More click-bait from Insurance Journal, to attract stoners looking to legalize pot. Nothing insurance related here, folks. Move along to insurance related articles and save yourself some time to use on more constructive / instructive endeavors.
I think there is minimal risk of lung cancer from ‘stoning’. Why? Is that your current worry? I think the risk of brain damage is more of a concern; I seem to recall reading somewhere that it is higher than the risk of lung cancer from using nicotine-based products. Regardless of the relative risk frequencies, BOTH should be avoided.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that most people misinterpret studies then post whatever they want to believe it claimed and simply say they read it somewhere but they can’t actually source their argument and ultimately resort to saying things like “goo-gul it yourself” when people call them out on their nonsense.
you got a source on marijuana being worse on brain damage than nicotine is towards lung cancer, buddy??
Hope you have a few hours to read about the scientific evidence for same . . .
September 7, 2018 at 7:46 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
5
Goo-gul it yourself. ‘No nonsense’ that you won’t like when you read it.
As regards a comparative study; why would anyone do that? Read EACH study and compare the rates of ‘injury’ shown in each study. When I read them years ago, I recall the distinct possibility of smoking and not getting lung cancer. Recent studies of stoning show high incidence of brain damage, especially in the UK study from early 2017.
September 10, 2018 at 11:27 am
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
7
0
Hello Everyone,
While yes there are studies that prove your point. Most are not significant. I mean the significance that is more important indicating the trust level you can give a study. Most fail and should be taken with a grain of salt. I agree that there are dangers, I believe you are putting more emphasis on studies that have bias and use data with too few points for a whole. There are more conclusive studies (which we have posted on other threads) that show (with statically significant figures) that the benefits outweigh the dangers from current data if used appropriately.
September 10, 2018 at 11:32 am
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
8
0
polar wrote: I seem to recall reading somewhere that it is higher than the risk of lung cancer from using nicotine-based products
polar also wrote: As regards a comparative study; why would anyone do that? Read EACH study and compare the rates of ‘injury’ shown in each study.
so there is no study or report or anything at all that actually supports your first comment that brain damage from marijuana smoking is “higher than the risk of lung cancer from using nicotine-based products.”
please stop making things up.
thank you.
September 10, 2018 at 4:04 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
@confused; there are SEPARATE studies, that, when I compare my recollection of each, yield the conclusion I posted above. Stop being an a-hole by quoting my posts BUT REPEATEDLY using a Straw Man Argument approach to replying to things I did not explicitly write.
You may discredit the above study, if you wish. I tend to believe studies that provide as much details as this one, and because it was done over a 20 year period. Perhaps stoners discredit studies they don’t understand due to the effects of pot discussed in the above study?
September 10, 2018 at 7:22 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Sorry; study was posted by Craig Cornell, not bob. bear culpa.
September 10, 2018 at 4:11 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
I seem to recall reading somewhere that it is higher than the risk of lung cancer from using nicotine-based products
is exactly what you wrote = not a straw man argument. you didn’t read that somewhere. you clearly made that up. your mental gymnastics routine trying to claim i took your post out of context and am arguing a point you never made gets a 0.0 from all the judges.
Polar,
My thought was that if pot is being legalized, there should be a tax to fund the related medical costs for lung cancer, or even brain damage according to other posters. We already have the cigarette vs cancer relationship and all the medical costs associated with that. The states should get a head start for future pot medical woes.
Nope; wrong presumption about the correct course of legislative action! If nicotine was outlawed, and Federal pot laws enforced, that would help lower medical costs, thus lowering health insurance costs.
September 10, 2018 at 8:42 am
??? says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Yes, the risk of lung cancer comes from inhaling any smoke.
Polar, saw an article on a study the other day that Millennials are consuming cannibus at an ever increasing rate, especially in the states that made it legal. Their brains are turning to mush and then they graduate to more serious drugs which often leads to suicide or OD.
The concept is too difficult for you to understand confused. Stoner Millennials will have a harder time holding jobs or passing drug tests to get a job.
Please make it so people can grow it at home, as is the case in MA. And if the state is feeling its people, then, make it so small growers can enter the legal market and compete against MMJ robber barons. Thanks and pretty please, Mr. Cuomo.
Let me get this straight: a growing body of scientific evidence indicates that marijuana can cause brain damage. More and more scientists believe marijuana should be completely avoided by young people, and especially pregnant mothers (again, 20% if pregnant women in the US consume THC; 40% of African American women do.)
