Important: The Pros and Cons of smoking ciggys and smoking weed

[Korolev]

Cigarettes are not good in any way shape or form. Smoking cigarettes significantly raises the risk of cancer. No one can definitely say that smoking WILL give you cancer, but it certainly raises the risk of contracting cancer. And even if you don't get cancer, cigarettes are doing irreparable damage to your lungs.

Smoking marijuana.... not much research has been done. Some say that it raises the risk of mouth cancer. It has been known to trigger mental disease in a few people, so although the risk is low, it is still there. And there's some data to indicate that marijuana can lead to short term memory loss (although apparently you have to smoke a lot for many years).

On the whole, I'd say both are probably not good for you. However, I'd put marijuana use on the same level as alcohol use. Bad for you, but if you can control yourself, there's not much to fret over. But it is definitely not as bad as cigarettes. Nowhere near as bad as cigarettes in fact. Cigarettes have probably killed more people than heroin you know. Maybe not as psychoactive or damaging, but cigarettes kill people. They kill a lot of people. But tobacco has a REALLY powerful lobby behind it, and it has become entrenched in popular culture, so good luck banning tobacco.

 

[little.09]

Pros? What pros?

The only thing you get from smoking cigarettes is a nice case of cancer.

Exactly, I don't think you can get cancer from plain old weed (unless its laced with something)

Can you get addicted to weed? (if you smoke it moderately, like once a month)

do you use mobile electronic devices or eat potatoes both are shown to cause cancer in certain individuals

Potatoes cause cancer (in some people) are you sure? that sounds like nonsense

my bad it was potato chips

 

[Quiet Stranger]

Pros? What pros?

The only thing you get from smoking cigarettes is a nice case of cancer.

Exactly, I don't think you can get cancer from plain old weed (unless its laced with something)

Can you get addicted to weed? (if you smoke it moderately, like once a month)

do you use mobile electronic devices or eat potatoes both are shown to cause cancer in certain individuals

Potatoes cause cancer (in some people) are you sure? that sounds like nonsense

my bad it was potato chips

Still though, Potato chips? WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR SOURCES GOOD SIR!?!

 

[old account]

Say you study 20 people who drive. 10 of those always drive sober, the others drive drunk. 7 drunk drivers crash, but 3 sober drivers crash also. This is strong evidence that drunk driving can cause car crashes. Like the study you describe is evidence that cigarette smoking can causes cancer.

But there is a flaw in your theory. You just stated that out of the seven people who consumed alcohol, there is a strong evidence that drunk driving can cause car crashes. That would be a scientific fact if the three who were sober did not get into a crash. Therefore, you can not use this evidence to promote a faulty theory.
The only thing you can say is; 'With the consumption of alcohol, one can increase their chances of automobile accidents.'
Do you see how that is different then say, if you drink and drive, you will get into a car crash. Because what if one person did drink and drove home perfectly safe, committing no traffic violations. Now your theory has just been proven wrong.
And how about the other three? What conditions were they under when they were involved in their car crash? One could have had a seizure or heart-attack and lost control. The second could have been driving in poor wether conditions. The third could have been in an accident because of another party hitting them.
It is the same with cancer. Sure, cigarettes increase (not cause) cancer, but let us also see how you can get it. Genetics; most likely, if your past relatives were diagnosed with cancer, you can be diagnosed within the same age. Asbestos is the leading cause of lung cancer, and you can get that by being inside a building (wether it is were you live or work). Radiation along with fumes from metal working can cause this as cancer as well. After the atomic bomb hit Hiroshima, radiation (though small traces) was picked up by air currents and spread throughout the world, so we are all inhaling harmful material in our own atmosphere. So my point is, you can not solely blame cigarettes as the one true evil and cause of cancer.

 

[old account]

Oh jeez, where to begin....

Cigarettes:
I'm glad that someone picked up on the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). It's true that not all smokers get COPD, but of the people who have the condition, some 90% are smokers. So the cause-effect is more than evident. Personally, when I see a person in the mall who has to drag around a breathing device that feeds him oxygen since normal air isn't enough anymore for his slowly clogging lungs, all I can think is "Damn, what a waste. You look 60 years old, you could've had another 20 years if you'd just not smoked". To me COPD is such a tragic, incurable disease that I'd ban cigarettes simply on that note, before even considering the carcinogenic effects.
But isn't that the point? If you're inhaling a substance that increases cell proliferation, at the same time containing substances that damage DNA, the risk of creating dysfunctional tumor cells increase, and to this we add what Vitor Gonclaves said a few posts up. So you MAY not get cancer from smoking. But your risks increase, just as you MAY not bleed to death from being bludgeoned in the head, but it's still not a smart thing to do.

