Posted on 01/11/2012 9:29:52 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
CHICAGO—Smoking a joint once a week or a bit more apparently doesn't harm the lungs, suggests a 20-year study that bolsters evidence that marijuana doesn't do the kind of damage tobacco does.
The results, from one of the largest and longest studies on the health effects of marijuana, are hazier for heavy users -- those who smoke two or more joints daily for several years. The data suggest that using marijuana that often might cause a decline in lung function, but there weren't enough heavy users among the 5,000 young adults in the study to draw firm conclusions.
Still, the authors recommended "caution and moderation when marijuana use is considered."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
You don't see anyone here, including me, advocating marijuana use by "young people." Your argument is a POS.
Just remember...when you don’t do anything wrong, there’s nothing to forgive!
Thanx for the personalised comment.
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.htm#AppA
This phoney study that proves nothing
How did you conclude that? Do you see problems with their methodology?
What were we talkin’ about ......?
Most people I knew from my younger wilder days stopped using marijuana when they became adults. 4 that I knew did not stop, of the 4 none made it to their 50th birthday, they all died of lung cancer. 3 of the 4 also smoked cigarettes.
What were we talking about????
A Wiseman once said... Man who stands on tolit is high on pot...
Hey, pal...you really are wasting your Paul-bot, legalize it, libertarian, conservatives are hypocrits on this forum.
Any fool from the 60s and 70s can tell you from personal experience that doing dope is not the healthiest thing. So why add to a plethora of things that screw you up - legal and illegal?
Only thing you’ve said that makes sense is that Phish and Grateful Dead music suck... you have to be loaded to like it.
And if you’re Hemingway’s Ghost, you have a big effing hole in your head.
This has to be one of the most tortured posts I've ever read on Free Republic. Either English is not your first language, you are mentally challenged, or you are extremely drunk right now. Which one is it?
Why do you hate the Tenth Amendment?
By that logic, why not subtract from it by criminalizing alcohol?
You have the question backwards: can a nuclear scientist be a stoner?
Hundreds, probably thousands, of peer reviewed studies come out yearly. And we’re going to cherry pick one or two that were deeply flawed and paint all the rest with that brush? I can’t get there.
You’re right, I’ll admit it...
been toking away on my bong...
I think in the vault (as it is called) one can likely find a recording of every show the Dead played. Doubtful that such a complete recording record exists for any other band.
For every sucky moment (and there were plenty) there were manyu other moments of great, rootsy rock.
I have made it a mission of mine, for those who say the Dead sucked, to have them listen to American Beauty, Workingman’s Dead, and Reckoning. Largely acoustic records, with none of the silly excess often heard in live shows. None of the folks I’ve tried it on have become huge fans that I know of, but universally they were shocked at the complete lack of psychedalia.
And they mostly cannot believe that Garcia was a banjo picker in a bluegrass band, who once chickened out and skipped his audition for Bill Monroe’s Bluegrass Boys.
Phish is a different story (at least for me). Inane lyrics and completely derivative music.
If you exchanged the word Marijuana in the study with cocaine or cigarettes, I bet that the findings would be the same. What pot smoker just keeps their habit to one joint a week? They don’t, and from reading this study, they are basing things off of the honesty of the respondent. Pointless study. The only thing I can see that they were trying to do is put a happy spin on legalizing an illegal product.
Nah, I don't believe it. You seem far too one dimensional and belligerent to be a partaker of the demon weed.
You've already seen the numbers for more-than-monthly-but-less-than-weekly pot smoking - and been given a link to the methodology. Yet you continue to state your discredited opinion as fact.
and from reading this study, they are basing things off of the honesty of the respondent.
So you're suggesting that the subjects who showed no lung damage were only claiming to be once-a-week pot smokers when they really didn't smoke at all? Because that's the only dishonesty that could bias the results toward understating the harm of pot.
I was just cracking wise. While I’m not a big GD fan, I can appreciate some of their stuff. Phish I know nothing about, except for that they’re a jamband, and jambands don’t really appeal to me. Granted, when I’m IN jambands I’m as happy as a clam, but I ain’t going to go see one.
For twenty years they bullsh*t the people conducting this study, masked any and all physical effects from smoking the chronic, and downplayed their dosage just to rig the study to come to this conclusion? Thousands of study participants did this?
You're really torturing things here.
Why not just admit you plain just don't like the outcome of this study and just go from there? It'd be far more honest. Some people just don't like people who smoke pot. It's cool. Pot's not for everyone.
I am curious why you are here at a Conservative site pushing for legalization of Pot based on some unnecessary study a Commie Pinko HHS employee decided to waste taxpayers dollars on? Feel free to keep toking on a Bong if you want. I have no interest in legalizing this.
Personal freedom. Limited government.
The outcome of this study is stupid because it looks into something that doesn’t happen. Who exactly are these folks having just one joint a week. Pot smokers smoke pot all the time because they are of your mind. Pot is cool and is safe. I disagree on both counts. This implausible test of mythical one joint a week smokers defies logic and reason, which is generally the case with most Gov’t studies.
Doing one line of coke a week will not affect your lungs either. Should we legalize that?
It certainly happens. You just can't bring yourself to admit it.
You're not using your rational mind here, Lazlo. You're letting your emotions get in the way.
More pot smokers are democrats than republicans. Wonder why that is? /sarcasm
Probably easier to bang their chicks?
Because that's the conservative position - just like legalizing alcohol and ending Prohibition was the conservative position.
based on some unnecessary study
Studies on health effects of life choices are "unnecessary"?
a Commie Pinko HHS employee decided to waste taxpayers dollars on?