There are zero studies saying marijuana does NOT cause brain damage and is completely safe.
And then you say there are studies that show the benefits “outweigh” the dangers. Say WHAT? What possible benefit from recreational use of marijuana could justify the risk of brain damage?
It should be perfectly clear that confused is trolling due to his / her inability to make meaningful replies to the scientific studies that prove stoners wrong about the dangers of pot smoking, especially at younger ages. I have seen MULTIPLE examples of stoned behavior of pot smokers who weren’t currently high, which is not scientific, nor of credible volume, but it certainly buttresses those studies’ conclusions. I get the impression that long-term stoners are not really willing to accept the new studies due to their addiction, or are at a point where their cognitive abilities won’t allow them to absorb the details. The withdrawal symptoms from pot are discussed in one article you posted, and it seems weaker willed stoners are incapable of escape from pot. Sad.
i’m not trolling – i’m asking you to prove what you wrote.
let me start by saying i agree marijuana has many negative side effects and should not be used when operating machinery, it should not be smoked by pregnant women or kids, teenagers, or non-adults. it’s also bad for your lungs and brain over the long term. nobody here has ever argued otherwise.
i do think it has positives though, like helping epileptics and restoring appetite to chemo patients. now that i’m out of your rabbit hole, let’s get back to what you posted.
“I seem to recall reading somewhere that it is higher than the risk of lung cancer from using nicotine-based products”
still waiting for you to prove that argument buddy, and i don’t think you can, which means you are the troll who is lying. prove me wrong….give me the evidence that proves marijuana has a higher “risk of lung cancer [than] nicotine-based products.” if you can’t prove that, maybe you should stop lying?
I also suspect that helpingout and confused, both without capitalized first letters, are one & the same poster. I could be wrong, but it certainly is an interesting coincidence that both seem to make the same, incorrect arguments, largely on the same issues on IJ.
I am a lifelong non-user of both tobacco and Marijuana. I would not recommend that anyone start using them recreationally (there may be some legitimate medical uses for marijuana.)
Nevertheless I believe that marijuana should be legal for adults, period. There does not need to be a finding that something is harmless in order for it to be legal. Prohibition has been a failure time and again.
As long as they do not endanger others, as in impaired driving, adults should be able to weigh the risks and decide for themselves, just as they do for smoking, mountain climbing, parachuting, grilling steaks, and drinking alcohol.
Feel free to educate others about the risks. But leave them free, as adults, to make their own decisions.
Sounds great if you ignore the damage to kids, children in the womb, and people of color, where consumption of THC is definitely hurting people.
But hey! So long as you don’t care about kids, children in the womb, or minorities, you can say things like “leave them free, as adults, to make their own decisions.”
I still never know why your rebuttal to the above Craig is to push the agenda of hurting kids, children in the womb and people of color. That happens with Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and other drugs. It is worse than cannabis at some points as well depending on what you are comparing. I really hope people use it responsibly, but that is impossible to say a whole country as a whole will do something responsibly.
Arsenic is worse than alcohol. Heroin is worse than pot. SO WHAT?!?!?!???!
You Pot Fans pushed legalized pot without warning anyone of the dangers, usage by young people went up nationwide, 20% of pregnant women are exposing their unborn children to mental and behavioral problems, minority communities are suffering as kids smoke pot, killing brain cells and motivation.
And your response: “so what. Other things are worse.” Man, that is one heartless response.
Personally, I think it’s pretty friggin’ awesome that IJ can post articles (frequently) that seem to stir the POT with Craig & Polar, or Polar Craig, whatever you want to call them/him……
1. I am not a stoner. I never have and have not interested in using marijuana.
2. You need to strive for more meaningful objectives.
3. I have never refuted any of the studies posted. I just believe the government needs to stop trying to help protect us from our selves. “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.+ – President Reagan
More click-bait from Insurance Journal, to attract stoners looking to legalize pot. Nothing insurance related here, folks. Move along to insurance related articles and save yourself some time to use on more constructive / instructive endeavors.
Does anyone know if smoking pot carries the same risk for lung cancer as smoking cigarettes?
I think there is minimal risk of lung cancer from ‘stoning’. Why? Is that your current worry? I think the risk of brain damage is more of a concern; I seem to recall reading somewhere that it is higher than the risk of lung cancer from using nicotine-based products. Regardless of the relative risk frequencies, BOTH should be avoided.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that most people misinterpret studies then post whatever they want to believe it claimed and simply say they read it somewhere but they can’t actually source their argument and ultimately resort to saying things like “goo-gul it yourself” when people call them out on their nonsense.
you got a source on marijuana being worse on brain damage than nicotine is towards lung cancer, buddy??
Here you go again:
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/sapc/MDU/MDBrief/MarijuanaBriefFinal.pdf
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/16/casual-marijuana-use-may-damage-your-brain/?hpt=hp_bn13
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2783111/The-terrible-truth-cannabis-Expert-s-devastating-20-year-study-finally-demolishes-claims-smoking-pot-harmless.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/health/marijuana-weed-verbal-memory/index.html?eref=rss_health
Search “marijuana and brain damage”.
Hope you have a few hours to read about the scientific evidence for same . . .
Goo-gul it yourself. ‘No nonsense’ that you won’t like when you read it.
As regards a comparative study; why would anyone do that? Read EACH study and compare the rates of ‘injury’ shown in each study. When I read them years ago, I recall the distinct possibility of smoking and not getting lung cancer. Recent studies of stoning show high incidence of brain damage, especially in the UK study from early 2017.
Hello Everyone,
While yes there are studies that prove your point. Most are not significant. I mean the significance that is more important indicating the trust level you can give a study. Most fail and should be taken with a grain of salt. I agree that there are dangers, I believe you are putting more emphasis on studies that have bias and use data with too few points for a whole. There are more conclusive studies (which we have posted on other threads) that show (with statically significant figures) that the benefits outweigh the dangers from current data if used appropriately.
polar wrote: I seem to recall reading somewhere that it is higher than the risk of lung cancer from using nicotine-based products
polar also wrote: As regards a comparative study; why would anyone do that? Read EACH study and compare the rates of ‘injury’ shown in each study.
so there is no study or report or anything at all that actually supports your first comment that brain damage from marijuana smoking is “higher than the risk of lung cancer from using nicotine-based products.”
please stop making things up.
thank you.
@confused; there are SEPARATE studies, that, when I compare my recollection of each, yield the conclusion I posted above. Stop being an a-hole by quoting my posts BUT REPEATEDLY using a Straw Man Argument approach to replying to things I did not explicitly write.
@helpingNOT: view this study that bob posted:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2783111/The-terrible-truth-cannabis-Expert-s-devastating-20-year-study-finally-demolishes-claims-smoking-pot-harmless.html
You may discredit the above study, if you wish. I tend to believe studies that provide as much details as this one, and because it was done over a 20 year period. Perhaps stoners discredit studies they don’t understand due to the effects of pot discussed in the above study?
Sorry; study was posted by Craig Cornell, not bob. bear culpa.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that it is higher than the risk of lung cancer from using nicotine-based products
is exactly what you wrote = not a straw man argument. you didn’t read that somewhere. you clearly made that up. your mental gymnastics routine trying to claim i took your post out of context and am arguing a point you never made gets a 0.0 from all the judges.
Polar,
My thought was that if pot is being legalized, there should be a tax to fund the related medical costs for lung cancer, or even brain damage according to other posters. We already have the cigarette vs cancer relationship and all the medical costs associated with that. The states should get a head start for future pot medical woes.
Nope; wrong presumption about the correct course of legislative action! If nicotine was outlawed, and Federal pot laws enforced, that would help lower medical costs, thus lowering health insurance costs.
Yes, the risk of lung cancer comes from inhaling any smoke.
So, please QUANTIFY the risk frequencies of each activity, rather than state a useless, trivial fact of EXISTENCE of risk; i.e. non-zero risk level.
“I seem to recall reading somewhere that it is higher than the risk of lung cancer from using nicotine-based products
…
So, please QUANTIFY the risk frequencies of each activity, rather than state a useless, trivial fact of EXISTENCE of risk; i.e. non-zero risk level.”
I asked and still await an answer from those who suggested low risks from pot. You should direct your replies to them, not me.
High School Health Class taught me that one joint equals 7 cigs as far as lung disease goes.
Polar, saw an article on a study the other day that Millennials are consuming cannibus at an ever increasing rate, especially in the states that made it legal. Their brains are turning to mush and then they graduate to more serious drugs which often leads to suicide or OD.
more people use something when it is no longer illegal? wow!! what useful study!! end sarcasm
He wrote of the INCREASED USE, not the higher use. There is a subtle distinction which eluded you, for reasons I can only speculate on.
The concept is too difficult for you to understand confused. Stoner Millennials will have a harder time holding jobs or passing drug tests to get a job.
