docinsano wrote:

Dude, where are your sources for all this shit? I'd really like some articles to read and not some "Oh theres more anti drug ads because of this Phelps shit" bullshit where you basically tell us that because you see a few more ads on TV that its true. Pics or or it ain't real. You know what i mean.

PIX || GTFO!!

EDIT: Damn, I was too late.

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

Nekkoru, weed will kill you faster than cigarettes. I believe a joint has about 10x the carcinogens of a cigarette.

The number of carcinogens doesn't reflect their power; there might be 10x as many carcinogens but they also could be 10x weaker than carcinogens in normal cigarettes. I'm not saying that's the case, but I always heard the same thing in school and never got an answer from my health teacher about the powers of the surplus of carcinogens apparent in pot.

To the Government: What does it matter if it kills you faster? It's still your choice. Just like eating a lot of donuts or sugar, or not exercising, or sitting in the sun too much, or not getting enough sun, or slicing wrists for attention, or licking the doorknob of a porn shop, or the potential danger using cellphones and laptops on our laps. These are just the modern methods of population control, which the world is desperately becoming in need of in my opinion. Why not take that in stride with economic incentive?

EDIT: There are some studies that say that cigarettes give more cancer. Nicotine is a co-carcinogen, possibly enabling a vaster amount of compounds in cigarettes while THC in cannabis has been found to actually inhibit carcinogens.

http://steelturman.typepad.com/thesteeldeal/2005/10/marijuana_vs_to.html

I have been becoming more interested in this topic, so I'll be trying to find more links.

EDIT 2: Not to mention that nicotine is physically addictive, thusly increasing your chances of cancer/death because you're more likely to smoke more often with cigarettes.

EDIT 3: http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_health2.shtml

An interesting article, though hosted on what would seem to be a far left site. I'd like to try to find a source of information that could be much less prone to bias.

My primary argument is that if people do it and it has no outstanding negative effects outside of the user, then there shouldn't be a problem with it. What one directly does to oneself which has no or very limited effects on few others in most cases shouldn't be mandated by law. I hate cigarettes, but it's the same thing them. You wanna smoke cigs, fine, but keep it to yourself. Smoke in your house or outside. Don't smoke around kids or the sick. Government can tax the hell out of it if they want (and should). You should be able to grow your own small amount for personal use.

It makes people fat and lazy? So what? That's their issue and their choice as are the other aforementioned items on my previous post, not to mention that I don't see much correlation with the fat thing. You tend to eat more, but weed boosts your metabolism too. It's not hard to snack on things that aren't terrible for you when you're high, you just have to have decently healthy foods/snacks on hand before you smoke. The laziness is unavoidable mostly, but I know some people, including myself with the right amount, that are able to focus better under its influence.