California Proposition 19 (Legalization of Marijuana)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ethan Rosen
  • Start date Start date
I'll rephrase my "lung cancer" to lung disease.

Hadley: I didn't mean to imply that statement negated this guy who studied for 30 years. I simply wanted to state (what I thought) was an obvious.

David: Do you know how hard it is to get results (other than cigarette / cigar smoking) for what forms of smoke cause cancer? Either way, I'll rephrase "lung cancer" to lung disease. I was in a health class and I remember this being brought up. I remembered it had something to do with the alveoli, so I used that to help with my google search, and I found:

http://life.familyeducation.com/smoking/first-aid/48286.html

http://www.lung.ca/protect-protegez/tobacco-tabagisme/facts-faits/hurts-nuit_e.php - This article states much of the same, but also says how it can cause COPD and heart disease.

I guess I expected anybody of 18+ to have a basic understanding of human anatomy (ie smoke of any kind is bad for you!). My apologies for having such high expectations.
 
Last edited:
I guess I expected anybody of 18+ to have a basic understanding of human anatomy (ie smoke of any kind is bad for you!).
I wouldn't class being completely sure all smoke is harmful as part of "a basic understanding of human anatomy". Put me in the group of people who aren't sure all smoke is dangerous. Smoke from a house fire is dangerous because of the toxic solids and gases released, and because of the heat; cigarette smoke is dangerous primarily because of all the toxic chemicals in the cigarettes themselves. But what about incense smoke or the smoke used in food curing and smokescreens (...or pot smoke)? I'm not sure the generalization can so easily be made.
 
I'm guessing you didn't bother to read either of the links I provided (primarily the first), did you? Don't forget, just because you can eat a food (smoke goes to your stomach) that has been smoked (it leaves a flavor that some of us enjoy), doesn't mean that you can inhale (smoke goes into your lungs) that smoke and receive no harmful side effects from it. I didn't make any generalization, I gave evidence how smoke stops the cilia and alveoli in the lungs from working, and how this leads to lung and heart disease.

Interestingly enough, this has brought back the alcohol point I just made. The thoughts going through my head compared to how I just presented this to you are completely different. If alcohol was here to influence this, my words would be different. This is based off judgement. I realized I could present it better rather than the first thought that comes to my head. If I had poorer judgement (for any reason) then the idea would be closer to the exact thoughts I was thinking. This could cause quite a downward spiral. This doesn't mean the alcohol made me think like that. I thought that way before, I just presented it differently.
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing you didn't bother to read either of the links I provided (primarily the first), did you?
No, I did. But one of them was focused on the short-term effects of smoke inhalation as a traumatic event (as in, if you are in a fire or something), and the other seemed to be entirely specific to cigarette smoke.

Don't forget, just because you can eat a food (smoke goes to your stomach) that has been smoked (it leaves a flavor that some of us enjoy), doesn't mean that you can inhale (smoke goes into your lungs) that smoke and receive no harmful side effects from it.
I wasn't talking about people who eat smoked food, obviously, but about the practice of smoking food itself. If all smoke was dangerous, that could be construed as a dangerous activity. Smoking food is just one reason why you'd be in contact with smoke without feeling like you are in a dangerous situation, and I'm not sure it actually would be dangerous unless you do it to the point of absolute excess.

Interestingly enough, this has brought back the alcohol point I just made. The thoughts going through my head compared to how I just presented this to you are completely different. If alcohol was here to influence this, my words would be different. This is based off judgement. I realized I could present it better rather than the first thought that comes to my head. If I had poorer judgement (for any reason) then the idea would be closer to the exact thoughts I was thinking. This could cause quite a downward spiral. This doesn't mean the alcohol made me think like that. I thought that way before, I just presented it differently.
Sorry but I think that came out a bit unclear. Care to paraphrase/summarize for me?
 
Last edited:
Sorry but I think that came out a bit unclear. Care to paraphrase/summarize for me?

I think he means that what he writes down and what he thinks are different because he has good judgment, but if alcohol was involved, or whatever else, his judgment would not be too great and he would be writing down something that was closer to what he was actually thinking, making it hard to understand or something (lol :p)
 
I'll rephrase my "lung cancer" to lung disease.

