters, and the fact that they're grown in radioactive soil w/ fertilizers that bind to uranium.)
- abstractbill 16y ago
  ...smoking didn't cause cancer until PM starting making cigarettes... I would be very surprised to find out this is true. Do you have a citation?
  - Alex3917 16y ago
    I'm sure there are better sources, but here is the first one I could find from Wikipedia: http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/1/4 http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/1/4 Also, about the uranium, the typical smoker gets the equivalent of 300 chest x-rays per year from smoking American cigarettes: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html Which probably explains why even today smokers in countries that don't use American cigarettes don't have anywhere near the same increase in lung cancer risk.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      This really seems to fall into the "if this were really true, why haven't I heard of it until now?" category. There's an awful lot of people who could make an awful lot of money if they could prove that non-American cigarettes don't give you cancer.
    - louislouis 16y ago
      None of those articles you provided state "American Cigarettes increase lung cancer risks more than Non-American Cigarettes" - Where are you getting this from? Also, the equivalent of 300 chest x-rays is based on 'pack-and-a-half' smokers not typical smokers and it doesn't say anywhere specifically from American cigarettes. This is also based on a lifetime consumption I believe.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - Alex3917 16y ago
        When I say American cigarettes are more dangerous, what I really mean is that cigarettes are more dangerous than other forms of tobacco consumption, and American tobacco is more dangerous than other tobacco. For example, the levels of CEA (a cancer marker) in daily hookah smokers are so much lower than the CEA levels is cigarette smokers that they're actually statistically indistinguishable from non-smokers. Similarly, countries who don't grow tobacco in the same fields year after year using phosphate fertilizer have vastly less radioactive material in their tobacco. http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/5/1/19 http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/5/1/19 http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/sources/tobacco.html#footnote http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/sources/tobacco.html#footnote The research on what about smoking actually causes cancer isn't very good yet, but if you combine the research that has been done with the data that shows the different points in history where lung cancer rates vastly increased or decreased, it starts to paint a pretty clear picture. For example, according to wikipedia, "From the 1950s, the incidence of lung adenocarcinoma started to rise relative to other types of lung cancer.[135] This is partly due to the introduction of filter cigarettes. The use of filters removes larger particles from tobacco smoke, thus reducing deposition in larger airways. However the smoker has to inhale more deeply to receive the same amount of nicotine, increasing particle deposition in small airways where adenocarcinoma tends to arise." Again, there is no safe form of smoking, but all evidence points to the fact that smoking cigarettes made from American tobacco is vastly more dangerous than the ways in which people have used tobacco historically.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- chc 16y ago
  You're saying the fact that smoking causes cancer is unrelated to the fact that chewing tobacco also causes cancer?
  - SCVirus 16y ago
    Inhaling any burned plant material causes a slight increase in (primarily lung) cancer risk. Inhaling burned tobacco has an above average ability to cause cancer. Common commercial cigarettes, in general, have other ingredients that become carcinogenic when burned. Nicotine, while not directly cancer causing, depresses the immune response in the affected areas, increasing cancer risk in those areas. This also affects chew, gum, inhalers, etc. Due to the nature of the rapid regeneration of the mouth and throat, this is likely a significant factor in the increased caused risk for chewed tobacco. Additionally, chewed tobacco can cause Leukoplakia, which increases the risk of Oral cancer. Cancer risk (most to least): Smoking, chew/dip, inhalers, gum, snuff.
ErrantX 16y ago
And I can't help feeling that is the kind of industry we should avoid encouraging. I mean; heavy pot smokers are pretty non-functioning and it seems a shame to risk more lively minds to that drudgery. This has always been a really difficult choice for me; because on one side I strongly feel that everyone should have their own choices and do what they want. But then on the other side I've seen first hand how easy it is to lose yourself to pot... and can't help feeling that exposing more people to that isn't a great thing.
- zackham 16y ago
  Heavy drinkers can be pretty non-functioning as well, and result in arguably more collateral damage. Most anything can be abused.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    Absolutely. So, from a rational perspective, why add one more problem to the melting pot? (which is my main point I think)
    - seasoup 16y ago
      Because making it illegal does not make it go away. It certainly hasn't made it difficult to get for those that want it bad enough. Instead, it drives casual users away that know how to control themselves away.
    - zackham 16y ago
      My point is that a potential for abuse is not a specific enough criticism. Drinking and driving is illegal because it endangers property and other people, public drunkenness is illegal because it is a nuisance, smoking in public buildings is illegal (at least here) because it is a health hazard to others; things should not be outlawed for their _potential_ for abuse, the effects of their abuse should be outlawed. I recognize that at this point we probably have a difference of opinion that is difficult to argue past, but I wanted to clarify my position.
theBobMcCormick 16y ago
Everyone always assumes it'll be the tobacco companies that'll take over once pot becomes legalized, but why? Why not the beer and liquor companies? Personally, I think it'd be a riot to see some Budweiser Bud. :-)

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]