Who's Behind Nat Geo....

[Baba Ku]

Pot Smoking Not Linked to Lung Cancer Web MD
Pot is non-carcinogenic. Comparing to tobacco is silly. Cigarettes in their current form are very carcinogenic and deadly.

Gramps, pot in itself is not non-carcinogenic as you suggest, and the piece you referenced even states as much.
The issue is that there are as many carcinogens existing in pot smoke as there is in tobacco smoke, and by all accounts it should contribute to an increase of lung and other cancers. However the study has reportedly found that increased incidents of cancer did not correlate with heavy pot smoking.
The reason apparently remains up for study and investigation, but some have suggested it is THC that is responsible for the disparity between the cig and the doob numbers, and perhaps it counteracts the effects of the known carcinogens. The antithesis of nicotine, which apparently enhances the carcinogenic effect of the chemicals.

But the mentioned study could also bring up other questions...such as could it be that they really don't understand what is happening with tobacco either? Perhaps it is one of the ingredients that the cigarette makers use that interacts with the chemicals that is the big problem and not the plant matter itself?

 

[SpasticGramps]

Perhaps it is one of the ingredients that the cigarette makers use that interacts with the chemicals that is the big problem and not the plant matter itself?

That would be my hypothesis.

 

[OsWiZzLe]

Loooser Daddy.....I knew it was you lol This all makes perfect sense now lol how are the CMH coming along lol this dude is beyond misinformed...its awsome...he's been wrong about everything he thinks he's right about.... yeee hawww yippy Kaiii Yay Muthaphuckaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Yeah, let's review...
See this only shows that you surely don't use your fucking bean
before you start your little nubs pecking.

Review all ya want. Never a citation (save the UCLA media bias whatever.) No need to review years of personal style.

First of all...do you think that there are the same number of pot smokers as there are cigarette smokers? Should we expect such numbers, or perhaps ones who like to call little gay names and show their ignorance on a regular basis would be the ones to make such illogical assumptions?

I didn't know hoosierdaddy denotes sexual orientation. You said gay, not me.

You gotta link that attributes a single death to pot smoking, hoosier????

Didn't think so.

And of course you fail to see the point I was trying to make.
Just how do we arrive at the 400k figure? Research and studies. These studies are funded...nobody works for free.

So they're automatically bogus, (key word being funded)?

I guess your political party de'jur is automatically bogus because getting out their message is funded.

So... research must be FREE (and you can't beat the price.) Otherwise, joints like The Centers For Disease Control and the FDA must be bias.

There is no need to fund a study to show the ills of pot, it is already illegal. So, without credible and comprehensive information, it is hard to make a blanket statement that pot smoke has never killed anyone.

But you'll make a BIG, blanket post that says the opposite [and] less any proof.

I think anyone with a brain can realize that there is issues with the intake of tar. I don't care what the vehicle is.

Well if you've got a brain then you'll know that nobody here says tar is safe.

But of course we all are going to be as honest about things as we want the media to be, yes?

I don't know about your honesty but I'm certain you have a weird sense of reasoning and logic skills...

"Who cares about smoke from pot, it never killed anyone...whereas cigarette smoke kills 400,000 per year"

^^^... as evidence^^^

See, anyone from the opposition reading such words knows that they are blowing unfounded rhetoric. If is true that the concentration of tar is much greater in pot as from tobacco, and if we know that tar contributes to COPD and other ailments, is it not safe to assume that pot smoke can also contribute to health problems and even early death?
If we know that not to be the case, then we better be prepared to backup our assertions with reference.

What a total crock. I guess you're the reference king? You dispute valid reference and leave none in return.

and you think somebody will read it and say "hoosierdaddy says...."

 

[ddrew]

But the mentioned study could also bring up other questions...such as could it be that they really don't understand what is happening with tobacco either? Perhaps it is one of the ingredients that the cigarette makers use that interacts with the chemicals that is the big problem and not the plant matter itself?

