6 ms·

> obviously nothing will be banned Tobacco: 500,000 Alcohol Deaths: 88,000 All Non Alcohol Drug Overdoses (including prescriptions): 64,000 Marijuana Deaths

> obviously nothing will be banned Tobacco: 500,000 Alcohol Deaths: 88,000 All Non Alcohol Drug Overdoses (including prescriptions): 64,000 Marijuana Deaths: 0 Yearly statistics for the USA. Seems your 'obvious' might not be so obvious for the rest of us. But then again, I think many 'obvious' things for you are not obvious to the rest of us. Like the muddled thinking related to children: 1st, it's already illegal to sell them to kids 2nd, will kids get them less if they are removed from local retail locations that check ID? Will driving it underground reduce consumption or only increase the dangers of use? For some, it's obvious that they see it obviously. Others... we see nuance and no clear cut answers. Though many of us dislike such strong and rash positions backed by emotive, reactionary, broad stroke arguments and so little data.

Symmetry 7y ago
Nobody dies from Marijuana overdoses but having smoke in your lungs is having smoke in your lungs whether it comes form a cigarette or a joint or a campfire and it's pretty much equally bad each way. Users tend to spend less time smoking joints than cigarettes but I'd be very surprised if the incidence of lung cancer from marijuana was zero.
- VoiceOfWisdom 7y ago
  Because there definitely isn't any other way to consume marijuana other than smoking it.
  - maccard 7y ago
    There are alternative ways to consume tobacco too
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      But Tobacco and it's components, regardless of how they are consumed, are carcinogens. My post with statistics, while downvoted, is correct.
- kragen 7y ago
  The largest studies of lung-cancer–marijuana-use association were also very surprised to find that the incidence of lung cancer from marijuana was, apparently, statistically indistinguishable from zero. What you say is common sense. Like the earth being flat and the sun revolving around the earth, though, it just happens to be completely wrong.
- pessimizer 7y ago
  > having smoke in your lungs is having smoke in your lungs whether it comes form a cigarette or a joint This is not a thing that's true, it's a thing you assume. Having different smokes or vapors in your lungs can have different effects, just as drinking different liquids can have different effects. Tobacco smoke causes cancers. The more elements in another smoke that are shared with tobacco (or other plants that cause disease) the more the new smoke should be suspect, and it suggests a direction for initial testing. We can't just treat all odors as cancer-causing; vaping doesn't even involve burning vegetable matter, so even if burning some chemicals common to all plants causes cancer, that wouldn't make vaping suspect.
  - CryoLogic 7y ago
    From what I have read any type of smoke you put in your lungs is carcinogenic, Marijuana included. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846283?dopt=Abstract https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846283?dopt=Abstract
    - colordrops 7y ago
      Yes, but some types of smoke are much more carcinogenic than others.
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      Incredible how the same people who denounce edibles also then go ahead and assume all weed is smoked. It's like they want it both ways.
  - inlined 7y ago
    > Vaping doesn’t even involve burning vegetable matter Actually the substrates are PG or (more popularly) VG. That’s propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin. The latter is obviously plant based and studies have even measured the concentration vapers breathe as meeting OSHA standards. The real dangers of vaping are: the vasoconstriction of nicotine, the flavoring (which famously caused issues when a substance that was safe to consume but not inhale was used), and the free radicals from burning cotton or oxidizing metal in the coils.
- LoSboccacc 7y ago
  it's not the tobacco per se, even if it's a factor, the primary cancirogens are the other shit they mix in to get it burning easily, reliably and timely
  - ndarwincorn 7y ago
    This thread's so full of FUD spread by the aptly-named Truth campaign, and this one (and its parent) takes the cake. Eventually the fight-fire-with-fire approach they took to combat big tobacco is going to bite us. While you're probably right about primary carcinogens, the tobacco plant pulls radioactive isotopes like Po-210 and Pb-210 out of the soil and air, and those concentrations have been growing as Polonium levels rise in soil from years of fertilizer use[1]. So to say 'it's not the tobacco' is a very dangerous comment. Moreover, cardiovascular disease is the primary cause of death for smokers, not lung cancer, and while extracting nicotine from tobacco and vaporizing it in a PG/VG solution might mitigate risk of the latter there's no reason to believe it'll do anything for CVD. If anything, without the MAOI in tobacco that increases the nicotine's effect, on average folks vaping probably have higher levels in their bloodstream than folks that smoke. [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2270238/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2270238/
    - LoSboccacc 7y ago
      > Moreover, cardiovascular disease is the primary cause of death for smokers that alone tells nothing, cardiovascular disease is the primary death cause for general populace, that why you need to work out incidences, and guess which one has greater variation? cardiovascular disease: 4x more likely Cancer: 23x the risk compared to general populace respiratory disease: 17x the risk https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm#men https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal... funny how you had to cherry pick stats to present your point while accusing people of being shills. smoking is bad, we get it. not everyone that can see a larger picture are part of God knows what conspiracy. and I specifically did not say "tobacco without the other stuff is fine" so go grind your axe somewhere else
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Symmetry 7y ago