Okay, again let me set myself straight. My point was not that 'there is no harm in smoking'; my point was that 'there is a difference between increase chances and causes'. And you understood this, thank you. I'm glad to see that there are intelligent people who do research and make good argumentative points.
But is COPD cancer? No.
COPD just refers to chronic bronchitis and emphysema. And I'm not going to state that you can not get this/these condition(s), because I agree with you on this. Yes we are inhaling a substance, but it is still unknown what harmful effects tobacco or the chemicals of tobacco can cause to the human body.
Now before you chew me out for saying that, please read using a ration mind. All studies used for tobacco research are inconclusive because of to many unpronounced variables.
Now I smoke, and I agree that it is not healthy. Adding anything into your body, unnaturally, will cause for an effect, but it has been proven that drinking diet pop is more harmful then smoking. Are cigarettes the one true evil in the world? I don't think so. And I'm sure I speak on behalf of all the smokers when I say "I am sick of persecuted for my right of having a cigarette." I am of age and legally able to buy and use products containing tobacco. I am also sick of slowly being kicked out of restaurants and bars because of my willful habits. I wish other's (anit-smokers) were as understanding as they say they are.

 

[Marter]

wuuuut? those are the cons you come up with?
you're on a forum full of gamers, you think anyone here cares about being unproductive for a bit? XD

By the time I got around to this topic, most Pros and Cons were already spoken for, so I thought I'd mention these. I do think that some of the gaming community cares about their lives outside gaming, and being unproductive can actually screw some of them over.

Then you remember cigarettes fuck your body much more than weed.

Yes, but that was already said by many, I was just bringing another perspective into the discussion.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Then you remember cigarettes fuck your body much more than weed.

Yes, but that was already said by many, I was just bringing another perspective into the discussion.

That you were. A pretty good one too.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

Say you study 20 people who drive. 10 of those always drive sober, the others drive drunk. 7 drunk drivers crash, but 3 sober drivers crash also. This is strong evidence that drunk driving can cause car crashes. Like the study you describe is evidence that cigarette smoking can causes cancer.

But there is a flaw in your theory. You just stated that out of the seven people who consumed alcohol, there is a strong evidence that drunk driving can cause car crashes. That would be a scientific fact if the three who were sober did not get into a crash. Therefore, you can not use this evidence to promote a faulty theory.
The only thing you can say is; 'With the consumption of alcohol, one can increase their chances of automobile accidents.'
Do you see how that is different then say, if you drink and drive, you will get into a car crash. Because what if one person did drink and drove home perfectly safe, committing no traffic violations. Now your theory has just been proven wrong.
And how about the other three? What conditions were they under when they were involved in their car crash? One could have had a seizure or heart-attack and lost control. The second could have been driving in poor wether conditions. The third could have been in an accident because of another party hitting them.
It is the same with cancer. Sure, cigarettes increase (not cause) cancer, but let us also see how you can get it. Genetics; most likely, if your past relatives were diagnosed with cancer, you can be diagnosed within the same age. Asbestos is the leading cause of lung cancer, and you can get that by being inside a building (wether it is were you live or work). Radiation along with fumes from metal working can cause this as cancer as well. After the atomic bomb hit Hiroshima, radiation (though small traces) was picked up by air currents and spread throughout the world, so we are all inhaling harmful material in our own atmosphere. So my point is, you can not solely blame cigarettes as the one true evil and cause of cancer.

The flaw is not in my theory, but in your analysis of it. No one is saying you can only get cancer from cigarettes; that's a straw man. Similarly there are other reasons for car crashes than drunk driving. Cancer can be caused by many things including the ingestion of carcinogens found in cigarettes. Cigarette smoking is ONE of the causes of cancer. Smoking causes cancer as does genetic predisposition, exposure to radiation, and toxic chemicals.

The "Increasing your chances" phrase is a meaningless distinction. Just as throwing yourself off a bridge increases your chances of dying from a great height. Smoking is not guaranteed to give you cancer, but then people have survived being shot in the head; a doctor still wouldn't recommend it.

 

[tsb247]

Weed can indeed cause cancer. The simple fact is that humans simply weren't meant to take anything other than air into their lungs. It does the exact same thing to your lungs that tobacco smoke does and possibly even moreso due to the fact that a big 'ol blunt is rarely (if ever) filtered.

The chances of marijuana causing cancer are as likely as overdosing of vitamin C, it is very uncommon. The damage to the lungs from smoking marijuana is very minimal, with little to no effect of their normal function. Marijuana does not need to be filtered, it is all natural plant, unlike all the poisons jam packed in cigarettes, whose filter is useless as it does little to actually protect you from said poisons.

