(11-10-2016, 03:29 PM)meow Wrote: Some retard already made a thread regarding this, I won't repeat myself, so you can read it if you want to know why I don't think weed (or any drug for that matter) should be legal - https://sinister.ly/Thread-Drugs--65434?page=2

(11-10-2016, 03:29 PM)meow Wrote: Some retard already made a thread regarding this, I won't repeat myself, so you can read it if you want to know why I don't think weed (or any drug for that matter) should be legal - https://sinister.ly/Thread-Drugs--65434?page=2

• "it has not been causally linked with tobacco related cancers such as lung, colon or rectal cancers."
  
• "compounds found in cannabis have been shown to kill numerous cancer types including: lung cancer, breast and prostate, leukemia and lymphoma, glioma, skin cancer, and pheochromocytoma"
  
• "components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some."
  
• "current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke."
  
• "noted that with the development of vaporizers, that use the respiratory route for the delivery of carcinogen-free cannabis vapors, the carcinogenic potential of smoked cannabis has been largely eliminated"
  

(11-11-2016, 01:05 AM)Luka Wrote: [*]"it has not been causally linked with tobacco related cancers such as lung, colon or rectal cancers."

(11-11-2016, 01:05 AM)Luka Wrote: [*]"compounds found in cannabis have been shown to kill numerous cancer types including: lung cancer, breast and prostate, leukemia and lymphoma, glioma, skin cancer, and pheochromocytoma"

(11-11-2016, 01:05 AM)Luka Wrote: [*]"components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some."

(11-11-2016, 01:05 AM)Luka Wrote: [*]"current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke."

(11-11-2016, 01:05 AM)Luka Wrote: [*]"noted that with the development of vaporizers, that use the respiratory route for the delivery of carcinogen-free cannabis vapors, the carcinogenic potential of smoked cannabis has been largely eliminated"

(11-11-2016, 01:05 AM)Luka Wrote: Still immature as ever, I see.

(11-10-2016, 05:44 PM)Abaddon Wrote:

(11-10-2016, 03:29 PM)meow Wrote: Some retard already made a thread regarding this, I won't repeat myself, so you can read it if you want to know why I don't think weed (or any drug for that matter) should be legal - https://sinister.ly/Thread-Drugs--65434?page=2

So brutally honest.

Do you get a sense of satisfaction from hurting people whether mentally or physically? Just curious.

(11-10-2016, 02:02 PM)mothered Wrote: People tend to overlook the fact that weed has many health benefits.

They hear the term "weed", and It's Immediately frowned upon. Sure, It can caused adverse effects when taken In high doses, but so too can drinking 10 litres of water In one hit.

(11-11-2016, 02:04 AM)meow Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 01:05 AM)Luka Wrote: [*]"current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke."

For the fourth time, irrelevant. Not once did I say or imply that cannibis was better or worse than tobacco or vice versa. The fact that smoking cigarettes is worse than weed is not justification for legalizing weed. Cigarettes are only legal because tobacco products play a large role in the US economy, not because they're not bad.

(11-11-2016, 02:04 AM)meow Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 01:05 AM)Luka Wrote: [*]"noted that with the development of vaporizers, that use the respiratory route for the delivery of carcinogen-free cannabis vapors, the carcinogenic potential of smoked cannabis has been largely eliminated"

Vaping is already legal, try again. Also take note to the fact that largely eliminated is not the same as completely eliminated.

(11-11-2016, 01:05 AM)Luka Wrote: Still immature as ever, I see.

Still ignorant as ever, I see. By the way, being rude isn't an ad hominem logical fallacy, you should do a little more research before throwing around words and phrases that you just now learned in your 9th grade English class. I also noticed that you disregarded my statement about cannibis's neurological effects and merely attempted to attack my statement about carcinogens. Therefor, even if you did successfully combat my point regarding carcinogens, which you won't be doing based on past observations, you still have the neuroscience to tackle. Good luck.

(04-10-2016, 07:09 PM)Luka Wrote: Your second source is covering people that are smoking abnormally large amounts (">10 years", ">5 joints daily") of cannabis. Despite that, it fails to establish how the brain changes are considered "damaging" and doesn't prove that users are impaired. Studies have suggested a correlation between less grey matter/increased connection[2], but never a difference/correlation with intelligence or IQ[3]. Fertility isn't even worth discussing, as cigarettes and other products/pharmaceuticals also lower fertility (and aren't illegal).

1. http://therealcost.betobaccofree.hhs.gov/facts/toxic-mix/index.html
2. http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2014/11/11-31293_Center-for-BrainHealth-Study-Examines-Marijuanas-L_story-wide.html
3. http://www.pnas.org/content/113/5/E500

(11-11-2016, 09:12 AM)Jiggly Wrote: Interesting how weed legalization is compared with cigarettes... Are we forgetting alcohol is legal and is vastly more damaging than many illegal drugs and cigarettes? Or so I've read.