whos got the upper hand in the upcoming election

[Chadd 916]

You can smoke a cigarette and drive. Going 10 MPH and stopping at every taco bell doesn't count. I found this for you, it disputes one of your facts.

A chemical found in tobacco smoking, benzopyrene, causes genetic damage in lung cells that is identical to the damage observed in the DNA of most malignant tumors of the lungs. Although scientists have been convinced in the past that smoking causes lung cancer, the strong statistical associations did not provide absolute proof. This paper absolutely pinpoints that mutations in lung cancer cells are caused by benzopyrene.

An average marijuana cigarette contains 30 nanograms of this carcinogen, compared to 21 nanograms in an average tobacco cigarette (Marijuana and Health, National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine report,1982). This potent carcinogen suppresses a gene that controls growth of cells. When this gene is damaged, the body becomes more susceptible to cancer. This gene, P53, is related to half of all human cancers and as many as 70% of lung cancers.

Clearly marijuana smoke contains more of the potent carcinogen benzopyrene than tobacco smoke. Furthermore, the technique of\line smoking marijuana by inhaling deeply and holding the smoke within the lungs presents a chance of much greater exposure than a conventional tobacco cigarette.

Scientists from the British Lung Foundation, a UK based think tank, discovered than smoking only three marijuana joints a day is equivalent to smoking a pack of twenty cigarettes on a lung cancer risk scale! You read right: Three marijuana joints has the same cancer risk as a whole pack of cigarettes!

[tyler9 0]

Yes this is smoked marijuana. Lets take in to consideration these cigarettes were probally smoked with a filter where a joint usually is not. If you smoke marijuana in a bong it filters out these toxins. Marijuana can also be digested in foods or in tea.

Despite cannabis' known negative effects to lung function, it has never been reported to cause a single instance of lung cancer. Tobacco, though, is expected to kill 400,000 people this year (Glenn, 1992). If cannabis is so much more dangerous to a user's lungs than tobacco and is so much more carcinogenic, why aren't there stacks of reports of cannabis-induced lung cancer? One interesting theory is that it's because tobacco tars are significantly radioactive, while marijuana tars aren't at all. Winters et al. (1982) found that a pack-and-a-half-a-day smoker of tobacco is exposed to 8000 mrem of radiation a year, equal to the dose of 300 chest x-rays. A more recent study indicates that a pack-and-a-half-a-day smoker receives 16000 mrem of radiation more than a non-smoker, annually (NCRP Report #95, 1987)

For example, roasted coffee contains 800 volatile chemicals, of which only 21 have been tested on rodents, and of those, 16 were carcinogenic (Ames, 1990). Coffee has never been considered a great cancer-causing substance, though.

This is a chart of the comparison of chemicls in a cigarette to a joint

MJ Tobacco

Gas Phase Analysis

Carbon Monoxide (Vol %) 3.99 4.58

Carbon Monoxide (mg) 17.6 20.2

Carbon Dioxide (Vol %) 8.27 9.38

Carbon Dioxide (mg) 57.3 65.0

Ammonia (ug) 228 178

HCN (ug) 532 498

Isoprene (ug) 83 310

Acetaldehyde (ug) 1200 980

Acetone (ug) 443 578

Acetonitrile (ug) 92 85

Benzene (ug) 76 67

Toluene (ug) 112 108

Dimethylnitrosamine (ng) 75 84

Methylethylnitrosamine (ng) 27 30

Particulate Matter Analysis

Phenol (ug) 76.8 138.5

o-Cresol (ug) 76.8 24

17.9 24

m-p-Cresol (ug) 54.4 65

2.4- and 2.5- dimethylphenol (ug) 6.8 14.4

Cannabidiol (ug) 190

delta-9 THC (ug) 820

Nicotine (ug) 2850

Naphthalene (ng) 3000 1200

1-methylnaphthalene 6100 3650

2-methylnaphthalene 3600 1400

Benzo(a)anthracene (ng) 75 43

Benzo(a)pyrene (ng) 31 22.1

[Chadd 916]

Those reports don't exist for a couple of reasons.