Hadley: I didn't mean to imply that statement negated this guy who studied for 30 years. I simply wanted to state (what I thought) was an obvious.

David: Do you know how hard it is to get results (other than cigarette / cigar smoking) for what forms of smoke cause cancer? Either way, I'll rephrase "lung cancer" to lung disease. I was in a health class and I remember this being brought up. I remembered it had something to do with the alveoli, so I used that to help with my google search, and I found:

http://life.familyeducation.com/smoking/first-aid/48286.html

http://www.lung.ca/protect-protegez/tobacco-tabagisme/facts-faits/hurts-nuit_e.php - This article states much of the same, but also says how it can cause COPD and heart disease.

I guess I expected anybody of 18+ to have a basic understanding of human anatomy (ie smoke of any kind is bad for you!). My apologies for having such high expectations.



Two things though. There have not been ANY cases of lung problems or heart attacks. Aside from the fact that there are zero cases of that, even if it WERE the case, wouldn't they be all over the TV by anti drug organizations? How about YOU use common sense.

ZERO cases ever reported. Yea, that causes so many problems!
 
I'll rephrase my "lung cancer" to lung disease.

Hadley: I didn't mean to imply that statement negated this guy who studied for 30 years. I simply wanted to state (what I thought) was an obvious.

David: Do you know how hard it is to get results (other than cigarette / cigar smoking) for what forms of smoke cause cancer? Either way, I'll rephrase "lung cancer" to lung disease. I was in a health class and I remember this being brought up. I remembered it had something to do with the alveoli, so I used that to help with my google search, and I found:

http://life.familyeducation.com/smoking/first-aid/48286.html

http://www.lung.ca/protect-protegez/tobacco-tabagisme/facts-faits/hurts-nuit_e.php - This article states much of the same, but also says how it can cause COPD and heart disease.

I guess I expected anybody of 18+ to have a basic understanding of human anatomy (ie smoke of any kind is bad for you!). My apologies for having such high expectations.



Two things though. There have not been ANY cases of lung problems or heart attacks. Aside from the fact that there are zero cases of that, even if it WERE the case, wouldn't they be all over the TV by anti drug organizations? How about YOU use common sense.

ZERO cases ever reported. Yea, that causes so many problems!
 
qqwref: The first article specifically states how smoke wears out the cilia and the alveoli. Smoking food usually involves a short duration of exposure to the smoke. It's the same thing with camp fires, I love the "smell" of camp fires, and they sure do have a lot of smoke, but I don't feel it's dangerous because I'm not sitting there for hours at a time inhaling a lot of the smoke. Sit inside a smoker, it shouldn't be long until you're coughing. The point at which you're coughing is when the cilia can't do their job (according to that article, anyway).

To recap the point about alcohol is that the initial thought and reaction I had to your post was (same point) but nothing similar to what I wrote. When I write on the forums, I often read my replies quite a few times before posting. I find that I make some spelling and/or grammar errors, don't phrase things how I wanted them to be phrased, etc. In the end, my reply looks (usually) nothing like what it started out as. If for whatever reason (like about my little 'expectation' that I had) I have some sort of snide remark, it's usually toned down when posted here. If it were to be straight from my thoughts to here, I'd be permanently banned, heh. If alcohol were involved, a lot of these thoughts would come out as thoughts, instead of making things look "correct." This is because alcohol causes judgement to be lost. If this were in real life, something that bothers me in my head (as in enough to annoy me but I don't show it), if I had x amount of alcohol in me, I would display the actual annoyance instead of hold it back. People often blame this effect on "oh it's the alcohol," when in reality it's how the person really felt, they just hold it back when they're sober.