Weed is also addictive. I have seen people develop a dependency on it. The simple fact is that people get used to and want the greater high. Once people get that experience, they keep wanting it. I believe it's called a psychotropic addiction. Weed causes people to become dependent on the feeling and state of being it produces and not so much the chemical itself. To say it is not addictive is not entirely true.

Getting addicted to marijuana is very rare, dependency forming is only less than 1% of all American users of marijuana. Marijuana also has no real impact on a persons behavior.

It's also not too good for the brain either - at least in the long run.

While marijuana can in fact cause tumors to shrink, it can also create serious different health problems of its own - including cancer.

As the most modern medical tests for brain damage say, marijuana does no damage to the brain, and does not cause mental illnesses, nor psychological problems. However, temporary psychological problems such as panic, anxiety, etc., etc. have been reported in some users, but only last 2 to 3 hours. From what I understand, this is from ingesting the plant, instead of smoking it.

However, sometimes marijuana is laced with different drugs, like crack cocaine, and other hard drugs. This isn't a very common thing currently, but it could become a bigger issue, and could explain unusual side effects.

Both are irresponsible and stupid considering the massive evidence of the harm they cause. Stay in school man.

I have honestly have not seen any medical or scientific evidence to suggest marijuana is bad, or has any real impact on a person's health. The only thing bad I have seen in my reading is that it has a limited impact on short term memory while smoking it, meaning learning and recalling new information was diminished, but this only lasts during intoxication. It does not have an effect on long term memory or other cognitive functions even when intoxicated.

There is plenty of scientific evidence to show that marijuana is harmful. It is just largely ignored by proponents of its legalization. Most of the research to show its harmful effects isn't even carried out in the US.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615095940.htm
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20090623/marijuana-smoke-linked-to-cancer
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/16/health/he-marijuana16

 

[old account]

Say you study 20 people who drive. 10 of those always drive sober, the others drive drunk. 7 drunk drivers crash, but 3 sober drivers crash also. This is strong evidence that drunk driving can cause car crashes. Like the study you describe is evidence that cigarette smoking can causes cancer.

But there is a flaw in your theory. You just stated that out of the seven people who consumed alcohol, there is a strong evidence that drunk driving can cause car crashes. That would be a scientific fact if the three who were sober did not get into a crash. Therefore, you can not use this evidence to promote a faulty theory.
The only thing you can say is; 'With the consumption of alcohol, one can increase their chances of automobile accidents.'
Do you see how that is different then say, if you drink and drive, you will get into a car crash. Because what if one person did drink and drove home perfectly safe, committing no traffic violations. Now your theory has just been proven wrong.
And how about the other three? What conditions were they under when they were involved in their car crash? One could have had a seizure or heart-attack and lost control. The second could have been driving in poor wether conditions. The third could have been in an accident because of another party hitting them.
It is the same with cancer. Sure, cigarettes increase (not cause) cancer, but let us also see how you can get it. Genetics; most likely, if your past relatives were diagnosed with cancer, you can be diagnosed within the same age. Asbestos is the leading cause of lung cancer, and you can get that by being inside a building (wether it is were you live or work). Radiation along with fumes from metal working can cause this as cancer as well. After the atomic bomb hit Hiroshima, radiation (though small traces) was picked up by air currents and spread throughout the world, so we are all inhaling harmful material in our own atmosphere. So my point is, you can not solely blame cigarettes as the one true evil and cause of cancer.

The flaw is not in my theory, but in your analysis of it. No one is saying you can only get cancer from cigarettes; that's a straw man. Similarly there are other reasons for car crashes than drunk driving. Cancer can be caused by many things including the ingestion of carcinogens found in cigarettes. Cigarette smoking is ONE of the causes of cancer. Smoking causes cancer as does genetic predisposition, exposure to radiation, and toxic chemicals.

The "Increasing your chances" phrase is a meaningless distinction. Just as throwing yourself off a bridge increases your chances of dying from a great height. Smoking is not guaranteed to give you cancer, but then people have survived being shot in the head; a doctor still wouldn't recommend it.

I hope you realized that, even though you tried to argue your point and disprove my theory, you just proved me correct. So contrary to your first sentence, my theory is not flawed.
First rule of debate; do not be a hypocrite. You argued that my statement was wrong, and then rewrote my statement in the second paragraph, saying how you believe it.
So I'm right, smoking is not guaranteed to give you cancer. That is my argument. There is a difference between 'cause' and 'increase of chance'.
And if you were to have taken the time to read my earlier posts, I never stated that people believe only cigarettes cause cancer. I am actually the one (probably the only one on this site so far) that listed other possible means of getting cancer.
And no matter what your personal beliefs are about tobacco and cancer, there is no scientifically proven reports that state or show a link between the two, besides "With the increase of tobacco smoked by one person, there is an increase of chance that person is to become diagnosed with cancer". Now, smoking may cause respiratory problems, like COPD (mentioned earlier), but not cause cancer.
I don't know how long this thread is going to last before people understand the difference between cause and increase chance.
It is the same as your earlier post about intoxicated drivers. If alcohol causes car crashes, then why did the three sober drivers receive accidents. Please read my answer to that closely and you'll find, there are many among many factors that need to be looked at.

