whateverdude Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) The anti-smoking campaign in New York boarders on assault with the graphic TV spots and ads depicting cigarette smoke as a major cause of cancer, heart and other health related problems. At the same time that these ads are running all over the state, Cuomo is coming out in favor of "medical" Marijuana. Marijuana smoke is much worse for your health than tobacco smoke: * In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of emergency room mentions of marijuana use. From 1993-2000, the number of emergency room marijuana mentions more than tripled. * There are also many long-term health consequences of marijuana use. According to the National Institutes of Health, studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day. * Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. Smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette. * Harvard University researchers report that the risk of a heart attack is five times higher than usual in the hour after smoking marijuana. * Smoking marijuana also weakens the immune system and raises the risk of lung infections. A Columbia University study found that a control group smoking a single marijuana cigarette every other day for a year had a white-blood-cell count that was 39 percent lower than normal, thus damaging the immune system and making the user far more susceptible to infection and sickness. Edited July 23, 2011 by whateverdude
LeviF Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) [citation needed] Edited July 23, 2011 by LeviF91
whateverdude Posted July 23, 2011 Author Posted July 23, 2011 [citation needed] http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html
LeviF Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html It's like asking Focus on the Family for a pamphlet on gay marriage.
Simon Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html The DEA? :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: I love you big government liberals.......
Booster4324 Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 It's like asking Focus on the Family for a pamphlet on gay marriage. :lol:
whateverdude Posted July 23, 2011 Author Posted July 23, 2011 It's like asking Focus on the Family for a pamphlet on gay marriage. University studies were cited, but then again denial and fat dobbie sound better right
LeviF Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 University studies were cited, but then again denial and fat dobbie sound better right Yeah, most of which are 15+ years old. Try this one on for size: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/?tool=pmcentrez
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 University studies were cited, but then again denial and fat dobbie sound better right So you've come around to global warming, too?
LeviF Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 So you've come around to global warming, too? I should have thought of that one.
whateverdude Posted July 24, 2011 Author Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) So you've come around to global warming, too? Not the same thing the campus hippies conducting the research were looking for ways to justify pot smoking when compared to tobacco. Lucky there were a few grown ups in the room to report the truth. Edited July 24, 2011 by whateverdude
whateverdude Posted July 24, 2011 Author Posted July 24, 2011 Yeah, most of which are 15+ years old. Try this one on for size: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/?tool=pmcentrez What BS. You provide me with a speculative and inconclusive slanted literature review paper. How about a real study?
LeviF Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 What BS. You provide me with a speculative and inconclusive slanted literature review paper. How about a real study? How about I compare you to Focus on the Family again? Because that's the same kind of response I got when talking to their lobbyist
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 What BS. You provide me with a speculative and inconclusive slanted literature review paper. How about a real study? It quoted actual studies. Yours quoted the Washington Times. Neither was very good...but yours was far, far worse. Not the same thing the campus hippies conducting the research were looking for ways to justify pot smoking when compared to tobacco. Lucky there were a few grown ups in the room to report the truth. University studies are valid in this case, but not for global warming. Because of hippies. Shut the !@#$ up.
TheMadCap Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 The anti-smoking campaign in New York boarders on assault with the graphic TV spots and ads depicting cigarette smoke as a major cause of cancer, heart and other health related problems. At the same time that these ads are running all over the state, Cuomo is coming out in favor of "medical" Marijuana. Marijuana smoke is much worse for your health than tobacco smoke: * In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of emergency room mentions of marijuana use. From 1993-2000, the number of emergency room marijuana mentions more than tripled. From what, 10 to 30? * There are also many long-term health consequences of marijuana use. According to the National Institutes of Health, studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day. * Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. Smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette. There are over 3000 (identified) chemicals in cigarette smoke, and the reason you get more tar (I'd love to hear someone try and explain what that word really means. Winner gets a prize!) with a doob is because it is compared to a FILTERED cigarette, which is the point of adding a filter in the first place. It's like saying that drinking unfiltered water exposed you to five times the chemicals as filtered water. No ****!
Rob's House Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 To the original question, yes Cuomo is a hypocrite, but he's a liberal so that's redundant. It would be real nice if everyone stopped trying to invoke the power of government to make people eat their peas and carrots.
DC Tom Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 To the original question, yes Cuomo is a hypocrite, but he's a liberal so that's redundant. It would be real nice if everyone stopped trying to invoke the power of government to make people eat their peas and carrots. Of course, peas and carrots provide health benefits, hence are drugs, hence we can't eat them until they get FDA approval...
Magox Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Holy crap! What a ridiculous thread. Let's forbid marijuana yet allow alcohol. I'm absolutely sure that alcohol consumed equally in relative terms is much unhealthier on many levels than marijuana. Oh And god forbid the government try to promote healthy eating!
OCinBuffalo Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 (edited) Holy crap! What a ridiculous thread. Let's forbid marijuana yet allow alcohol. I'm absolutely sure that alcohol consumed equally in relative terms is much unhealthier on many levels than marijuana. Oh And god forbid the government try to promote healthy eating! All drugs should be legalized immediately. Why? Sound cost/benefit analysis. Keeping them illegal costs us more, actually, way more. Period. The government should not promote anything. Why? Sound cost/benefit analysis. The government money spent on sending this message does not return the required benefit to justify the expenditure, not even close. Besides, the pea and carrot trade associations both have access to the capital and the various media methods required for getting their messages across to consumers. I have no problem with public safety announcements like telling you to wear a seat belt, or STOP DWI, Why? Sound cost/benefit analysis. The costs of not doing these things far outweigh the costs of the ads. But, Government needs to learn what it is good at, and stick to only that. Government sucks at prohibition, as we saw in the 20s and see now. Government also sucks at telling you how to live, because nobody listens anyway. We should never support and sign up for continued failure simply because it gives the misguided, on any side, an opportunity to emote and have their Hallmark moment with Oprah, or, because it gives a business the opportunity to get free advertising on our dime. Edited July 26, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
Recommended Posts