Nobody dies from Marijuana overdoses but having smoke in your lungs is having smoke in your lungs whether it comes form a cigarette or a joint or a campfire and it's pretty much equally bad each way. Users tend to spend less time smoking joints than cigarettes but I'd be very surprised if the incidence of lung cancer from marijuana was zero.

VoiceOfWisdom 7y ago
Because there definitely isn't any other way to consume marijuana other than smoking it.
- maccard 7y ago
  There are alternative ways to consume tobacco too
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    But Tobacco and it's components, regardless of how they are consumed, are carcinogens. My post with statistics, while downvoted, is correct.
kragen 7y ago
The largest studies of lung-cancer–marijuana-use association were also very surprised to find that the incidence of lung cancer from marijuana was, apparently, statistically indistinguishable from zero. What you say is common sense. Like the earth being flat and the sun revolving around the earth, though, it just happens to be completely wrong.
pessimizer 7y ago
> having smoke in your lungs is having smoke in your lungs whether it comes form a cigarette or a joint This is not a thing that's true, it's a thing you assume. Having different smokes or vapors in your lungs can have different effects, just as drinking different liquids can have different effects. Tobacco smoke causes cancers. The more elements in another smoke that are shared with tobacco (or other plants that cause disease) the more the new smoke should be suspect, and it suggests a direction for initial testing. We can't just treat all odors as cancer-causing; vaping doesn't even involve burning vegetable matter, so even if burning some chemicals common to all plants causes cancer, that wouldn't make vaping suspect.
- CryoLogic 7y ago
  From what I have read any type of smoke you put in your lungs is carcinogenic, Marijuana included. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846283?dopt=Abstract https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846283?dopt=Abstract
  - colordrops 7y ago
    Yes, but some types of smoke are much more carcinogenic than others.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    Incredible how the same people who denounce edibles also then go ahead and assume all weed is smoked. It's like they want it both ways.
- inlined 7y ago
  > Vaping doesn’t even involve burning vegetable matter Actually the substrates are PG or (more popularly) VG. That’s propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin. The latter is obviously plant based and studies have even measured the concentration vapers breathe as meeting OSHA standards. The real dangers of vaping are: the vasoconstriction of nicotine, the flavoring (which famously caused issues when a substance that was safe to consume but not inhale was used), and the free radicals from burning cotton or oxidizing metal in the coils.
LoSboccacc 7y ago
it's not the tobacco per se, even if it's a factor, the primary cancirogens are the other shit they mix in to get it burning easily, reliably and timely
- ndarwincorn 7y ago
  This thread's so full of FUD spread by the aptly-named Truth campaign, and this one (and its parent) takes the cake. Eventually the fight-fire-with-fire approach they took to combat big tobacco is going to bite us. While you're probably right about primary carcinogens, the tobacco plant pulls radioactive isotopes like Po-210 and Pb-210 out of the soil and air, and those concentrations have been growing as Polonium levels rise in soil from years of fertilizer use[1]. So to say 'it's not the tobacco' is a very dangerous comment. Moreover, cardiovascular disease is the primary cause of death for smokers, not lung cancer, and while extracting nicotine from tobacco and vaporizing it in a PG/VG solution might mitigate risk of the latter there's no reason to believe it'll do anything for CVD. If anything, without the MAOI in tobacco that increases the nicotine's effect, on average folks vaping probably have higher levels in their bloodstream than folks that smoke. [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2270238/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2270238/
  - LoSboccacc 7y ago
    > Moreover, cardiovascular disease is the primary cause of death for smokers that alone tells nothing, cardiovascular disease is the primary death cause for general populace, that why you need to work out incidences, and guess which one has greater variation? cardiovascular disease: 4x more likely Cancer: 23x the risk compared to general populace respiratory disease: 17x the risk https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm#men https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal... funny how you had to cherry pick stats to present your point while accusing people of being shills. smoking is bad, we get it. not everyone that can see a larger picture are part of God knows what conspiracy. and I specifically did not say "tobacco without the other stuff is fine" so go grind your axe somewhere else
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]