IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Phhh
Hack cough. Got it. Smoking my cigarette right now. Personal choice.

Click. Bubble bubble filter filter draw AHHH. No cough.

You better have a damn fine level of damage documented before you use some generic X is bad and we should put people in jail for it.

I walk by the BBQ place and get a whiff of charcoal. Do we put them in jail?
New Here's a couple.
Dec. 14, 2007 -- New research from Canada shows that some toxins may be more abundant in marijuana cigarettes than tobacco cigarettes.

The researchers burned 30 marijuana cigarettes and 30 tobacco cigarettes on a machine in their lab, measuring levels of chemicals in the smoke.

Ammonia levels were up to 20 times higher in marijuana smoke than in tobacco smoke. Levels of hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen-related chemicals were three to five times higher in marijuana smoke than in tobacco smoke.

The nitrogen-based fertilizer used on the marijuana plants -- which all came from the same batch of Canadian pot plants -- may have affected the results. The temperatures used to burn the cigarettes may also have been a factor.

Marijuana smoke and tobacco smoke shared many of the same chemicals. But the two types of smoke weren't identical.

For instance, marijuana doesn't contain nicotine. And tobacco doesn't contain cannabinoids, which include THC, marijuana's active ingredient

Tobacco has long been linked to cancer and other health problems. Marijuana smoke hasn't been tied to cancer in the past, note the researchers, who included David Moir, PhD, of the Safe Environments Programme in Kitchener, Ontario.

http://www.webmd.com...n-marijuana-smoke

FRIDAY, June 19 (HealthDay News) -- The smoke from cannabis, the plant from which marijuana is derived, contains compounds that can damage DNA and increase the risk of cancer just like tobacco smoke, says a new study from the United Kingdom.

In laboratory tests, Rajinder Singh from the University of Leicester and colleagues found certain carcinogens in cannabis smoke in amounts 50 percent greater than those found in tobacco smoke. They noted that light cannabis use could possibly prove to be even more damaging because cannabis smokers usually inhale more deeply than cigarette smokers.

"The smoking of three to four cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day," the researchers noted in a news release from the university.

http://abcnews.go.co...id=7885120&page=1

Keep on smokin', crazy.


New 2007
Far more recent REAL info.
Keep reading.
But thanks, you may be exposed to a bit of info.
New #2: Research CBD
Actually, it reduces and/or cures (yeah, laugh, cures, go read a bit before responding, cancer).

https://www.google.c...=cbd+cures+cancer

No real life human studies (and they have many years of tracking) proved out any of the cancer predictions.

And then they found out CBD cures it. And in this case, possibly inhibits the start of it.

Keep reading though. Thanks for at least taking the interest.

New Can't have anyone curing cancer now...
Curing Cancer would drop the bottom out of pharma that produces massive amounts of really expensive drugs.

You really think a grown plants is going to be able to be "allowed"... never.
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
New Puhleeze
Go to a study and try to disprove it, don't point to a government / industry mouthpiece.

You might as well tell Gryg to trust the AMA on saturated fat issues.
Expand Edited by crazy Dec. 13, 2012, 06:03:17 PM EST
New Ad hominem.
New Point to something specific for me to prove or disprove and
I will. This is the cancer subthread, so I assume that, right?
New Pick your poison.
Scroll down and tell me where they're wrong.

Here's a direct link to the FAQ - http://cancer.gov/ca...bis/patient/page2

Or, if that's too conversational, click on the Health Professional Version tab and go to town - http://cancer.gov/ca...ealthprofessional

Let me know where they're wrong.

Hint: "In writing Cancer Information Summaries, PDQ Editorial Boards review current evidence. They do not make recommendations or develop guidelines. Their work is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). This summary on Cannabis and cannabinoids does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. The summary statement represents an independent review of the literature; that review is not influenced by NCI or any other federal agency."

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.