Hadley: Haven't you heard of patient confidentiality? Even if so, I can speculate that at least one person with lung or heart disease was a recreational marijuana smoker. The kicker to this is that they probably also smoked cigarettes, if this is true, the blame will be placed on the cigarettes, not the marijuana. Science is science, though. The more exposure you have to smoke (any sort), the more chance you have at wearing out your cilia and alveoli. On the other hand, this is also true if you are in extremely humid environments, or extremely dusty environments, etc. When I said "all smoke can cause," it was meant as a (supposed to be) humorous quip, I had no intention of it going past that. If you read my earlier post, I even stated that I didn't mean for the comment to negate anything you said about marijuana. Please understand this is the second time I'm telling you that it meant nothing to negate what you said. I was asked to "back up" a claim I made, and I was a bit unsettled with the fact I thought everybody learned when they were real young to cover your nose and mouth with a wet cloth if you're stuck in a house breathing smoke (until you can get outside).
 
When I said "all smoke can cause," it was meant as a (supposed to be) humorous quip, I had no intention of it going past that.
You shouldn't make a claim that isn't clearly satirical in a debate thread that you're not prepared to back up.
 
qqwref: The first article specifically states how smoke wears out the cilia and the alveoli. [...] The point at which you're coughing is when the cilia can't do their job (according to that article, anyway).
Well, it's talking about the lung's ability to clean itself of dust, and saying that smoke inhalation overwhelms that ability. You definitely have a short-term problem when you're coughing and having trouble breathing. But you can't really conclude that long-term smoke inhalation, at levels below that which overwhelm the cleaning system, causes long-term damage.

Hadley: Haven't you heard of patient confidentiality? Even if so, I can speculate that at least one person with lung or heart disease was a recreational marijuana smoker. The kicker to this is that they probably also smoked cigarettes, if this is true, the blame will be placed on the cigarettes, not the marijuana.
And that's how it should be for now, because cigs have a proven link to cancer and heart disease whereas pot doesn't. I agree it's possible that the pot smoke made the damage more severe than it would've been otherwise, but until we see people getting cancer at a high rate from pot alone, we shouldn't think about the two equally.

When I said "all smoke can cause," it was meant as a (supposed to be) humorous quip, I had no intention of it going past that.
For a supposed joke, you're defending it quite a lot :p

I thought everybody learned when they were real young to cover your nose and mouth with a wet cloth if you're stuck in a house breathing smoke (until you can get outside).
Look, smoke is a really complex substance ("a collection of airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases emitted when a material undergoes combustion or pyrolysis") and isn't all the same. Obviously everyone knows that smoke inhalation from a building fire is dangerous, but it isn't because it's smoke, it's because of the heat and dangerous chemicals that it contains. Not all smoke is equally dangerous (at least, it's clear that cigarette smoke is far less dangerous than smoke from a building fire) and thinking that all smoke is not equally dangerous isn't evidence of idiocy, but of understanding.
 
hawk: It appears that you haven't followed the comments much. I've already stated why that comment was made multiple times and I then "backed it up."

qqwref: The second article states how the alveoli become damaged and it leads to COPD. COPD is not curable. Sounds like this can be quite a damaging side effect? I mean, COPD is a deadly disease. Anyhow, obviously you can only make this argument if you say the person smokes a lot of marijuana, and that one who doesn't smoke that often has no worry. You can make the same argument for cigarette smokers too, but we need to set some timelines before making those arguments. Point is, inhaling smoke damages your lungs, regardless of what kind.

Pot now does have a proven link to help cause heart disease, however minimal it might be. I honestly don't think we'll find too many cases of people having cancer "from pot alone" because a majority of the pot smokers I know also some cigarettes. Actually, there isn't one I know personally who doesn't smoke cigarettes.

I'm defending the joke because it got attacked, people clearly can't tell a joke even when emoticons are used.

If you truly understand smoke, then you understand that there is water vapor in smoke (and makes up quite a bit of it). The water vapor alone is enough for the cilia to try to throw out of the longs and would eventually wear them out. This now allows any other form of dust, dirt, other toxins, etc to stay in your lungs. Have you been to a waterfall? You know the misty part at the bottom where the water comes into the pool that is really misty? Go stand there and breathe, you'll find yourself coughing a lot. Do this long enough and your cilia will become worn out. Now if you go somewhere that happens to be dusty that way, has really bad air pollution, etc., you're at higher risk than somebody who hasn't damaged their lungs cleaning system.
 
Enough of this, you're clearly not interested in the differences between short-term and long-term effects, or in the differences between different kinds of inhalants. I shouldn't have to tell you this, but it is not scientific to extrapolate an effect between two only vaguely similar things. Water vapor? Seriously? People spend decades fishing or living near the ocean and don't have a huge risk of lung damage. The cleaning system is there for a reason, and - believe it or not! - the human body heals small damages all the time, so it doesn't mean they add up to anything big. Every time you do any serious exercise you cause microtrauma to your muscles, but that doesn't mean long-term exercising is going to eventually make your muscles fall apart. Think about what you're saying, instead of just trying to defend a point you already know is only backed by guesswork.

And trying to prevent your statement from scrutiny after you've *already been arguing about its validity* by saying it's a joke is an incredibly pathetic excuse. Take some responsibility for your own statements.
 
Last edited:
qqwref: The second article states how the alveoli become damaged and it leads to COPD.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/180/8/814

"Smoking both tobacco and marijuana synergistically increased the risk of respiratory symptoms and COPD. Smoking only marijuana was not associated with an increased risk of respiratory symptoms or COPD."

Nice try, though.
 
I said before now it was a joke, and hence the tongue smiley. Do you not know how to use emoticons? Do you not understand them? Come to think of it, I haven't seen you type any emoticons, but I also haven't read all 3,170 of your posts (and then however many you have in off topic dicussion / other forums (if any) don't contribute to post count). This could now clear up my thought, maybe you really don't know what they mean! I probably could have saved myself a lot of trouble. Sigh, you win some you lose some, right? That alcohol point I brought back up just a bit ago, yeah, it just happened again. In the event you missed the obvious, the filter is slowly dwindling down.

Have you been to the bottom of a waterfall where it is very misty? I don't mean an ocean mist where it's just cool (temperature) and hazy, I mean misty like you get wet. It's like when you go to a state fair and they have those water sprayers next to fans. Your end up looking like your sweating but it's all water. At waterfalls it's thicker than that. You could probably also go up to one of those sprayers at a fair and get the same reaction, but I'm not sure as I haven't tried it. I'm guessing you haven't been to this part of a waterfall.

I understand how the body heals damage, you could have made that conclusion had you read the part about how if you don't inhale smoke often, it's probably going to be okay (because you might damage the cilia and alveoli now, but they'll probably heal from it). Although I do know (from knowing about COPD) that after you cause so much lung damage, it's not repairable anymore (just as COPD is not curable).

Fishing? Really? I'm not sure where you live but around here the only place to fish is a lake (not even rivers, usually). Even if we include all bodies of water, the only body of water that gets nearly as misty as the waterfall I was talking about, is the specific area of a waterfall that I previously mentioned.

I'm not sure you understand...if you do anything that wears down your cilia and alveoli, you enhance your risk at getting lung disease. If you do this activity often enough, you're now risking permanent damage to your lungs. Permanent damage to your lungs greatly increases your chances at getting lung (and heart) disease. The dosage obviously varies depending on the activity, but fact does remain fact, no matter how you may say I'm trying to extrapolate.
 
Last edited:
Okay, now you're really just not making sense at all. Water falls? Also, don't be degrading to QQ. Smilies have nothing to do with this. He may not use that many, but to not even understand what one is would make someone completely retarded, and he is one of the smarter people on here. As said before. If it's a joke, why are you defending it so much?

Okay. Short and sweet. Chemicals in tobacco smoke causes cancer. Marijuana smoke can prevent cells from becoming malignant.

Cases of reported cancer is not what patient confidentiality is. What that means is than you can't call a doctor and say "Is John Smith sick?" or something to that effect. How would we know the extensive number of alcohol and tobacco related deaths if that were the case?
 
I understand how the body heals damage, you could have made that conclusion had you read the part about how if you don't inhale smoke often, it's probably going to be okay (because you might damage the cilia and alveoli now, but they'll probably heal from it). Although I do know (from knowing about COPD) that after you cause so much lung damage, it's not repairable anymore (just as COPD is not curable).

