Now we have found convincing evidense on the subject, based on facts that might exist and studies that we just made up.
No shit. The Bible was more convincing than that article. They are really starting to reach, blades...
you know what pisses me off about stuff like this? sure, cigarettes can cause cancer, everyone knows that. yet people still smoke. cannabis smoke has been proven to have anti-tumor properties. (which coincidently wasn't mentioned in that journal). but they still insist it causes cancer, without proof. but my point is. who the fuck cares if it causes cancer, and who the fuck cares if cigarettes cause cancer? the number one cause of death in the united states is heart disease. heart disease. you know what causes heart disease? the diet of saturated fat and lack of exercise. i don't see them trying to outlaw biggie sized baconators. in 2006 almost 100,000 more people died from heart disease than ALL cancer. not just cancer directly associated with cigarette smoke. and i have my theory, that most of the people who die from "cigarette smoking related illness" weren't in very good shape in the first place and they abused their bodies with no exercise and fatty foods. making their lungs lazy or something. i'm not saying cigarettes aren't bad for you, but i'm saying that they should spend less time worrying about what causes cancer and start focusing on heart disease, since we're literally eating ourselves to death. this world makes me fucking sick. everything is so fucking ass backwards. why does everyone even care if i want to smoke a square, or a blunt? i don't tell the fat ass to drop the fucking hamburger because his fucking protruding fat rolls ruin my appetite. but he can tell me to put my cigarette out because it makes him cough. i'll be smoking a cigarette reading his obituary. it's the sad truth. obesity is an epidemic but we don't see surgeon general's warnings on food. WHAT THE FUCK. </pointless>
Fear mongering bullshit like normal. Look for the key words they always use, can, could, uncertainty, may, implying, indications, potential, possibility, and suggesting. 9 different clarifying words in that short article. Words that say "We couldn't find the proof we were hoping to find, but we also didn't find anything to disprove it." They also weren't looking to disprove it which could very well explain why they didn't. And look at their related stories: All the same bullshit, those stories go back to 2006, not a single one in that time about the studies that show marijuana is helpful in many cases.
i like how it says "However, it has been difficult to measure DNA damage from acetaldehyde with conventional tests." and on the exact same page on the related stories one of them says "Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer (May 26, 2006) — People who smoke marijuana -- even heavy, long-term marijuana users -- do not appear to be at increased risk for developing lung cancer, according to a study to be presented at the American Thoracic ... > read more" idk it does seem like a tuff choice wich side to believe these random scientists who did one study or an entire generation of pot smokes who are still healthy
Thats how all these reports get published, before the full text is even out they report on a scary attention grabbing headline, everyone takes that as the truth and never look into it further, a week or month later when the study is released you find out this scary headline was a small part that went against what the report as a whole showed, but that story never gets attention.
I want someone to show me hard proof that marijuana is as bad as they say. Im here, im listening, i'm open. I am willing to accept that marijuana is not amazing if you give me hard facts. They aren't giving it to us, you know? I've seen alcoholic livers, smokers lungs, and, hell, smoking marijuana may be bad for your lungs, so just eat it! (although I prefer to smoooke) Every anti-marijuana site is the same bullshit. toke on, my blades
I would like to note that: A: "Rajinder Singh (an actual person) and colleagues note that toxic substances in tobacco smoke can damage DNA and increase the risk of lung and other cancers." B: "scientists (who, exactly?) in Europe are reporting "convincing evidence" that marijuana smoke damages the genetic material DNA in ways that could (not does, COULD) increase the risk of cancer." This article's credibility rides on unnamed "scientists" in Europe, a CONTINENT. It doesn't even name the lab, the university, or even the COUNTRY that oversaw this research.
I've been saying the same thing. I've asked over and over again for anyone who doesn't support marijuana to give me one single reason, backed up by science not opinion, why marijuana deserves to be illegal. Just one(1) reason, shouldn't be hard, I mean I can rattle off 10 reasons backed by science it should be legal in one breath, all I'm asking for is one reason at any point, do as much research as needed I have time. The best answer I have been given is "I don't want it here, go to Canada if you want to smoke that shit." That is the most coherent scientific response I have received. And the only thing not opinion in it is that Canada is in fact a country, a country where it's illegal as well, but it is a country. I can not think of any other time or subject in history that has had so many people saying "Please prove me wrong, I would prefer to be wrong than lied to, please just prove to me why I am wrong. If you can I will shut up." Yet no one ever does. It's very much like James Randi who is offering $1 million dollars to anyone who can "show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power." I just don't get it, I understand the the people who just believe the bullshit have been fed their whole lives, I don't like it, but I understand it. But what excuses do people like John Walters have, he has had access to every bit of information on this subject, hell it was his job to look at all the information. Yet he continues to spew bullshit, why, what reason does he have for doing this? It's not like him comes out and says "There is plenty of classified information as to how dangerous this substance is, unfortunately the American people can't see it to understand, but you just have to trust that there are legitimite reasons." That I could stomach and stop and think about. But all his reasons are bullshit twisted facts, and he is either incredibly stupid or he knows they are bullshit. And if it's the latter, then what incentive does he have to prepetuate it?
First line: "...could increase the risk of cancer." "However, there has been uncertainty over whether marijuana smoke has the same effect." "However, it has been difficult to measure DNA damage from acetaldehyde with conventional tests." "implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development" Doesn't seem like they've proven or recorded anything at all, but i love the cover ups with words like "could" and "may"