 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
Another anti-marijuana "fact" debunked
>> The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years. "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought. <<
It's long past time marijuana was put on the same basis as cigarettes and alcohol -- legally restricted to adults, but readily available (and taxable!) in stores. The amount of tax money (and law enforcement person-hours wasted) seeking out pot dealers and users, and the number of lives destroyed by the government's vendetta against weed, surpasses tragic ant enters the realm of the obscene. And, btw, I haven't had a "joint" in well over 20 years now, so this is not a matter of special personal interest.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Discussion is locked
1 - 30 of 62 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
Self reported use of tobacco, alcohol and cigarettes comparing the two groups of around 1000? What were the results for the other two "evils"? Did they control for the non-smoking tokers and the non-toking smokers?
These numbers are a bit unbelievable: 22,000 joints?
That's 1 joint daily for 60 years
5 joints a day for 12 years
I could go on, but you should get my point.
Were they current potheads, or was that 22,000 in their youth or consistent throughout adulthood? How long was their adulthood?
The MJ lobby has to do better than this.
What a waste of taxpayer dollars. 
- Collapse -
but a govenrment funded study showing we need to breath is a waste of money. Same type of thing.
- Collapse -
You think this was a worthwhile expenditure of money? YOU pay for it!
- Collapse -
is a proper expenditure of money. Does it really matter? The government spends a lot of money on things I don't think are important but others do. Nobody runs the budget by either one of us.
Diana
- Collapse -
... wastes of taxpayer money?
If you post about some study you feel is a waste of taxpayer money I'll probably agree with you or not reply.
Any comment on the substantive parts of my post? Or just snide quips?
- Collapse -
I was just making the point that no expenditures are agreed upon by everyone. Perhaps someday we will be able to specify where are tax dollars are going but not today.
Diana
- Collapse -
marijuana usage is still hotly debated by everyone except the true believers in control of the Federal Government. The three expert study (by the NIH, National Academy of Sciences, and Academy of Medicine) attest to that. What's junk science and a waste of medicine is the recent statement on the matter by the FDA, which amounts to "because we say so." And here's an example of the debate in action: Letters: M.D. reflects on RX marijuana use.
(It's too short to meaningfully excerpt under "fair use.")
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
Pharmaceuticalize the active canniboids!
- Collapse -
I believe he has a disclaimer, and not speaking as a Mod.
Seems you are disappointed that you didn't make the subject post he did, but instead take the as usual attack against him, just because you dislike anything, yes anything he says, something like your usual leading attack against others not in your liking. As far as BS, IMO you are by far the most BS'er woman that has ever posted in SE.
Re the subject, yes like you have also indicated doing, I smoked a few joints myself about 30+ years ago.
- Collapse -
This was Diana. Her reply was a snide attack at me. The moderators SAID they would lead by example. They have a long way to go with that.
I addressed the subject. Again if you can't see that, I can't help you.
- Collapse -
A recent thread about the Beatles was ''without purpose'' simply because she doesn't happen to care for the Beatles. Then when it was suggested that she simply not participate in the thread if it didn't interest her, she proceeded to urinate all over it until the good nature of the thread was completely gone.
It really doesn't matter whether she was replying to DK or to Diana; her tone would have been the same either way.
And yes, I know what's coming.
- Collapse -
Your bash of duckman was the without purpose jab.
What was wrong with my tone replying to DK? Diana's tone certainly deserved worse from me than she got.
- Collapse -
were a no no!! John and Josh certainly don't think so!
Just wondering how long their personal attacks will be allowed to stand
- Collapse -
Not one individual post.
Diana's post was right on the money; I'm glad for her that she didn't get worse than she got; we've all seen what "worse" is.
- Collapse -
"As far as BS, IMO you are by far the most BS'er woman that has ever posted in SE."
- Collapse -
it would give the expected answer!
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
... but I don't give a crap whether pot smoking causes cancer or not.
What is poorly designed is how out of populations of around 1000 you can possibly control for and make adequate comparisons for four different cancers based on self reported retrospective use of three substances, etc.
- Collapse -
... controlled for, etc. If you compared the cancer rates of 1000 regular pot smokers who abstained from cigarettes and alcohol to 1000 non-pot smokers who also abstained from cigarettes and alcohol, where the other characteristics of the two samples were similar (gender, age, race), then 1000 might well be enough to start. This is a far better way to study the effect of a variable on the outcome than the way this study is designed.
- Collapse -
Since the debate is current about the medical effects of marijuana I find it logical that the government (if this administration is worth the name... I too feel bad about paying taxes to GW&Co.) does spend money on it. What do you think the gvmnt. should spend money on?
- Collapse -
Waste of money.
Government should spend money on that which the Constitution says it should.
- Collapse -
Thank you, Ron Paul (my Congressman, whose similar logic leads to the title of "Congressman No" for having the current record for being on the wrong side of votes with fewer than 10 opponents...
Of course, the Constitution, written over 215 years ago, couldn't possibly specifically enumerate every issue now, could it? That's the ultimate fallacy behind "strict construction," which, btw, is a relatively new concept -- and one that flies in the face of traditional legal theory (dating back almost to the time of Magna Carta) that gives equal weight to legislated law and judicial precedent, unless the latter be overturned by the former.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
... they didn't include a right to free health care because medical care back then was more likely to cause death than improve one's life.
- Collapse -
" they didn't include a right to free health care because medical care back then was more likely to cause death than improve one's life."
Emphasizing and underlining are mine!
Do you really think that was the reason? I don't. I think the "each one to himself"-mentality is the reason.
- Collapse -
The reason the Framers did not include free medical care (or free anything) in the Constitution is that they recognized that no person has a "right" to require another person to pay for his medical care or anything else.
You may not like that, but that's how it works.
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic