• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It's Not the Kids Turning on to Weed; It's Grandma and Grandpa

Aunt Spiker said:
Yes - smoking any type of smoke (even if it's just woodsmoke) has the potential to cause problems, observed or not. Most likely it varies strongly person to person. Some people might be just fine, others might have serious issues. If someone truly wants to use it, I think it wise they NOT smoke it.
.
Click to expand...

Well, the point was that the actual scientific evidence is that the problems they expected to find from marijuana smoke, given its similarity to tobacco smoke, haven't materialized despite repeated studies. If there were such problems, it'd really have been proven by now.


Aunt Spiker said:
You're right - 'must' implies a reliance.

I meant it as in 'truly insists on doing so, routinely' (as opposed to someone who wants to just try it once to see what it's like).
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough.

Though I'd also add that there are plenty of instances where people do something routinely for pleasure where the "need" statement is still inapplicable. For example, the most moderate people on earth, my parents, pretty much always have a glass of wine with dinner. They don't need to - sometimes they don't - but they routinely do. And, alcohol is one of the more addictive substances. Yet even there, "need" would be inappropriate.

(I do not intend to dig too much into you specifically and/or your statements; I tend to get a little riled up when it comes to this particular subject because I am rather implacably opposed to the War on Drugs and the harms it has caused.....as compared to the harms it has utterly failed to prevent. Therefore, I tend to dig into what I see as often problematic rhetoric used in such debates)
 
Mr Person said:
As for the harm of inhaling the smoke, I would note that the findings regarding marijuana are surprising. The smoke produced by burning contains many of the same toxins as tobacco smoke, but they have repeatedly tried and failed to link it with lung cancer. Meanwhile the evidence is overwhelming with regards to tobacco. The worst lung damage they've found is that if someone smokes like Willie Nelson for their lifetime, they have a slightly elevated risk of emphyzema. But that's only a small risk and only a tiny fraction of users ingest at a rate like that.

(And, of course, there's also vaporizing and edibles, which don't require inhalation of smoke)
Click to expand...

I'd guess the issue there is sheer volume. Nobody smokes a "pack" a day of weed.


Well, I've got to take issue with "must"; when it comes to debate on this kind of topic, there is a tendency for people to conflate wanting with needing when it comes to the ingestion of a substance for its psychological effects, as opposed to the doing of any other activity for its psychological effects.

Of course, there's a great deal of difference on that front when we talk about something that is not chemically addictive like pot, and something that is like opiate drugs.
Click to expand...

I don't need a jet ski to have a good time but holy **** does it ever help.
 
DA60 said:
I was looking for that myself...have not found it so far...which is good.
Click to expand...

He usually gets laughed out of the thread.
 
Mr Person said:
Well, the point was that the actual scientific evidence is that the problems they expected to find from marijuana smoke, given its similarity to tobacco smoke, haven't materialized despite repeated studies. If there were such problems, it'd really have been proven by now.




Ok, fair enough.

Though I'd also add that there are plenty of instances where people do something routinely for pleasure where the "need" statement is still inapplicable. For example, the most moderate people on earth, my parents, pretty much always have a glass of wine with dinner. They don't need to - sometimes they don't - but they routinely do. And, alcohol is one of the more addictive substances. Yet even there, "need" would be inappropriate.

(I do not intend to dig too much into you specifically and/or your statements; I tend to get a little riled up when it comes to this particular subject because I am rather implacably opposed to the War on Drugs and the harms it has caused.....as compared to the harms it has utterly failed to prevent. Therefore, I tend to dig into what I see as often problematic rhetoric used in such debates)
Click to expand...

Haven't materialized ? What studies have you've been reading ?

Why cannabis is a greater cancer risk than tobacco | Daily Mail Online
 
Weed...... not just for breakfast anymore!��
 
Aren't the seniors of today the hippies from the 60s?

Why is it a surprise they like MJ?
 
Haven't they had a chance to grow up and develop glaucoma?

Or do you mean that they just developed a dependency?
 
beefheart said:
How many people have died from overdosing on marijuana Fenton?
Click to expand...

I've smoked marijuana for about 40 years. When people like Fenton make these outraggous statements, I just smile and take another toke.
 
Texmex said:
I've smoked marijuana for about 40 years. When people like Fenton make these outraggous statements, I just smile and take another toke.
Click to expand...

He is consistently hilarious...
 
Mr Person said:
The lies you post were already debunked in the "War on Drugs" thread you started (and abandoned)
Click to expand...

You and all of the resident stoners haven't debunked a damn thing.

Barging into threads and calling the results of multiple studies " lies " is beyond childish and inane

Its intellectually lazy, something Ive come to expect from you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom