How bad is weed for you?

Where did you get that idea?

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer



Why not?

Urgh. These moralist arguments. Do you have any idea what happens in real life with drugs? A lack of government regulation, a lack of standardised measurements, a society that frowns upon drug use and forces users to be dishonest about their consumption, results in more harm than you could imagine. Drugs on the streets are adulterated. Cannabis is sprayed with glass or pressed into horrific 'soapbars' with god knows what mixed in. People pay for a plant and end up smoking putting diesal and turpentine into their lungs. People are sold (legal, mind) research chemicals as MDMA and LSD, comparatively safe drugs, and end up overdosing or getting horrific side effects because we have even less of an idea of what they do to the body than the illegals. This isn't some fantasy world. This is people you know. I assume when/if you go to university, provided you don't live in a town crawling with drugs anyway (chances are you do, as it's most), you may hear of the odd casualty. I certainly have, and it's not fair.

The aim of legalisation isn't to have this free-for-all and go 'YEAH DRUGS' and have everyone wandering the streets coked off their heads and blazed in the streets. The aim is to reduce harm: to make people know exactly what goes into their body, to ensure people are educated to the best possible extent about how to safely use drugs. This is real life - it's having a grown up discussion about something, accepting that it happens, and seeing what we can do to ensure less people die and/or ruin their lives. One model is to have the "soft" drugs which are relatively (NOT absolutely, relatively) safe taxed, regulated, and most importantly, unadulterated, with "hard" drugs being available to addicts under medical supervise to again, ensure they get a clean supply. A person can drink 9 pints of Stella and vomit in the streets, and as tiresome and stupid as the event is, everyone knows they are going to recover because they've got a product which is unadulterated, well-researched, and which the physical effects are well-known. Whereas if someone has gone out and taken 3 tabs of LSD, which isn't actually LSD at all but a research chemical that mimics its effects, and had a seizure, then the doctors are going to have a much trickier time saving the patient.

And if you're currently reaching for that keyboard to type out the same malicious, tired argument of 'WELL THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE DRUGS, IT'S ILLEGAL' then not only are you displaying an ambivalent attitude towards reality, you are simply proving that you do not care about protecting people at all. You care about forcing an ideology on others, perhaps even through your own bitterness.

Drug-taking is a normal human behaviour. Humans will strive to do anything that makes them feel good, or different. If you morally object to that, then where do you draw the line? Banning junk food? Perhaps exercise? Orgasms? They make you feel different, change your perceptions of the world? Some people get addicted to them. Maybe we should eliminate them. Perhaps a system of plastic bubbles to ensure no one is harmed ever?

And one final thing. I accept that drugs cause harm. I accept that people do them. What I don't want is criminals making money off this. I don't want violent scum meeting a market demand and feeding their networks with it. I don't want to ultimately fund some bloody conflict in the Third World everytime I buy a tenbag. I'm not even saying legalising it would solve all the problems, but it would be a step in the right direction. Better to try and actively deal with the elephant in the room than stuffing it under the couch where it won't fit.

While I couldn't find the original source of your article, I took it upon myself to search for more recent and a larger cohort study.

"Cox regression analyses (n = 44,284) found that such "heavy" cannabis smoking was significantly associated with more than a twofold risk (hazard ratio 2.12, 95 % CI 1.08-4.14) of developing lung cancer over the 40-year follow-up period, even after statistical adjustment for baseline tobacco use, alcohol use, respiratory conditions, and socioeconomic status."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846283

I'm not up to date with the arguments behind weed legislation, I'm aware that weed also contains various carcinogenic agents, which is what I was basing my views on.

Criminals will continue to do what they do even if we do legalise it. Please show me how legalising it is a step in the right direction without all the waffle.

It's all pretty inconclusive so far, there have been a number of studies showing a link and a number showing no link, but light to moderate use certainly doesn't seem to cause cancer. Clearly there is more to it than it containing many of the same carcinogens, they have pharmacological activities that result in different biological endpoints, nicotine is significtly more addictive, tobacco smokers smoke more regularly. Cannabis smoking is undoubtedly harmful but it seems very unlikey that it is as harmful as tobacco.

Smoking it isn't a good way to go though as the smoke can damage your lungs and all the other dangers that smoking gives, a bong is more healthy (but still not advisable).

Posted from TSR Mobile

I know a few guys who take it, they don't seem that bad though. Never intend to myself but just curious, they say it relaxes them & really opens up their mind...

It's all pretty inconclusive so far, there have been a number of studies showing a link and a number showing no link, but light to moderate use certainly doesn't seem to cause cancer. Clearly there is more to it than it containing many of the same carcinogens, they have pharmacological activities that result in different biological endpoints, nicotine is significtly more addictive, tobacco smokers smoke more regularly. Cannabis smoking is undoubtedly harmful but it seems very unlikey that it is as harmful as tobacco.