• 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!

Exclusion of menthol cigarettes in ban worries health experts

Explain how dope is more unhealthy than cigarettes? Do I really have to go into all that?

That would be a good start, but that's not the entire reason why your statement doesn't make sense.

We could assume that the two are equally dangerous (or even that weed is more dangerous) and still conclude that banning flavored cigarettes while legalizing dope would be a step forward.
 
We could assume that the two are equally dangerous (or even that weed is more dangerous) and still conclude that banning flavored cigarettes while legalizing dope would be a step forward.


Anyone that believe that could be considered a friggin' idiot, too.
 
I have to explain to you have weed has five times more cancer causing agents than cigarettes? Surely, I don't.

First, you have to actually provide a link for this.
Second, you have to show that this is the only possible thing that has any effect on health, which seems difficult given the fact that marijuana (not menthols) has been classified as a prescription medicine.
Finally, even if you're right on everything else, you have to show that [number of flavored cigarettes smoked daily] *5 > [number of joints smoked daily].
 
First, you have to actually provide a link for this.
Second, you have to show that this is the only possible thing that has any effect on health, which seems difficult given the fact that marijuana (not menthols) has been classified as a prescription medicine.
Finally, even if you're right on everything else, you have to show that [number of flavored cigarettes smoked daily] *5 > [number of joints smoked daily].

Nah...apparently blabbering hyperbole is way more fun! :rofl
 
Brand names?

Not familiar with the brand names, since I don't smoke flavored cigarettes, but every time I go into a convenience store, there is always someone buying them because they are cheap. Why cheap? Because they are labeled as cigars and don't have the high taxes on them.

As for myself, I am not worried. I inject my own tobacco into filter tubes, and it costs me about a buck a pack. :)
 
Swisher sweets and phillies both sell cheap "cigarillos"
 
Not familiar with the brand names, since I don't smoke flavored cigarettes, but every time I go into a convenience store, there is always someone buying them because they are cheap. Why cheap? Because they are labeled as cigars and don't have the high taxes on them.

As for myself, I am not worried. I inject my own tobacco into filter tubes, and it costs me about a buck a pack. :)

They probably aren't buying them by the 20 pack, either and they resemble, "cigars", more than cigarettes.
 

Congrats, you've managed to completely ignore two of my three points.

Anyone that believe that could be considered a friggin' idiot, too.

Right bro, you've just got the whole world figured out.
 

I often find a tremendous flaw in reading these studies, in that, they control for tobacco cigarettes and cannabis cigarettes, but always seem to neglect to mention the controlling for these fundamental variables–the amount of cannabis per cigarette; the amount of tobacco per cigarette; whether the individuals were inhaling with a filter or if it was a rolled tobacco cigarette, much in the same fashion that cannabis is rolled. Another fascinating notion is the fact that there is little discussion about the various methods of delivering a dose of THC to the body. It is often common for individuals to engage in the smoking process through PAPERLESS devices that are know such as: Vaporizers, water-pipes and pipes, along with many other various apparatuses. It is even common for people to digest it through brownies. So I am suggesting that one produces a study demonstrating the affects of cannabis through a nonpaper apparatus
 
Congrats, you've managed to completely ignore two of my three points.



Right bro, you've just got the whole world figured out.

You asked for proof, you got it, hello?!?
 
I often find a tremendous flaw in reading these studies, in that, they control for tobacco cigarettes and cannabis cigarettes, but always seem to neglect to mention the controlling for these fundamental variables–the amount of cannabis per cigarette; the amount of tobacco per cigarette; whether the individuals were inhaling with a filter or if it was a rolled tobacco cigarette, much in the same fashion that cannabis is rolled. Another fascinating notion is the fact that there is little discussion about the various methods of delivering a dose of THC to the body. It is often common for individuals to engage in the smoking process through PAPERLESS devices that are know such as: Vaporizers, water-pipes and pipes, along with many other various apparatuses. It is even common for people to digest it through brownies. So I am suggesting that one produces a study demonstrating the affects of cannabis through a nonpaper apparatus

So comparing the most common way people use two substances is wrong how again? You do realize that with the exception of ingestion, the rest of the methods can and are used by nicotine users as well.
 


I am not going to argue that smoking anything is healthy for you, including marijuana, but the studies are consistently showing that despite having elevated amounts of tar and carcinogens there is a lowered instance of head/neck carcinomas and also lung cancer with marijuana users.

Your 2 articles that actually mention mj use and lung cancer was the same study of 79 patients with only a subset thereof being marijuana users, not a very large statistical sampling to be drawing definitive correlations.

Here are a few other studies to mull over:

fisrt this one, which was sponsored by the NIDA but after the results came in they decided against publishing it:

The study looked at 611 people in Los Angeles County who developed lung cancer, 601 who developed cancer of the head or neck regions, and 1,040 people without cancer who were matched on age, gender and neighborhood.

-snip-

The heaviest smokers in the study had smoked more than 22,000 marijuana cigarettes, or joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 to 22,000 joints. Even these smokers did not have an increased risk of developing cancer. People who smoked more marijuana were not at any increased risk compared with those who smoked less marijuana or none at all.

Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer

how could this be?? research is starting to find some interesting things, the following is but one of many other studies that are starting to come out pointing to cannabinoids and potential anti-carcinogenic properties:

The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows

And while we are at it an abstract on a study of another common cancer with smokers:

Cannabinoids, constituents of marijuana smoke, have been recognized to have potential antitumor properties.

-snip-

After adjusting for potential confounders (including smoking and alcohol drinking), 10 to 20 years of marijuana use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of HNSCC [Head and neck Squamous cell carcinoma]

A Population-Based Case-Control Study of Marijuana Use and Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma -- Liang et al. 2 (8): 759 -- Cancer Prevention Research

There are pulmonary issues as a result of marijuana smoking for sure, but the risk of developing cancers is significantly higher with cigarettes.

Either way both are moot, the Gov. has no business dictating what adults can and cannot do to their own bodies.

Now that that tangent is done.. to directly address the topic

menthol cigarettes are a well established variant, its place in the market is primarily to satiate an existing demand, and not to create a new demand.

Menthol cigs have been around for decades, and many many adults smoke them exclusively. The flavored smokes such as say your mango or strawberry, or henessy dipped blunts, ect. place in the market is almost exclusively targeted to lure non smokers into the fold, with extra allure to a younger population.
 
Last edited:
I've still not heard a rational reason for banning flavored cigarettes while excluding menthols.

I don't know the factual answer, but if I were to guess, it would be that menthols are marginally better for your health. Menthol is the same chemical used in things like vics vapo rub. It dilates the breathing passages which would ease constriction caused by long term tobacco use. It's cheap to mass produce so the additive is real, unlike fruit flavorings which contain no real fruit at all.
 
So comparing the most common way people use two substances is wrong how again? You do realize that with the exception of ingestion, the rest of the methods can and are used by nicotine users as well.

I don't see anything wrong with the comparison (though whether or not its the most common way to smoke marijuana is arguable, though not the point)
I only see a problem with only the cigarette/joint comparison being made. Yes, one could smoke tobacco out of a bong or a vaporizer, but I don't think I know one person who smokes tobacco out of a water pipe (although thats what we always tell the head shop guy :lol:) It's just not an all encompassing argument when there are just SO many variable, mostly on the weed side.
 
Back
Top Bottom