But wait! I thought marijuana had terrible, permanent side-effects...

>> ^Fusionaut:

But wait! I thought marijuana had terrible, permanent side-effects...


Don't go there. That's the same line of thinking that people use to defend tobacco. "But my grandfather smoked eighteen packs a day and lived until he was a hundred!"

Maybe, but Mary jane doesn't cause cancer and it's not addictive. It just happened to be the drug of choice of Mexicans. I'm sure the American government would have made rice and beans illegal if it wasn't too obvious...>> ^direpickle:

>> ^Fusionaut:
But wait! I thought marijuana had terrible, permanent side-effects...

Don't go there. That's the same line of thinking that people use to defend tobacco. "But my grandfather smoked eighteen packs a day and lived until he was a hundred!"

@Fusionaut: AFAIK, smoking pot can and does cause lung cancer, just like anything else that you burn and then inhale. It's not magic.

One study.

>> ^direpickle:

@Fusionaut: AFAIK, smoking pot can and does cause lung cancer, just like anything else that you burn and then inhale. It's not magic.
One study.


One study by the same government that outlaws marijuana use in practically all instances.

A lot of good money has been taken away from lung cancer research because of this kind of bias that tends to lump lung cancer with smoking. Smoking can lead to lung cancer, but it doesn't always and it certainly doesn't lead to all cases of it. Up to 15-20% of lung cancer cases are nonsmoking.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^direpickle:
@Fusionaut: AFAIK, smoking pot can and does cause lung cancer, just like anything else that you burn and then inhale. It's not magic.
One study.

One study by the same government that outlaws marijuana use in practically all instances.
A lot of good money has been taken away from lung cancer research because of this kind of bias that tends to lump lung cancer with smoking. Smoking can lead to lung cancer, but it doesn't always and it certainly doesn't lead to all cases of it. Up to 15-20% of lung cancer cases are nonsmoking.


RARGH GOVERNMENTS BAD

Of course not all smoking leads to lung cancer. Of course not all lung cancer cases are caused by smoking. What point are you trying to make?

@blankfist and @Fusionaut: I want to make it clear. I'm not arguing that marijuana (or tobacco) should be illegal. I was arguing two things.

1) Citing one case of a person not having any ill effects from it is not a good argument for its safety; this is similar to tobacco users' frequent and equally-fallacious references to people like George Burns as examples of tobacco's harmlessness.

2) Claims of marijuana's safety with respect to an increase in risk of some cancers are at best disputed and at worst entirely incorrect.

That's it.

@direpickle, smoking isn't healthy, but it bothers me when people just assert smoking causes cancer. We know it's unhealthy. But it doesn't necessarily cause lung cancer, and it's that kind of bias that keeps research dollars away from needy lung cancer research.

That is all.

So if its the smoking part though, can we agree that vaporisers or perhaps eating marijuana would be safer?

>> ^thatavguy:

So if its the smoking part though, can we agree that vaporisers or perhaps eating marijuana would be safer?


Nope, your asshole catches fire if you do that stuff.