Where's the evidence any of the researchers are "Commie Pinkos"?
Feel free to keep toking on a Bong if you want.
Oh, so you do support legalization? (BTW, I don't smoke pot - nor drink the lethal addictive drug alcohol.)
I have no interest in legalizing this.
Nor in any inconvenient facts, it seems.
Then why do you folks always seem to peddle dope smoking? Why not huffing gasoline soaked rags? Cocaine use? Unlimited speed limits? Whenever I dig deeper in these discussion, it always proves out that people pushing for pot are Ron Paul supporters and Libertarians. I have no interest in either. I am a straight up Conservative.
The available evidence - none from you - says otherwise.
Should those things be illegal? Now you want a War On Gasoline?
Unlimited speed limits?
Speeding is a clear and present danger to others - smoking pot is not.
“You don’t see anyone here, including me, advocating marijuana use by “young people.” Your argument is a POS.”
Add “makes you rude” to the list of things pot does to you.
Also it compromises your cognitive abilities, because my argument wasn’t concerned with “children.” It’s concerned with people 15-25 — some of whom are adults — who smoke the most pot. And suffer the devastating consequences.
What you libertarians fail to understand is that your individual choices affect me, because you’re not an island. I don’t want to live in the kind of crap, third-world country that tolerates prostitution and heroin usage, because I know what sort of society results. For the same reason, I want to keep pot out.
And it’s not your government that’s telling you what to — it’s your fellow citizens. When pot legalization was put on the ballot here in California last time around, it failed.
So stop screaming about “the government” — the people of this country don’t want that noxious, evil weed legalized. Except you. And you only get one vote.
Yes - just like we legalized drinking oneself into an early grave. It's not pretty, but the criminalization "cure" is worse than the disease.
I don't think medical science is quite there yet.
Why don't you find a joint and familiarize yourself with the product before jumping on the pot bandwagon. If you think drinking is "lethal addictive" and pot is fine, you have never done either. Using your logic, we should legalize gay marriage because when you get down to it, it doesn't really effect anyone else, right?
Because that's the conservative position - just like legalizing alcohol and ending Prohibition was the conservative position.
That is a canard. All the people who supported Prohibition are the ones who about faced and called for repeal after the whole thing blew up in their faces with crime. If you are not aware, FDR used repeal as a campaign issue in '32 and it was a Rat campaign plank. Some Conservative that FDR was.
Another conservative statist outs himself. Or herself.
Listen, it's impossible to argue on a rational or logical level with someone who insists upon using progressive strategy to push a political agenda. I'm not trying to insult you; I'm just being honest. If we're going to dissect this issue from the conservative standpoint---which I believe is the rational one, by the way---there's no way you can argue for the continued criminalization of marijuana and yet remain consistent with other conservative values grounded on individual freedom and liberty.
What you fail to understand is that this basis for your stance: "that your individual choices affect me, because you're not an island" has no limit. I could make a logical argument that simply by drawing a breath my actions affect others. It's nebulous. It's inaccurate. It doesn't tell the whole story. And for God's sake, it's not a principle on which to base law that governs free people.
Unless you're a statist.
To that, I would add most of Wake of the Flood and From the Mars Hotel.
Prostitution is legal in Nevada - is that a "crap, third-world" location? Opiates were legal in the USA until about 100 years ago - was the USA before that a "crap, third-world country"?
And it’s not your government that’s telling you what to — it’s your fellow citizens.
The Founding Fathers opposed tyranny of the majority: "When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." - Federalist #10
I have yet to hear about some guy who came home and beat his wife after smoking Pot.
And yet you're hell-bent on continuing Prohibition II . . .
Man.
Why don't you find a joint and familiarize yourself with the product
Where did I say I'd never smoked pot?
before jumping on the pot bandwagon. If you think drinking is "lethal addictive"
It's an easily observed fact. Do you really need proof?
and pot is fine
Where did I say that?
Because that's the conservative position - just like legalizing alcohol and ending Prohibition was the conservative position.
That is a canard. All the people who supported Prohibition are the ones who about faced and called for repeal after the whole thing blew up in their faces with crime. If you are not aware, FDR used repeal as a campaign issue in '32 and it was a Rat campaign plank. Some Conservative that FDR was.
So if some liberals agree with the conservative position, it's no longer conservative? I guess since 0bama wears pants I'd better stop wearing them.
There's a dirty joke in there somewhere just dying to get out.
Provided by the Federales who always have our best interests at heart.
I gave you their results and their methodology. Feel free to point out any flaws. Also feel free to produce any contradictory evidence.
Then explain why the same Federales who shouldn't be trusted to do sound research should be trusted to conduct a War On Drugs.
And it’s not your government that’s telling you what to — it’s your fellow citizens. When pot legalization was put on the ballot here in California last time around, it failed.
What you libertarians fail to understand is that your individual choices affect me, because you’re not an island. I don’t want to live in the kind of crap, third-world country that tolerates prostitution and heroin usage, because I know what sort of society results. For the same reason, I want to keep pot out.
And it’s not your government that’s telling you what to — it’s your fellow citizens. When pot legalization was put on the ballot here in California last time around, it failed.
So stop screaming about “the government” — the people of this country don’t want that noxious, evil weed legalized. Except you. And you only get one vote
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aw geez. I thought we needed to back all our arguments with Gov't studies and not "observed" facts.
With that being said, there is no reason for the government and all their studies to find anything wrong with marijuana since it's such a fledgling industry. Once it reaches billion dollar status as the tobacco industry did, then watch the lawsuits and subsequent tax extortion to pour in..........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.