Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Disclosure:

The statements in this forum have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and are generated by non-professional writers. Any products described are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Website Disclosure:

This forum contains general information about diet, health and nutrition. The information is not advice and is not a substitute for advice from a healthcare professional.

Person who wrote this about MJ, go fuck yourself

Discussion in 'Apprentice Marijuana Consumption' started by Dankydank182, Oct 1, 2010.

  1. 3-4 Cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same evidence of acute and chronic bronchitis and the same degree of damage to the bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.
    Cannabis smoking is likely to weaken the immune system. Infections of the lung are due to a combination of smoking-related damage to the cells lining the bronchial passage and impairment of the principal immune cells in the small air sacs caused by cannabis."

    -- British Lung Foundation[​IMG]
    "Smoking Gun: The Impact of Cannabis Smoking on Respiratory Health,"
    a publicly disseminated report
    Nov. 2002

    Fuck whoever said this, a bunch of bullshit and propaganda about marijuana.
  2. i wouldnt say its propaganda lol any smoke is bad for you lungs broo:smoke:
  3. So weed is roughly 1/5 as bad as cigs? I won't get lung cancer till I'm 80 or so sweet.
  4. Exactly. Just because you like weed doesn't mean its harmless.
  5. Sure it's not the best for you, but the real difference between cigarettes and weed is the carcinogen content. Tobacco naturally contains dozens of known carcinogens. Natural marijuana contains absolutely none.

  6. Haha, nope, its saying its 5 times worse than cigarettes.
  7. Take a bong rip and blow the smoke through a paper towel and observe the tar. These are carcinogens. Yes cannabis contains carcinogens. But they are not linked to hard evidence that they cause any damage at all.

    Notice the quote contained words like "associated" and "is likely".
  8. Haha i was too baked to realize that

  9. For sure, When they use words like this it means that the research was obviously commissioned to find some sort of negative effect of weed smoking. and they havent found any solid evidence so the scientists use vague wording so that they don't look foolish when they're proven wrong (and its harder to prove them wrong since they never claimed that it gives you bronchitis etc..) even though they are obviously exxagerating and making shit up.

    I'm a scientist i know how a researcher needs to cover their ass by not making outrageous claims on a research paper. so they use words like "could" and "likely" instead of stating the actual data that they found lol.
    It's so easy for someone to get some insignificant data and then just give it more meaning than it should have. it's the same as saying that "carbon may give you cancer because it's radioactive" , but realistically thats only if you're exposed to it for like a billion years hahah

    weed is as harmless as inhaling burnt plant matter... i.e. it's harmful if you forget to breathe oxygen at the same time hahaha =D
  10. And you are listening to a bunch of pro-marijuana bullshit.
    Smoke contains carcinogens, no matter what it is. THC, however, is an anti-carcinogen, which is why it isnt linked to cancer.
  11. The only physical damage associated with chronic marijuana use are health problems associated with the act of inhaling smoke.

    THC is a non-toxic and a highly medicinal chemical.

    Enjoy you marijuana fellow blade. :smoke:

Share This Page