...

I'm not sure you understand...if you do anything that wears down your cilia and alveoli, you enhance your risk at getting lung disease. If you do this activity often enough, you're now risking permanent damage to your lungs. Permanent damage to your lungs greatly increases your chances at getting lung (and heart) disease. The dosage obviously varies depending on the activity, but fact does remain fact, no matter how you may say I'm trying to extrapolate.

There is a difference between long-term and short-term damage. Short-term damage is damage that is completely repaired by the body. Long-term damage is partially repaired, but eventually builds up into permanent problems.

Cannabis smoke has been shown to have short-term effects on lung performance. It has NOT been proven to have long-term effects. In fact, the link I just posted clearly stated that smoking cannabis alone does NOT lead to COPD. You ARE extrapolating. You are making a logical leap from short-term to long-term damage, contrary to all evidence..
 
Hadley, I said that to qqwref because I felt the emoticon alone was enough to show I was just poking fun. I ended up defending it because people acted like I was being completely serious about it, and again, I thought everybody learned when they were younger not to breathe in smoke. I really thought the gesture of the statement was obvious. He completely disregards the fact I had that tongue smiley included in the original post.

Andrew: Did you read that full article? "Short-term, heavy marijuana smoking among young adults can worsen lung function. Long-term marijuana smoking has been linked to an increase in respiratory symptoms." So you found me one study that says marijuana doesn't affect lung function in adults 40 years old or greater, congratulations. Not everybody (on earth) is 40+. I also linked you to two articles that say smoke (not specifically cigarette smoke, but smoke period) wears out your lungs. I suggest you go read those. There's no extrapolation here: If you wear down your cilia, you will wear down your alveoli. If these become permanently damaged, you increase your chances of lung and heart disease. Go read those articles already.

I can even go ahead and say we can't take all papers coming to a conclusion at face value, can we? qqwref already made that statement. Furthermore, with a spirometer, the more you use it (in a short period of time, say, a couple minutes), the harder it is to keep expelling air. Since I don't know the exact way they said "smoke a cigarette, blow into this tube" we can't conclude for certain they didn't sway the way the test is.

Here's another interesting points about the article: They measure cigarettes in packs, and marijuana in joints. Since when did one joint become equivalent to a whole pack? Now I'm unsure of the average joint size, but most joints I've seen have been physically smaller than a cigarette in girt and length.That means you smoke 20x as much tobacco cigarettes as you do marijuana cigarettes. I'm not trying to say that cigarettes are good for you, but these "samples" don't seem to compare correctly. They define a lifetime history of tobacco smoking as 365 cigarettes, but lifetime marijuana smoking as only 50? This really doesn't seem right.

Putting that aside though, science still stands on: wear down your cillia, wear down your alveoli, cause permanent damage, greater chance of lung disease.
 
Last edited:
I read both articles, as a matter of fact. The first was about the effects of heavy smoke inhalation (as in trapped in a burning house smoke inhalation: several minutes of constant inhalation, as opposed to one breath every 30 seconds with a high smoke content.) If you lived in a bong, this might apply. The article even says that your body cleans small amounts of smoke on its own until it gets overwhelmed. You would have to perform specific testing to determine at which point cannabis smoke overwhelms the cillia.

The second article, as pointed out, is specifically about tobacco smoke. You see, smoke content varies depending on the substance burned. You can not assume that tobacco smoke has the same chemical composition as cannabis smoke, and so you can't assume they have similar effects on the body without specific tests.

The only reason thefrequency is measured in joints and packs is for convenience. Most tobacco smokers smoke at levels measured in packs per day. As a matter of fact, most cannabis users don't smoke exclusively joints, but joints per day is the most understandable metric for non-smokers. Actually, joint size varies greatly from person to persom anyway, so it's not clear exactly how much is being smoked.

Likewise, the fact that they are over 40 is simply a part of the test. There's no way to test long-term effects in younger smokers, is there? That in no way means that those over 40 are at a lower risk than younger people.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top