     rc lectures bho - (rcareaga) - (135)
         WH replies can take months - (Another Scott) - (27)
             those 70yo were 25 in 1967, -NT - (boxley) - (26)
                 precisely - (rcareaga) - (22)
                     I would suspect you are correct sir -NT - (boxley)
                     Reminds me of that old ad. - (mmoffitt) - (20)
                         just to clarify - (rcareaga) - (18)
                             Bingo - (crazy) - (2)
                                 I remember a few years ago with my son then 16yo Joe - (boxley) - (1)
                                     Re: I remember a few years ago with my son then 16yo Joe - (jb4)
                             Actually, we have discussed it. - (mmoffitt) - (14)
                                 Every single one of your points is based on illegality - (crazy) - (9)
                                     Read in New Scientist today: - (malraux) - (8)
                                         Yeah, and people like MM will say it is WORSE - (crazy)
                                         Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                             Ad hominem -NT - (drook) - (1)
                                                 I knew I shouldn't have added a comment. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                             Re: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. - (malraux) - (3)
                                                 Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                 The Time Mag article is verification of the fallacy I stated -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                     So what? - (crazy)
                                 That would be dumb - (crazy) - (3)
                                     hmm, picturing you in pearls and heels.... -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                         Re: hmm, picturing you in pearls and heels.... - (lincoln) - (1)
                                             Watch it - (crazy)
                         Nicely programmed - (crazy)
                 Yeah? - (Another Scott) - (2)
                     make up your mind or read what you write :-) -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                         Agreed you found a nit - doesn't change the bigger point. :) -NT - (Another Scott)
         excellent! -NT - (boxley)
         Well.. if he sees it-- - (Ashton)
         victims of federally legalized pot - (boxley) - (1)
             Awwww - (crazy)
         Very sincere... - (folkert) - (94)
             Or kill someone else. - (mmoffitt) - (93)
                 neither a junkie or a user of weed, harmless - (boxley)
                 Where does... - (folkert) - (3)
                     No acknowledgement? - (folkert) - (2)
                         You need to reread your post and my follow up. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                             Was inferred by the alcohol comment. - (folkert)
                 Remind me: do you drink? -NT - (rcareaga) - (87)
                     Red Herring much? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (86)
                         Nope - (rcareaga) - (85)
                             Steeper? Well, perhaps. - (mmoffitt) - (84)
                                 I don't know offhand about the advanced degrees - (rcareaga)
                                 yup, right up there with fluoride never hurt anybody - (boxley) - (82)
                                     [citation needed] -NT - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                         Re: [citation needed] - (boxley) - (1)
                                             That's not "fluoridation is bad" - (pwhysall)
                                     Red herring. - (Another Scott) - (78)
                                         Assumes facts not in evidence. - (mmoffitt) - (77)
                                             Mixing up cause and effect - (drook) - (4)
                                                 So, the chicken came first? ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                     According to the chicken, the rooster did -NT - (drook) - (1)
                                                         Yabut the rooster didn't care. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                 lrpd that sucker -NT - (boxley)
                                             criminalize (public) conduct, not chemistry - (rcareaga)
                                             It's a quagmire! -NT - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                                 No. - (mmoffitt)
                                             "how many years ago was that?" - (rcareaga) - (68)
                                                 That was a good thread. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                     Too bad about the faulty text wrap, though. - (rcareaga) - (2)
                                                         Probably something long in one of the posts. - (malraux) - (1)
                                                             I think it was me. - (Another Scott)
                                                     Seconded. And I'm glad to see... - (mmoffitt)
                                                 After all that... - (folkert) - (1)
                                                     Yup. I chuckled at that. -NT - (rcareaga)
                                                 Holy smokes. Thanks. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                 Wow - (crazy) - (59)
                                                     dunno about anyone else but - (boxley) - (6)
                                                         You show the female response - (crazy) - (5)
                                                             not nesting, invigourated -NT - (boxley) - (3)
                                                                 Then you are not done. - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                     2-5 no difference, after 5 too sore -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                         Longer delay, more prolactin - (crazy)
                                                             nope -NT - (boxley)
                                                     So why not cut out the middleman? - (Another Scott) - (38)
                                                         Because THC alone is BAD - (crazy) - (17)
                                                             Read that link again. - (Another Scott) - (16)
                                                                 Remember, even if you find it - (crazy) - (4)
                                                                     My goals: Rational, sensible policy. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                                         Seems the right time for this one - (drook) - (2)
                                                                             Excellent. Thanks. - (Another Scott)
                                                                             Seen that one before... - (folkert)
                                                                 Phhh - (crazy) - (9)
                                                                     Here's a couple. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                                                         2007 - (crazy)
                                                                         #2: Research CBD - (crazy) - (6)
                                                                             Can't have anyone curing cancer now... - (folkert) - (5)
                                                                                 Hmm... - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                     Puhleeze - (crazy) - (3)
                                                                                         Ad hominem. -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                                             Point to something specific for me to prove or disprove and - (crazy) - (1)
                                                                                                 Pick your poison. - (Another Scott)
                                                                 Please don't assume my words - (crazy)
                                                         Better question: Why? - (drook) - (19)
                                                             Because he is terrified of side effects that he can't - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                 Project much? :-p - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                     Hokay - (crazy)
                                                             Just asking the question. - (Another Scott) - (15)
                                                                 But the laws now prohibit doing the science - (drook) - (14)
                                                                     That's an easier law to change than the others. - (Another Scott) - (13)
                                                                         Heh. Even its advocates have questions about its safety. - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                                                                             Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                             Your straw man, not mine - (crazy) - (10)
                                                                                 You talking to me? - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                                                                     I didn't say it was your job - (crazy) - (8)
                                                                                         And how would that work, exactly? - (Another Scott) - (7)
                                                                                             Easy - (crazy)
                                                                                             View it from the other side - (drook) - (5)
                                                                                                 Thought experiments are easy. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                                     That's a crock - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                                                         Read me in my posts. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                                                             But the statement is wrong - (crazy)
                                                                                                     Different part of the issue - (drook)
                                                     In a nutshell, then, your argument goes ... - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                                                         Did I expect an actual reponse - (crazy)
                                                         hey during that timeperiod - (boxley)
                                                         You were probably right - (crazy) - (9)
                                                             Oh come on... - (folkert) - (8)
                                                                 Hey, he went attempted personal WAY before me - (crazy)
                                                                 Also, interesting - (crazy) - (6)
                                                                     Do as you wish. Matters not to me. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                                     You're both coming across as mardy twats - (pwhysall) - (4)
                                                                         twats is a gendered insult -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                             Not when I say it, it's not - (pwhysall)
                                                                         kiss kiss -NT - (crazy)
                                                                         You didn't like the Quagmire picture? -NT - (mmoffitt)
         Looks like my letter did the trick - (rcareaga) - (6)
             Woot! -NT - (Another Scott) - (5)
                 Ok, I'm done - (crazy) - (4)
                     Finally! - (Another Scott) - (3)
                         hehe - (crazy) - (2)
                             Don't assume you know the future. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                 Good point - (crazy)
         Another excellent IGM thread! - (Ashton)

Sorry, you are not a winner.
142 ms