Posted on 03/26/2006 3:18:10 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
SMOKING three cannabis joints will cause you to inhale the same amount of toxic chemicals as a whole packet of cigarettes, according to research published in France today.
Cannabis smoke contains seven times more tar and carbon monoxide, the French National Consumers' Institute concluded in research published in the April edition of its monthly magazine.
The institute tested regular Marlboro cigarettes alongside 280 specially rolled joints of cannabis leaves and resin in an artificial smoking machine.
The tests examined the content of the smoke for tar and carbon monoxide, as well as for the toxic chemicals nicotine, benzene and toluene.
"Cannabis smoke contains seven times more tar and carbon monoxide than tobacco smoke," the institute's magazine says.
Someone smoking a joint of cannabis resin rolled with tobacco will inhale twice the amount of benzene and three times as much toluene as if they were smoking a regular cigarette, the study says.
Smokers of pure cannabis leaves will also inhale more of these chemicals than from a normal cigarette, though the amount varies depending on the quantities.
"Smoking three joints every day – which is becoming frequent – makes you run the same risks of cancer or cardio-vascular diseases as smoking a packet of cigarettes," the magazine says.
Cannabis is "by far" the most popular illicit drug in France, it says. The number of cigarette smokers and people drinking alcohol fell in 2005, while the number of cannabis users has increased in France in the past five years.
Fantastic post.
Shows how the Dishonorable and Ignorant Mr. Paulsen would like to reprsent the state of science in 1930 as similar to that of the darkest ages of history.
You exposed that he is familiar with neither science or history.
Whatever RP is, he's not a good debater yet he attempts to debate. His reading skills seem also to be lacking.
Not through your duly elected elected representatives, which was my statement.
"Guess what, the will of the voters wasn't followed."
Of course not. Proposition 200 made it legal for doctors to prescribe marijuana, heroin, and Ecstasy -- how the patient would fill those prescriptions is a mystery. Since the FDA regulates prescriptions, doctors cannot prescribe Schedule I drugs unless allowed to do so by the federal government. Plus, Proposition 200 contained more than medical marijuana.
You failed to mention that Arizona voters rejected a new drug policy reform bill, Proposition 203, in 2002. That bill would have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, repealed mandatory minimums, set up a medical marijuana program, and removed court control of non-violent drug offenders.
You were getting around to it. I know.
"Medical marijuana passed by voter referendum - over 60% if I recall - twice. Here in AZ."
*Not through your duly elected elected representatives, which was my statement.*
Who cares? Arizona has a constitutional referendum process.
"Of course not. Proposition 200 made it legal for doctors to prescribe marijuana, heroin, and Ecstasy -- how the patient would fill those prescriptions is a mystery. Since the FDA regulates prescriptions, doctors cannot prescribe Schedule I drugs unless allowed to do so by the federal government. Plus, Proposition 200 contained more than medical marijuana."
Actually prop 200 solved that problem.
in summary:
Approves all Schedule I drugs as safe and effective medicines \u201cto treat a disease or to relieve the pain and suffering of seriously or terminally ill patients.\u201d
Prohibits judges from sending newly convicted \u201cnonviolent drug offenders\u201d to prison until their third conviction.
Releases all nonviolent drug offenders currently in prison, places them on parole, and mandates them into drug treatment, education, or community service programs.
"You failed to mention that Arizona voters rejected a new drug policy reform bill, Proposition 203, in 2002. That bill would have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, repealed mandatory minimums, set up a medical marijuana program, and removed court control of non-violent drug offenders."
Why even mention it, since you don't see the ballot initiative process as valid, even though it's constitutional in AZ?
"You were getting around to it. I know."
Meanwhile, prop 105 which tried to overturn the legislatures illegal overturning of Prop 200 passed. I'm sure you were getting around to mentioning that.
200 and the prev were to decriminalize it for medical use. 203 was broader - for personal use. Of course you were planning on making that distinction clear at any moment, right? Gosh knows you'd never purposefully obfuscate. Chortle.
That's why I don't use that logic to dispute the validity of most elections.
A referendum is placed on the ballot by a small number of motivated voters, and voted on by people ignorant of the law and the facts of the issue. In the case of Proposition 200 (containing a bunch of goodies), doctors would have been allowed to prescribe marijuana and other Schedule I drugs, actions clearly not allowed by the government.
In a follow-up proposition, the voters rejected medical marijuana.
I, too, am not going to make a jusgement based on a hypothetical example based on a false assumption.
Government has the power to prohibit recreational drugs, but only with the support of the people.
You're right. Allow me to rephrase.
"I just listed the popular ones. You know, those seeds that coincidentally were touted as giving the biggest high."
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say we knew diddley-squat about marijuana in 1930 compared to what we know today.
And civilization arose with your birth, too, by the sounds of your irrational screed.
"I just listed the popular ones. You know, those seeds that coincidentally were touted as giving the biggest high."
No, you selectively cut n pasted as another poster proved.
No honor, no truth from you.
