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.
No, though the sun, moon, and stars do revolve around me.
Right . . . facts of any kind don't mean much to you.
They do. It's just that old facts mean less. Actually, an old fact replaced by a contrary new fact wasn't a fact to begin with, now was it?
The Suffocated Monkeys would be a great name for a rock group.
You lie again. The old facts in that post are the only things you've been typing about. You ignored the newer facts, therefore new facts mean nothing to you.
I told you before. That was as far as I got. Those old "facts" were useless. Why did you even include them? And why should I read any farther?
What. I'm supposed to know that it's nothing but filler material to pad your post? That the good stuff follows? Pfffft!
I'm not going to waste my time sifting through your cut-and-paste job figuring out what's the truth and what isn't. I expect you to do that.
"The Suffocated Monkeys would be a great name for a rock group"
At least you have a sense of humor.
They could open for a band called "Scraping the Bowl." I think there's already one called Bongwater.
I'm curious
Have you ever personally smoke marijuana? Once even?
If not, have you been in the presence of those smoking it? Could you characterize your experience?
I presented credited data to you and you admittedly ignored it. All the work I did. You accuse me of cut and paste when I studied this issue sincerely.
You are a fake and a farce.
As the Man in Black would say, "Get used to disappointment."
"Have you ever personally smoke marijuana? Once even? If not, have you been in the presence of those smoking it? Could you characterize your experience?"
Everything I want you to know about me can be found on my FR Profile page.
I got one word for you: Schmoo.
I have principles.
I suspect you have a catch 22 problem with our rights to life, liberty & property.
You think it's sane to insist that government has the power to prohibit liberty, and that anyone who protests this power is crazy, - a belief that 'proves' your point.
Yes, the government has the power to prohibit liberty, [jail convicted criminals] but only with due process.
Government has the power to prohibit [reasonably regulate] recreational drugs, but only with the support of the people.
There you go paulsen, your comment now complies with our Constitution.
It was a deliberately conservative estimate on my part. The study at best flawed and at worst purposefully misleading. Measuring the tar from a joint made of resin is definitely padding the results.
Has the old fact currently under discussion been replaced by a contrary new fact?
Are you asking me to summarize the debate for you, or is it that you simply don't understand what's going on? Ol' Whack-A-Mole pops up into the debate without a clue. Again.
The poster cut-and-pasted a list of 14 studies, editorials and opinions going back to 1894 from a pro-marijuana blog in a lame attempt to show that marijuana was harmless.
I would say that the Siler Commission, Panama Canal Zone Report of 1930, for example, stating that "cannabis use was harmless, and, having subjected to medico-scientific clinical monitoring, heavy cannabis smoking produced no effect upon motivation or performance", would qualify as an answer to your question.
You disagree?
Half an answer ... what's the contrary new fact?
Oh please. You yourself have admitted that marijuana is not harmless. Quit wasting my time with your stupid requests.
So now I'm an authoritative source on drug-related matters? Cool!
Go away, troll.
That's only my opinion; I have no facts to back it up. Do you?
You're entitled to your opinion, even an unsupported one.
You are not, however, entitled to me backing it up for you.
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.