 |
Sinfest
welcome to the fest
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dro
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3830
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:27 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| andrew wrote: | | It really depends on how someone interprets "killed." Pot has contributed to many deaths, but there's not a single confirmed case of pot killing someone through toxicity. |
So it is correlated but not a cause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sam
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 8840
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| andrew wrote: | | It really depends on how someone interprets "killed." Pot has contributed to many deaths, but there's not a single confirmed case of pot killing someone through toxicity. |
Well, here's a question I would have for anyone who works through these interpretations of 'killed:'
Using their definitions, can I say that tobacco has rarely ever killed anyone — certainly not a statistically significant amount? Can I claim that this is because very very few people die as a direct result of a nicotine overdose?
If they look at this and admit that even related physically toxic effects count towards their application of toxicity (in the case of tobacco use, carcinogens, pulmonary/cardiac degeneration, health problems related to nicotine's effect on blood pressure, etc) then they would probably want to admit that there are cases where marijuana use has effectively caused the death of an individual, mainly through pulmonary issues unrelated to cancer.
An even broader view would also accept deaths due to marijuana intoxication but eh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andrew
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 4495
Location: the raging sea
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Using their definitions, can I say that tobacco has rarely ever killed anyone — certainly not a statistically significant amount? Can I claim that this is because very very few people die as a direct result of a nicotine overdose? |
I don't know what their definitions are; I was expressing one possible interpretation of the word "killed" that would make the statement "pot has never killed anyone" true.
| Quote: | | If they look at this and admit that even related physically toxic effects count towards their application of toxicity (in the case of tobacco use, carcinogens, pulmonary/cardiac degeneration, health problems related to nicotine's effect on blood pressure, etc) then they would probably want to admit that there are cases where marijuana use has effectively caused the death of an individual, mainly through pulmonary issues unrelated to cancer. |
Yes, they would. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Highlord
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 555
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam wrote: | | andrew wrote: | | It really depends on how someone interprets "killed." Pot has contributed to many deaths, but there's not a single confirmed case of pot killing someone through toxicity. |
Well, here's a question I would have for anyone who works through these interpretations of 'killed:'
Using their definitions, can I say that tobacco has rarely ever killed anyone — certainly not a statistically significant amount? Can I claim that this is because very very few people die as a direct result of a nicotine overdose?
If they look at this and admit that even related physically toxic effects count towards their application of toxicity (in the case of tobacco use, carcinogens, pulmonary/cardiac degeneration, health problems related to nicotine's effect on blood pressure, etc) then they would probably want to admit that there are cases where marijuana use has effectively caused the death of an individual, mainly through pulmonary issues unrelated to cancer.
An even broader view would also accept deaths due to marijuana intoxication but eh. |
My understanding of the issue is that smoking is bad for you whether it's tobacco or marijuana—that's really not in contention—but since there are non-smoking ways to dose yourself with marijuana that are safe (as far as I know), it isn't really comparable to tobacco products which seem to give you cancer no matter what form you take it in.
_________________
There is a luxury to self-reproach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mizike
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5120
Location: Iowa City
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Highlord wrote: | | Sam wrote: | | andrew wrote: | | It really depends on how someone interprets "killed." Pot has contributed to many deaths, but there's not a single confirmed case of pot killing someone through toxicity. |
Well, here's a question I would have for anyone who works through these interpretations of 'killed:'
Using their definitions, can I say that tobacco has rarely ever killed anyone — certainly not a statistically significant amount? Can I claim that this is because very very few people die as a direct result of a nicotine overdose?
If they look at this and admit that even related physically toxic effects count towards their application of toxicity (in the case of tobacco use, carcinogens, pulmonary/cardiac degeneration, health problems related to nicotine's effect on blood pressure, etc) then they would probably want to admit that there are cases where marijuana use has effectively caused the death of an individual, mainly through pulmonary issues unrelated to cancer.
An even broader view would also accept deaths due to marijuana intoxication but eh. |
My understanding of the issue is that smoking is bad for you whether it's tobacco or marijuana—that's really not in contention—but since there are non-smoking ways to dose yourself with marijuana that are safe (as far as I know), it isn't really comparable to tobacco products which seem to give you cancer no matter what form you take it in. |
This is possibly not true! Swedanaviawayland has a type of tobacco called Snus which may not cause cancer. More tests need to be conducted but what evidence exists is quite interesting.
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tinkeringIdiot
Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Posts: 1057
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mizike wrote: | | This is possibly not true! Swedanaviawayland has a type of tobacco called Snus which may not cause cancer. More tests need to be conducted but what evidence exists is quite interesting. |
I saw Colbert put one of those in. It was hilarious after his lip went numb. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CTrees
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3616
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mizike wrote: | | This is possibly not true! Swedanaviawayland has a type of tobacco called Snus which may not cause cancer. More tests need to be conducted but what evidence exists is quite interesting. |
Well, one of the studies linked in that article did find an increase in incidence of pancreatic cancer, and the other studies show correlations between snus and other health issues, like heart disease, so... Better than smoking, at least? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeD CHiKn
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 9867
Location: Baltimore, Maryla*gunshot*
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Highlord wrote: | | but since there are non-smoking ways to dose yourself with marijuana that are safe (as far as I know) |
They still impair your judgment and therefore are just as "safe" as smoking it.
_________________
I have a face, with a mustache.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mouse
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 15457
Location: under the bed
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CTrees wrote: | | Mizike wrote: | | This is possibly not true! Swedanaviawayland has a type of tobacco called Snus which may not cause cancer. More tests need to be conducted but what evidence exists is quite interesting. |
Well, one of the studies linked in that article did find an increase in incidence of pancreatic cancer, and the other studies show correlations between snus and other health issues, like heart disease, so... Better than smoking, at least? |
well, that's what the snus manufacturers are saying, anyway.
_________________
aka: neverscared! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mizike
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5120
Location: Iowa City
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mouse wrote: | | CTrees wrote: | | Mizike wrote: | | This is possibly not true! Swedanaviawayland has a type of tobacco called Snus which may not cause cancer. More tests need to be conducted but what evidence exists is quite interesting. |
Well, one of the studies linked in that article did find an increase in incidence of pancreatic cancer, and the other studies show correlations between snus and other health issues, like heart disease, so... Better than smoking, at least? |
well, that's what the snus manufacturers are saying, anyway. |
And the not-really-proving-anything-but-merits-more-study fact that Swedanaviawayland has a significantly lower rate of cancer than other Eurovilles
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Highlord
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 555
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DeD CHiKn wrote: | | The Highlord wrote: | | but since there are non-smoking ways to dose yourself with marijuana that are safe (as far as I know) |
They still impair your judgment and therefore are just as "safe" as smoking it. |
I'm talking about direct physiological effects caused by the marijuana, and separate injury/death due to doing something stupid while high out as a category. While lighting your house on fire is a way that smoking can kill you, it's something that would be ignored for the purposes of the current discussion, namely, the toxicology of the substances involved.
_________________
There is a luxury to self-reproach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nathan
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6269
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I never understand why it matters all that much. People die all the time from things like acetaminophen.
If they came out with a new version of heroin with a similarly non-existent LD50, would the argument for legalization be equally convincing?
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Set
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 506
Location: On a bed on a shoreline
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