Obviously you don't. But that still has nothing to do with my statement. Here. I'll make my statement one more time, and I'll put the relevant part in bold, just for you and all your friends on the short bus:
It's up to the majority of the voters, acting through their duly elected representatives, bound by both their State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution."
" Why even mention it, since you don't see the ballot initiative process as valid, even though it's constitutional in AZ?"
Take either side of the argument -- but take one, not both.
"Meanwhile, prop 105 which tried to overturn the legislatures illegal overturning of Prop 200 passed."
Oh baloney. That's not what Proposition 105 did. Proposition 105 changed the initiative process in general, requiring more votes from the legislature to overturn goofy propositions. The legislature acted legally.
"203 was broader - for personal use."
Yes. That's part of it. Another part changed medical marijuana "prescriptions" to medical marijuana "recommendations" and set up a medical marijuana program for patients and caregivers.
And it was defeated.
"Gosh knows you'd never purposefully obfuscate."
Of course not. Just like I know any time now that you're going to add that George Soros, Peter Lewis, and John Sperling funded all of these initiatives through the Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform and The People Have Spoken groups. Which, of course, is another drawback to the initiative process.
|
Funders
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"I'm going to go out on a limb here and say we knew diddley-squat about marijuana in 1930 compared to what we know today."
Of course I've yet to see you cite a single credible study which suggests anything different.
"It's up to the majority of the voters, acting through their duly elected representatives, bound by both their State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.""
BS
In Arizona, we have a ballot initiative process. It's part of the constitution. You're trying to make a distinction where there is none.
"Take either side of the argument -- but take one, not both."
I was pointing out that you had taken both sides. Stop twisting spinning and lying. If you can!
"Oh baloney. That's not what Proposition 105 did. Proposition 105 changed the initiative process in general, requiring more votes from the legislature to overturn goofy propositions. The legislature acted legally."
No, it passed because voters were furious that the legislature had gutted ballot initiatives. So much for RP, champion of the will of the people. You're nothing but champion of the jackboot thugocracy.
"Yes. That's part of it. Another part changed medical marijuana "prescriptions" to medical marijuana "recommendations" and set up a medical marijuana program for patients and caregivers. And it was defeated."
As I said, you made an apples to oranges comparison. You supported the ballot initiative when you got your way, and didn't support it when you didn't. How flexible of you, Kerry Seinfeld.
"Of course not. Just like I know any time now that you're going to add that George Soros, Peter Lewis, and John Sperling funded all of these initiatives through the Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform and The People Have Spoken groups. Which, of course, is another drawback to the initiative process."
I don't care who sponsored it. Their stink did not ruin what were valid initiatives that passed.
Here we have it.
You support the law when it follows your opinion.
You make excuses when it doesn't.
You aren't about rule of law. You're about rule of Robert Paulsen.
"I, too, am not going to make a jusgement based on a hypothetical example based on a false assumption."
I specifically pointed out your false assumption.
You just mimicked me.
You lose this round.
Like my cites would convince you.
(Then again, you did accept that 1930 study and the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church study as valid, so maybe you're dumb enough to accept anything I post.)
"A referendum is placed on the ballot by a small number of motivated voters, and voted on by people ignorant of the law and the facts of the issue. In the case of Proposition 200 (containing a bunch of goodies), doctors would have been allowed to prescribe marijuana and other Schedule I drugs, actions clearly not allowed by the government."
I see - You're a registered Democrat, I suspected so.
When people vote your way, they're educated.
When they don't they're dopes and you'll use the courts or whatever means are available to overturn them.
"In a follow-up proposition, the voters rejected medical marijuana."
No, they accepted medical marijuana twice - they rejected it when paired with general decriminalization.
You lose all points. Addtl points deducted for lying via omission.
"Like my cites would convince you."
Which one will you come up with first, the monkeys that were suffocated to death and trotted out by Nancy Reagan as demonstrating that marijuana is bad?
Or the idiotic one this thread was based on?
That the legislature legally gutted goofy ballot initiatives. Proposition 105 changed the future legislative requirement for gutting from 51% to 75%.
"I don't care who sponsored it."
You should. Outsiders came into your state to sponsor a so called "voter-driven" initiative. They outspent local opponents 20:1 to get those initiatives passed -- and failed.
Gee, maybe next time when you "don't care", it'll be Sarah Brady and her group.
"You support the law when it follows your opinion."
Nope. I told you right up front what my position was. I even put it in bold. Since it's obvious your bus is really, really short, I'll state it one more time:
"It's up to the majority of the voters, acting through their duly elected representatives, bound by both their State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution."
The referendum process, a strict democracy, is legal yet flawed. The Founding Fathers rejected such a system, opting for a representative republic. I favor the latter.
YOU cited the Arizona referendums. Since we were playing in your ballpark, I cited other Arizona referendums which went the other way. We played by YOUR rules, and now you're crying and want to take your ball and go home.
Fine. Good-by.
Yes I did. You caught me.
Suffice to say that since you refused to answer my simple question, I feel I'm under no obligation to answer yours.
No offense.
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.