That very well could be the case.
But whatever the underlying cause is, cigs are killing people, a whole bunch of them.

I'm not familiar with how chewing tobacco is made, but I know they have conclusively linked many cases of lip and throat cancer to it.
Tobacco in it's present form is killing hundreds of thousands of people a year, and to try to infer that marijuana smoke is 4 times more toxic in an effort to demonise it is pretty irresponsible on the part of Natgeo IMO.

 

[Blueshark]

Common sense would dictate the following conclusion:

If the powers that be COULD prove that MJ smoke kills you, they WOULD be all over it.
Having said that, there is still much to learn about MJ and its alleged carcinogenic tendencies. Seeing that they have been studying it for how long (?) and can't say it when they can about cigarettes leads me to believe that there is not a connection to cancer.
They said that holding the toke delivers 4x the tar of a cigarette? Ok, but what is the chemical make-up of said 'tar'? Is it the same as in tobacco? Many different alcohol molecules, but only certain ones will kill. Hyperbole and falsehoods do nobody any good when seeking the truth. I know they only had like 42 actual minutes to cut the show to. Makes you wonder WHAT was left on the cutting room floor, eh?

The truth has NO agenda, it simply IS....these and other questions leave me wondering if Nat Geo DOES have an agenda?

 

[Closet_Grower]

Common sense would dictate the following conclusion:

If the powers that be COULD prove that MJ smoke kills you, they WOULD be all over it.....

The truth has NO agenda, it simply IS....these and other questions leave me wondering if Nat Geo DOES have an agenda?

I had a well constructed response to this and the thread in whole but my comp crashed and now im over it. Im just spitting now.

1.OP stated facts that Nat GEo might be spinning things based on their corporate background, and posed the idea.

Its clears as fucking day that there was an agenda in the doc, you know this, I know this... who ever the fuck baba ku is, can be the first to get micro chipped and tattooed... as far as im concerned he is one of, ahem, "them".

All this tobacco talk, gov, prez, left right shit blah blah. fucking wake up people. this thread is full of dribble and bullshit. Just clouding the facts even more.

I wish someone would bring up the paper industries crushing blow to hemp production. or better yet the bankers and ceo's who meet with world leaders like the queen and everyones hero OBAMA!!!!! to discuss world policies against INTERPOL/World Law, in secret meetings....

2.If you still believe that the gov, media, corporations, ceo's have your better interest in mind you need to wake up and smell the money.

its all about money, and when you have all the money its all about power.

do some real research and you will see the power shift and who is running our fate.

or ruining our fate could work too....

but hey, ignorance is bliss. and in this case.... it just might be.

If you do research and dig deep.... YOU WILL BE ANGRY.

All the citations and quotes and references dont mean shit in this thread. fucking sheeple.

go sell your gold on those ads and buy more fucking SUV's, watch reality tv, eat processed cheese and BELIEVE.... in the dream.... cause thats what it is.

save your money till the day a "dollar" means nothing.

I'll be panning for gold in the hills with my girl and kitty growing trees watching the world burn.

sorry for the interruption

now back to regularly scheduled sheeple talking about the "real issues" in "our society".

 

[trichrider]

thank you and now a word from 'our' sponsors...

I was put off by the UK researcher angle thingie...the researcher states that thc might cause/precipitate psychotic episodes and that cbd might reduce those effects...they show her filling a volcano bag with vapor, but say it is 'pure' thc??? how in the world did they seperate thc from cbd?

and the other bs in there kept me laughing(not). had to call it a day after that...

 

[Baba Ku]

who ever the fuck baba ku is, can be the first to get micro chipped and tattooed... as far as im concerned he is one of, ahem, "them".

Well, as far as I'm concerned, you are one of those people that should not be fighting our fight. It is apparent that you are on the edge of lunacy. "...panning for gold in the hills while watching the world burn"(sic). Yeah, those are the words of derangement. I won't even go into it, but yeah...a good soul such as yours panning for gold. Can you eat your gold? Or perhaps you would use it as a monetary device? Hmmm...me thinks you just spout off shit to make yourself sound good, and have not really thought things through, and you have no fucking intentions of doing what you state. I don't think you have any intentions of leaving our society.

You may consider me one of "them", but you need to figure out just who they are. See, right off the bat folks want to lay blame to anything anti-cannabis on the right wing in the US. And I got news for you people...it is NOT a political agenda. Not at all.
It is a personal thing, and the only way we will win the war is to engage the minds of people and enter in the truth of things.
Not the truth as some lunatic asswipe who likes to chime in on message boards sees it, but the truth as it really is.
And not the truth as stated by some poorly researched documentary either.

It is the division that many of you engage in that pisses me the fuck off. I realize that many of you are still green kids, but you need to learn a thing or two about the war against cannabis. Some love to tie it to the right wing of people. Anyone of a conservative stripe is the enemy to some of you...and I am here to tell you that you are as big a problem as some lame documentary full of bullshit.
Yes, YOU are a big part of why we have such a long row to hoe with getting cannabis accepted in mainstream society.
Go ahead and keep politicizing the issue, it will only serve to prolong the agony.

And keep up the good work of dividing people. It is a great thing that you do to try to pin things on someone else. Even if the only evidence you have of your being right are your own rantings.
It shouldn't matter really, we should not care about others if they are not of the same political stripe as ourselves. Hell, we should wish them death and suffrage...which btw some of you actually do.
Sad state of affairs, but it is apparent why we get no further than we do...we have a whole lot of assholes with few clues on the front lines.

 

[Closet_Grower]

...Or perhaps you would use it as a monetary device? Hmmm...me thinks you just spout off shit to make yourself sound good, and have not really thought things through, and you have no fucking intentions of doing what you state. I don't think you have any intentions of leaving our society.

once the current monetary system is obsolete, yes gold will be, and is now very valuable.

And if I could leave western society today I would. Once our "society" has collapsed due to greed, I or anyone else has a choice.

im not trying to divide anyone. Its already divided. the Awaken and the Blind.

im out. your previous posts shows me the type of person you are. good day

 

[Baba Ku]

You can leave western society this very day.
You are most certainly a divider, you simply don't know us from them.

 

[dagnabit]

once the current monetary system is obsolete, yes gold will be, and is now very valuable.

And if I could leave western society today I would. Once our "society" has collapsed due to greed, I or anyone else has a choice.

im not trying to divide anyone. Its already divided. the Awaken and the Blind.

im out. your previous posts shows me the type of person you are. good day

once the monetary system collapses gold will be worth.....nothing.
gold is a fiat currency just as much as a dollar..
bullets and non GMO seeds there is your gold.
pack up and head on out buddy the non "western" world awaits.


on another note/
burning organic material releases volatile organic compounds,tars and carcinogens. dont matter if its pot,tobacco or banana peels.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

once the monetary system collapses gold will be worth.....nothing.
gold is a fiat currency just as much as a dollar..

Gold predates fiat by thousands of years, Dag.

bullets and non GMO seeds there is your gold.
pack up and head on out buddy the non "western" world awaits.

You gonna eat yer bullets and seeds, Dag?

on another note/
burning organic material releases volatile organic compounds,tars and carcinogens. dont matter if its pot,tobacco or banana peels.

Don't fall in the hoosier trap, Dag. You know, posting assumptions as fact.

First of all, hoosier already posted that the repudiation of this whole cannabis-is-four-times-more-dangerous-than-tobacco is a left-wing conspiracy. You know, Rup's a lefty because he contributed to Democratic campaigns.

Now hoosier's latest rant includes reference to a "poorly researched documentary".

Thing is, hoosier argues across the board. He'll even turn his own assumptions upside down and inside out, looking for a split hair to split.


NEWSFLASH... Nobody has stated that tar is good for you. We slammed the documentary's claim that cannabis is 4x worse than tobacco.

hoosier can question with authority whether 400 thousand Americans actually die from tobacco. Then hoosier suggests that we just don't know about mj deaths because nobody studies mj [because] it's illegal.

Key - no attributable deaths from mj.... no deaths from overdose and none from smoke.

And now we're throwing in banana peels. You smoking banana peels, Dag?

 

[dagnabit]

Gold predates fiat by thousands of years, Dag.

correct
however its intrinsic value is worthless. it is fiat now by definition. its value is a falsely agreed upon number. in a "post economic" world what practical use will gold have?

You gonna eat yer bullets and seeds, Dag?

thats the plan...
bullets kill game. i eat game
seeds bear fruit and veggies.. i eat those too.
how many calories in gold?

Don't fall in the hoosier trap, Dag. You know, posting assumptions as fact.

First of all, hoosier already posted that the repudiation of this whole cannabis-is-four-times-more-dangerous-than-tobacco is a left-wing conspiracy. You know, Rup's a lefty because he contributed to Democratic campaigns.

Now hoosier's latest rant includes reference to a "poorly researched documentary".

Thing is, hoosier argues across the board. He'll even turn his own assumptions upside down and inside out, looking for a split hair to split.


NEWSFLASH... Nobody has stated that tar is good for you. We slammed the documentary's claim that cannabis is 4x worse than tobacco.

hoosier can question with authority whether 400 thousand Americans actually die from tobacco. Then hoosier suggests that we just don't know about mj deaths because nobody studies mj [because] it's illegal.

Key - no attributable deaths from mj.... no deaths from overdose and none from smoke.

And now we're throwing in banana peels. You smoking banana peels, Dag?

you miss my point.
we get so caught up in defending her we forget to acknowledge the negatives.
if we are going to persuade the squares there have to be some negatives we admit to (even if they are minute) no one believes in perfection.
do i believe doobs are 4X more evil than cigs? hell no!!!
but i do think if we are gonna gain some mainstream cceptance we will have to give up some points (that really dont matter) to win the public perception war.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

correct
however its intrinsic value is worthless. it is fiat now by definition. its value is a falsely agreed upon number. in a "post economic" world what practical use will gold have?

You could be right, gold might be worthless. In that event, something would have to take the place of gold for trade. Assuming there is trade.

thats the plan...
bullets kill game. i eat game
seeds bear fruit and veggies.. i eat those too.

Sounds like a solid plan.

you miss my point.
we get so caught up in defending her we forget to acknowledge the negatives.
if we are going to persuade the squares there have to be some negatives we admit to (even if they are minute) no one believes in perfection.
do i believe doobs are 4X more evil than cigs? hell no!!!
but i do think if we are gonna gain some mainstream cceptance we will have to give up some points (that really dont matter) to win the public perception war.

I agree there are down sides to vices, even some medicines. I'm happy that NG chose to document mj, it's a start.

(And I won't attribute this to anyone personally.) NG says cannabis is 4x worse than tobacco. The least they could do is point out death disparity between the two.

 

[Baba Ku]

They said it was 4 times worse? Or maybe they used the term worser?
(geeez)
Look, they said that the smoke was 4 times more toxic than cigarette smoke. Could it be they are considering how long a toke is normally held compared to how long a draw is held? And perhaps they are also considering we use no filtration? Not hard to see the smoke being 4 times more toxic in these situations. Or perhaps it would be better to say that there are 4 times the toxins accumulated in pot smoke? I don't think they said anything about that fact being the causation of anything at all?

The study that gramps pointed to keys in on the fact that even though the same carcinogens are present in pot smoke as cigarette smoke, it has been shown that there are not the same results for the long term.
Has to be a reason for that, and it is being said the THC could very well be the key.

