... and defended the position lest there be any misinterpretation of that ridiculous assertion!
 | 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
31 - 60 of 62 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
no more student aid or loans, no more helping the poor, no more roads or mass transit, no more radio, TV, cell phone regulation. Is the FDA in the constitution?
Diana
- Collapse -
... as are mass transit (although local governments should be involved). NPR is a waste of money. Regulation (to some degree) is a reasonable government function and expenditure. Subsidizing is not. All social programs should be scrapped on the federal level. Research has become so politicized that even if one believes funding research is legit, the way its funded is abominable. Give that to the free market. People will always invest in good ideas.
- Collapse -
should build roads or railroads or canals or airports.
Diana
- Collapse -
Don't get me wrong, not saying that the government involvement hasn't extended far beyond what the framers intended.
- Collapse -
Just a guess: All roads/highways should beprivate and paid for by the public?
- Collapse -
The Constitution allows the feds to be involved in interstate transportation
- Collapse -
where medical research is part of the Federal government's responsibility
- Collapse -
It's propaganda. Regardless of one's position on the legality of drugs, whether or not MJ causes cancer is irrelevant.
Evie 
- Collapse -
Yes? Is that irrelevant? Not to me although I don't even smoke cigarettes stuffed with tobacco.
- Collapse -
If you have sufficient personal interest in the matter, donate to the David Geffen Medical Center. Why should taxpayers fund studies into whether or not those that are breaking the law are at increased risk for lung cancer? Think about that.
There is legitimate research to be done to see if certain canniboids can be helpful in certain diseases. Whether or not the federal government should be funding these studies aside, they WOULD be relevant. There seems to be a great deal of dishonesty among those touting ''medical marijuana'' who are really just for legalizing the drug altogether. That might be a valid position to take, but exploiting (and in many cases co-opting) the cause of those seeking relief doesn't reflect well on those doing so. If certain canniboids are useful, they should be pharmaceuticalized. Certain opiates are currently prescribed, we don't allow folks to turn their back yards into poppy fields!
MJ being illegal is based on the fact that THC is classified as a hallucinogen and is a Schedule I drug. This classification has NOTHING to do with ''general'' potential harms and everything to do with the balance of potential for addiction/abuse vs. medical benefit.
This study is irrelevant to the issues considered if MJ were to be rescheduled. Now if it's legalized for recreational use, I still don't think we need to study for every possible deleterious effect. Waste of limited resources.
- Collapse -
Why is there something like taxpayers at all? No one should have to be a taxpayer. It's a burden.
- Collapse -
cancer or other directly...
It effect something... maybe... but like anything else, it always contribute to something.
All Government or any organization, Statements, Laws, Rules concerning something, always end up in concensus that directly based heavily on Politic and Money ... the research is just that .. a research.
- Collapse -
"laissez faire, laissez aller, laissez passer," a French phrase meaning "let do, let go, let pass."
AKA...LIBERTY!
- Collapse -
but who argues against smoking in general as a "cause" (read contributing factor) of cancer...
.
- Collapse -
one of the world leading cancer hospitals didn't blame my 3 packs of cigs a day for 50+ years as causing the cancer. They never said...course I didn't mention smoking some 'joints' some years back which would have made no difference.
Legalize MJ today, and I may smoke some more.
- Collapse -
Doesn't mean you should do it.
I stopped years ago too, but I know a lot of people who didn't stop. There's no doubt in my mind that it is bad for your physical and mental health.
- Collapse -
cigarettes and alcohol. Rriiigggghhhhhttttt! Just what we need! Even more impaired teens and adults driving vehicles around. Even more lives destroyed by drugs. That does sound like a good liberal idea. Let's all get high and have a good time. After all, no one gets hurt by any of this do they?
- Collapse -
Do you think the statistics are too high today and you don't want to make them higher?
Well, if they're too high as it is, why not go into prohibition again and also ban all mindaltering drugs?
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic