ladajo wrote:So the next study will show that teens are having a resurgence of lung cancer caused by increased levels of smoking due to a perception that pot is safe to smoke...
Uh. Pot only smokers have a lower incidence of lung cancer. Pot has anti-tumor properties.
Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 193338.htm
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.
And then you have to ask "where are the bodies?" Why aren't lung cancer wards full (well a significant number anyway) of pot smokers?
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01729.html
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
What I'd like to know is where does all this misinformation come from? You wouldn't say something about physics without knowing or looking it up. But when it comes to drugs no such due diligence is applied. Why?
Further research has shown that people with a disposition to resort to cannabis use are more likely to live longer and healthier lives than users of other "social drugs" such as alcohol.
Morgan, John Jacob Brooke; Zimmer, Lynn Etta (1997). Marijuana myths, marijuana facts: a review of the scientific evidence. New York: Lindesmith Center. pp. 32–7. ISBN 978-0-9641568-4-5.
So what do we know? Pot smokers live longer and if we can get people to switch to pot from alcohol it lowers traffic fatalities significantly (about 9% according to studies).
http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/w ... ic-deaths/
As I keep saying, if we are going to make a drug illegal (stupid idea) it should be alcohol.
It seems drugs make people lose rationality and reason. Especially among those that don't use them. Why is that?
I guess faith sometimes works wonders and at other times it makes people stupid. It is why I prefer reason to faith. Despite being a believer (well not in any religion you would recognize).
So let me sumarise: prohibition (of pot - we have no data on other drugs that I am aware of) increases traffic fatalities and keeps people from a life extending drug. Is that useful? Wise? A waste of resources?
Prohibition also increases drug use by youth. Is that a desired effect?
Oh. Yeah. It finances criminals. Is that what you wanted?
It destabilizes transit countries and puts the cartels in control. Is that what you had in mind?
Rationally prohibition produces nothing but negative effects counter to the official desired results. And yet people love it. Maybe it is just human nature to be stupid on such matters.
Prohibition is an awful flop.
We like it.
It can't stop what it's meant to stop.
We like it.
It's left a trail of graft and slime,
It won't prohibit worth a dime,
It's filled our land with vice and crime.
Nevertheless, we're for it.
Franklin P. Adams, 1931