You will never be able to win debates when you keep placing your own words on things, disco. You are notorious for doing that. Sucks too.

You know, it may help if we are not too fucking simple to actually absorb what we see before we start our critiques?

Here's the thing...and I hope I don't hurt anyone's feelings...but if you go around telling your advisory that there are no toxins in pot smoke, they immediately win because you have made a dumb fuck statement. Seems we would rather fight and argue about dumb fuck statements and shit people make up, and point our self-righteous fingers, than actually discuss things rationally.
(not only rationally but intelligently too, DISCO)

 

[Greensub]

I remember reading information on historical tobacco use & evidence of cancer (sorry, no link... it was in a book).

They brought up a lot of good points about how the consumption of tobacco has changed since it's introduction to western society. In tobacco plants the top leaves are the most potent... this is what the indigenous populations historically smoked, and they smoked very little of it at once because it was so potent. I remember reading that there are strains of tobacco that are even mildly hallucinogenic.

Native Americans smoked tobacco more like we smoke cannabis today in relation to amount and frequency, not only that, they don't have a historical record amongst themselves of people showing symptoms of lung cancer, not has it show up in the paleo-pathological record.

I wouldn't be surprised if we all smoked homegrown tobacco at a rate of about a gram a day rather than 2 packs (40 grams) of chemical filled weak cigarette tobacco... that we wouldn't have the rates of cancer & heart disease we have today.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

They said it was 4 times worse? Or maybe they used the term worser?
(geeez)
Look, they said that the smoke was 4 times more toxic than cigarette smoke. Could it be they are considering how long a toke is normally held compared to how long a draw is held? And perhaps they are also considering we use no filtration? Not hard to see the smoke being 4 times more toxic in these situations. Or perhaps it would be better to say that there are 4 times the toxins accumulated in pot smoke? I don't think they said anything about that fact being the causation of anything at all?

The study that gramps pointed to keys in on the fact that even though the same carcinogens are present in pot smoke as cigarette smoke, it has been shown that there are not the same results for the long term.
Has to be a reason for that, and it is being said the THC could very well be the key.

You will never be able to win debates when you keep placing your own words on things, disco. You are notorious for doing that. Sucks too.

Which werd do you find notorious, Baba Ku? Would it be "worse"?

I'll break it down...

*According to NG, mj smoke is 4x worse than tobacco smoke.

*Stats you refute state 400,000 die annually from tobacco related illness.

*If there's a single death attributable to mj, it ain't referenced.



I've seen you debate causation in other threads. Why are you even considering causation when NG says mj smoke is 4x worse? I'll note the fact you prefer the word toxic.

If you have trouble with similar wording, imagine peeps floating self concepts and sporting them as fact.

Could your concern have more to do with perception of a politically savvy media mogul?

 

[Baba Ku]

You don't have the facilities to discuss things rationally, disco.
Just like your insistence that I refuted the stats of the 400,000 deaths from tobacco. I did not refute that at all. It was another of those things that you simply add to or rearrange to suit your rant. You make things up, bub.

lol..."I'll break it down" LOL....

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

You know, it may help if we are not too fucking simple to actually absorb what we see before we start our critiques?

make like a sponge.

Here's the thing...and I hope I don't hurt anyone's feelings...but if you go around telling your advisory that there are no toxins in pot smoke, they immediately win because you have made a dumb fuck statement.

Speaking of dumb fuck statements, you're the only one that made it. Comments like that make your initial one appear cerebral.

Seems we would rather fight and argue about dumb fuck statements and shit people make up, and point our self-righteous fingers, than actually discuss things rationally.
(not only rationally but intelligently too, DISCO)

I've got about all you can handle hoosier. I've presented reference you've refuted, I've pointed out your projection and hypocrisy and I've also countered the fringe ideas you believe are main stream.

But none of the above means you deserve being treated nasty. IMO, you have your own nasty aspect that invites that kind of behavior. (Think Tucker Carlson.)