1- Most people who smoke marijuana also smoke tobacco

2- A long term study would have to be done and nobody is going to pay for a long term study that encourages use of a controlled substance over the course of the experiment.

3- Only a small percentage of the population has used it over an extended period of time and they are difficult to replicate in a control group.

There's a difference between no studies being done and no evidencethat it is harmful. Most evidence shows that it isn't a benign substance. Personally I don't care but I don't like incorrect information.

Oh, that stuff about coffee is really irrelevant. Everyone knows caffeine is bad for you and alcohol causes damage but adding another substance that is documented to damage the human body won't be legalized.

[hattrick74 0]

back to the whole liberal media thing, does anyone else find it odd that the liberal majority of the US demands that whatever you feel is okay and right should be ok and right for the country, but when it comes to religon, mainly christianity, they say keep that away from us and basically say it has no right to be discussed? i just find that odd, if they truly want to be liberal then anything, even religon, should be okay.

[Vapor 0]

well its because they have their own agendas. Its sad how we dont have freedom of speech today, and its the liberals fault plain and simple, political correctness is a joke.

[jay 1]

They say keep that away from us

I don't think too many "liberals" are saying that about religion. What they may be saying and what you are likely paraphrasing is "keep church seperate from our government and away from our public education system" just like it says in our constitution.

[GekigangarIII 0]

I don't think too many "liberals" are saying that about religion.  What they may be saying and what you are likely paraphrasing is "keep church seperate from our government and away from our public education system" just like it says in our constitution.

Actually most of the extreme liberals confuse "seperation of church and state" to mean, 'keep church out of government and schools'). By this they misconstrue that it means church shouldn't be allowed in school (prayer, etc.) or the government. When in reality the meaning is "keep the government out of our church". The liberals are trying to use the constitution against itself. It's one of the most misused articles of the constitution.

Most people that try to use that article for their own agenda (read: I fear/hate/feel threatened by "religion") forget that the article was written to defend America from what happened to england and the catholic church (the government had corrupted the church). The people that wrote the constitution saw it all happen in their homeland (England) and didn't want it happening here...

[Vapor 0]

Although I do agree that liberals use the constitution for their own agendas, what you said was 100% incorrect. Seperation of church and state means exactly what it says, they should be 100% seperate, on both sides, dynamicaly. The drafters of the constitution didnt want a religion impossed on them. That why many people moved here.

[GekigangarIII 0]

Although I do agree that liberals use the constitution for their own agendas, what you said was 100% incorrect.  Seperation of church and state means exactly what it says, they should be 100% seperate, on both sides, dynamicaly.  The drafters of the constitution didnt want a religion impossed on them.  That why many people moved here.

what you said just reinforced exactly what I said. "the drafters of the consitution did not want a religion imposed on them"... which is exactly what "keep the government out of our church" means. They didn't want the government corrupting religion/church or sponsoring which is what happened in England. But you are correct it works both ways, you can't have a religion that sponsors a government. As it's stated it's supposed to mean that a state can't place a law to recognize a government nor can the state place a law to prohibit the exercise of.. also the state can't make a religion a prerequisite for government service nor can it disqualify it...

Are you seeing why the issue is so confused? :)

*edits

[Vapor 0]

having church in state is having religion in government. I think, if you dont like it, tough, suck it up, I am going to say god in the pledge, if I want, if you dont like it, say hot dog instead, I dont care, politcal correctness is really throwing our country down the tubes. Our sensitivity is sickening

[jay 1]

How about your both right. Neither belongs in either place unless it's by the choice of the individual or private group.

[GekigangarIII 0]

How about your both right.  Neither belongs in either place unless it's by the choice of the individual or private group.

yeah I had to edit mine to make more sense *

and with that, I'm getting the heck out of this thread! It's getting just goofy.. we shouldn't rap politics here, in the end I could give a crap about everyone here's politics and the same can be said about everyone giving a hoot about mine... ;) back to freakin hockey!