I do understand where you are coming from, and highly respect your opinion and view points. I would like to thank you for sharing your views with me so I may have a clearer understanding.

 

[CZS PublicEnemy]

Pros? Transient, passing high.
Cons? Cancer.

Both have mild, mild benefits - both can have severe consequences.

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

Lmao I wonder what your point of view on it is. What were you raped by law enforcement and then they said they were just searching for weed? And what are you babbling on about airports for. You're not going to have to take a drug test to get on a plane. Even if they knew you were stoned out of your mind and about to get on a a plane. They cannot charge you with anything unless you are in possession of the actual substance.

Haha, thankfully, it wasn't me who got finger raped, but a friend of mine. We're both standing there in Venice airport and a great bit Alsatian comes along, leans on him, and refuses to go away - pretty soon he's being taken away by armed guards. Turns out that the dog smelled the residue of Weed that had been in his rucksack a month earlier. Only reason they allowed him to leave the airport was because they thoroughly checked his person.

So, my "babbling", comes from first-hand experience. Furthermore, airline companies can, if they want deny you access to the aircraft for being intoxicated; they do it if you're drunk, they do it if you're high. Admittedly they don't test for it, but by the time its a problem, its so obvious anyway.

Okay, why would you have pot residue in your bag which you are taking on flights. Especially an airport in somewhere like Venice. Why would you have pot residue in your bag at all? I bet you get a lot of "first-hand experience" with your imaginary buddy which is so careless and clumsy that he gets you into all sorts of adventures at foreign airports. But it always seems to turn out alright in the end. And you learn a very valuable lesson! I love the episode when you learn about drunk driving and the imaginary buddy gets sodomized by the local authoritys for suspicion of driving under the influence! I got that one on DVD, the kids watch it all the time. I won't have to worry about any of them getting in any mishaps! All thanks to you! Nah, seriously you should write a novel on this buddy of yours.

 

[Davrel]

Pros? Transient, passing high.
Cons? Cancer.

Both have mild, mild benefits - both can have severe consequences.

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

Okay, why would you have pot residue in your bag which you are taking on flights. Especially an airport in somewhere like Venice. Why would you have pot residue in your bag at all? I bet you get a lot of "first-hand experience" with your imaginary buddy which is so careless and clumsy that he gets you into all sorts of adventures at foreign airports. But it always seems to turn out alright in the end. And you learn a very valuable lesson! I love the episode when you learn about drunk driving and the imaginary buddy gets sodomized by the local authoritys for suspicion of driving under the influence! I got that one on DVD, the kids watch it all the time. I won't have to worry about any of them getting in any mishaps! All thanks to you! Nah, seriously you should write a novel on this buddy of yours.

I touched a nerve by not agreeing with you, eh? Calm down, there's a good chap - no need to get worked up.

 

[CZS PublicEnemy]

No, my nerves are fine. You simply misread my previous post. Because you see, I am a real fan of your work. You have saved me a great deal of parenting, and I do not have to worry about my little tykes getting into any kind of airport drug abuse. Your educational television series has taught my kids so many valuable lessons, that I no longer even attempt to take care of them. I just set up the DVD player to play 24/7. Oh my! My youngest one, who is three, just got his British accent! Bless you sir! Bless you and your wonderful TV series!

 

[Davrel]

No, my nerves are fine. You simply misread my previous post. Because you see, I am a real fan of your work. You have saved me a great deal of parenting, and I do not have to worry about my little tykes getting into any kind of airport drug abuse. Your educational television series has taught my kids so many valuable lessons, that I no longer even attempt to take care of them. I just set up the DVD player to play 24/7. Oh my! My youngest one, who is three, just got his British accent! Bless you sir! Bless you and your wonderful TV series!

Flattered as I am by the effort shown in your attempts to antagonise me, I should again urge you to calm down. You're really putting too much effort into this; it would be remiss (nay heartless) of me to allow you to exasperate yourself to the point of embarrassment or injury without at least repeated warnings that your desired objective is unattainable.

 

[CZS PublicEnemy]

I thought we were done with this? Figuring on how long you took, I would of guessed you would have something more clever.