Re: Marijuana

[Jake Wildstrom]

Damnit, I promised I wouldn't get involved in this absurd and
off-topic thread, but I've got to set the record straight here:

In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Tetsuo  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Normal pot doesn't cause hallucinations, exceptions have to be made with
allergies towards it, or not normal potency pot (artificially enhanced,
sprayed with lsd, etc...). If both of these factors are not taken in
consideration, reefer madness is a myth, sorry to disappoint you.

Two things:

(1) High dosage marijuana _can_ cause hallucinations, most commonly
auditory, in a significant minority of the population. This is not
an allergy issue, but a sensitivity to particular psychoactive
effects. Not everyone will experience such, but they definitely
are experienced by some.

(2) Marijuana is never laced with LSD. That's a waste of perfectly good
LSD. Heat-vaporization is not a usable means of LSD ingestion, simply
because LSD breaks down at high temperatures.

+--First Church of Briantology--Order of the Holy Quaternion--+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems.  -Paul Erdos  |
+-+
|   Jake Wildstrom|
+-+


=
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
  http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=

Re: Marijuana

[Jake Wildstrom]

In article XhRW6.14316$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
W. D. Allen Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is medical research that shows marijuana is more lethal than tobacco
regarding lung cancer.

Thanks for playing, but sorry, no.

There's a lot of research which says a lot of different things about
marijauna's deleterious effects on the lungs. Off the top of my head:

A Berkeley study of the late '70s concluded that marijuana is
one-and-a-half times as carcinogenic as tobacco. This assesment took
into account _only_ quantities of tar. Tar, while a carcinogen, is not
the primary cancer-causing agent in tobacco, or even close; polonium
210 and lead 210 are considerably more hazardous and conspicuously
absent from marijuana. Add to this the fact that marijuana smokers are
unlikely to consume nearly as much net weight smokable material as
tobacco smokers, and you're talking apples and oranges.

Actual tests on real live people bears this out. Multiple population
samples show no correlation between marijuana use exclusive of tobacco
use and lung cancer:

Tashkin, D.P. et al, Longitudinal Changes in Respiratory Symptoms and
Lung Function in Non-smokers, Tobacco Smokers, and Heavy, Habitual
Smokers of Marijuana With or Without Tobacco, pp 25-36 in G. Chesher
et al (eds), Marijuana: an International Research Report, Canberra:
Australian Government Publishing Service (1988).

Sherrill, D.L. et al, Respiratory Effects of Non-Tobacco Cigarettes:
A Longitudinal Study in General Population, International Journal of
Epidemiology 20: 132-37 (1991).

Fligiel, S.E.G. et al, Bronchial Pathology in Chronic Marijuana
Smokers: A Light Electron Microscope Study, Journal of Psychoactive
Drugs 20:33-42 (1988).

Maybe there is a correlation between lung cancer susceptibility and heart
attacks? We know there is for tobacco!

Well, inhaling smoke of _any_ sort actually puts some strain on your
heart. I believe specific toxins in tobacco exacerbate the problem,
but it's present for all types of smokables.


Of course, we're very off-topic here. Anyone want to crosspost this
thread to sci.med.*, or talk.politics.drugs?

+--First Church of Briantology--Order of the Holy Quaternion--+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems.  -Paul Erdos  |
+-+
|   Jake Wildstrom|
+-+


=
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
  http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=