Please make it so people can grow it at home, as is the case in MA. And if the state is feeling its people, then, make it so small growers can enter the legal market and compete against MMJ robber barons. Thanks and pretty please, Mr. Cuomo.
Awesome post, dude! But I have a question; where’s MA?
I believe:
MA is in the kitchen with Dinah.
helping out:
Let me get this straight: a growing body of scientific evidence indicates that marijuana can cause brain damage. More and more scientists believe marijuana should be completely avoided by young people, and especially pregnant mothers (again, 20% if pregnant women in the US consume THC; 40% of African American women do.)
There are zero studies saying marijuana does NOT cause brain damage and is completely safe.
And then you say there are studies that show the benefits “outweigh” the dangers. Say WHAT? What possible benefit from recreational use of marijuana could justify the risk of brain damage?
It should be perfectly clear that confused is trolling due to his / her inability to make meaningful replies to the scientific studies that prove stoners wrong about the dangers of pot smoking, especially at younger ages. I have seen MULTIPLE examples of stoned behavior of pot smokers who weren’t currently high, which is not scientific, nor of credible volume, but it certainly buttresses those studies’ conclusions. I get the impression that long-term stoners are not really willing to accept the new studies due to their addiction, or are at a point where their cognitive abilities won’t allow them to absorb the details. The withdrawal symptoms from pot are discussed in one article you posted, and it seems weaker willed stoners are incapable of escape from pot. Sad.
i’m not trolling – i’m asking you to prove what you wrote.
let me start by saying i agree marijuana has many negative side effects and should not be used when operating machinery, it should not be smoked by pregnant women or kids, teenagers, or non-adults. it’s also bad for your lungs and brain over the long term. nobody here has ever argued otherwise.
i do think it has positives though, like helping epileptics and restoring appetite to chemo patients. now that i’m out of your rabbit hole, let’s get back to what you posted.
“I seem to recall reading somewhere that it is higher than the risk of lung cancer from using nicotine-based products”
still waiting for you to prove that argument buddy, and i don’t think you can, which means you are the troll who is lying. prove me wrong….give me the evidence that proves marijuana has a higher “risk of lung cancer [than] nicotine-based products.” if you can’t prove that, maybe you should stop lying?
I also suspect that helpingout and confused, both without capitalized first letters, are one & the same poster. I could be wrong, but it certainly is an interesting coincidence that both seem to make the same, incorrect arguments, largely on the same issues on IJ.
you are wrong
I am a lifelong non-user of both tobacco and Marijuana. I would not recommend that anyone start using them recreationally (there may be some legitimate medical uses for marijuana.)
Nevertheless I believe that marijuana should be legal for adults, period. There does not need to be a finding that something is harmless in order for it to be legal. Prohibition has been a failure time and again.
As long as they do not endanger others, as in impaired driving, adults should be able to weigh the risks and decide for themselves, just as they do for smoking, mountain climbing, parachuting, grilling steaks, and drinking alcohol.
Feel free to educate others about the risks. But leave them free, as adults, to make their own decisions.
Sounds great if you ignore the damage to kids, children in the womb, and people of color, where consumption of THC is definitely hurting people.
But hey! So long as you don’t care about kids, children in the womb, or minorities, you can say things like “leave them free, as adults, to make their own decisions.”
I still never know why your rebuttal to the above Craig is to push the agenda of hurting kids, children in the womb and people of color. That happens with Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and other drugs. It is worse than cannabis at some points as well depending on what you are comparing. I really hope people use it responsibly, but that is impossible to say a whole country as a whole will do something responsibly.
Arsenic is worse than alcohol. Heroin is worse than pot. SO WHAT?!?!?!???!
You Pot Fans pushed legalized pot without warning anyone of the dangers, usage by young people went up nationwide, 20% of pregnant women are exposing their unborn children to mental and behavioral problems, minority communities are suffering as kids smoke pot, killing brain cells and motivation.
And your response: “so what. Other things are worse.” Man, that is one heartless response.
Personally, I think it’s pretty friggin’ awesome that IJ can post articles (frequently) that seem to stir the POT with Craig & Polar, or Polar Craig, whatever you want to call them/him……
1. I am not a stoner. I never have and have not interested in using marijuana.
2. You need to strive for more meaningful objectives.
3. I have never refuted any of the studies posted. I just believe the government needs to stop trying to help protect us from our selves. “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.+ – President Reagan