Marijuana Smoke More Toxic Than Tobacco Smoke

[jredheadgirl]

I also posted this under N.America....Hope this is the right place:-)

This article is almost 2 years old, but relevant; especially being that we have a California assemblyman who wants to legalize and tax weed (which I am in favor of, btw). However, there is clearly a double-standard here, as Mr. Ammiano is also known to be a rabid anti-smoker, uh, because of the toxic "health" concerns due to tobacco smoke. Amazingly, he chooses to ignore the even more (according to Science Daily) toxic 1st and 2nd hand smoke from marijuana. Oh, the political posturing and doublespeak clearly have become the norm.

Hmmmmmm.........

I'm going to have a tough time explaining this to my pot-smoking friends, who think that their weed is so much superior to mine. But, as Gandhi has said: "The truth stands, even if there be no public support".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 110328.htm

[gary k]

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/OS.Smoking.pdf

US Smoking material Fire Problem
November 2008
National Fire Protection Association

Wellll,
Table 6B shows that smokers(21% of the adults) are responsible for only 8% of the total home fires.

Table 6B also shows that smokers(21%) 'cause' 23.75%(24 hour avg.) of the total home fire deaths.

This is about the same ratio as non-smokers.

Tables 9 & 10 show us that the 65+ age group has 260 deaths or 36% of the total.

They are only 8.6% of the smokers,there are other factors that are more invoved than smoking.

Here we see that there are some strange facts about smoking rates and home fire deaths.
http://www.cdc.gov/NCIPC/facts...Death_Rates_2004.pdf

(NOTE:the 2804 deaths,not 710)

State..deaths..Population..Crude Rate..% Smoking
Illinois.121..12649940.....0.95.........22.2
Maine....6.....1308245.....0.46.........21
Vermont..0......619092.....0............20
Wyoming..1.....501915......0.2..........21
Total(US).2804.293656842...0.96.........20.9

Just how do those 710 deaths stack up as a health hazard for smokers compared to cars and hospitals??

45 million smokers divided by 710 is 1 death 'caused' per year per 63,380 smokers.

Yet;they, all, must smoke those 'gawd-awfull' FSC's!!

300 million people divided by 42,000 auto deaths is 1 per 7,143.

About 37 million people are admitted into hospitals each year and about 100,000 will die from the infections they pick up there.

That is 1 'hospital caused' infection death per 370 admissions.
----------
Tables 9 & 10 show us that the 65+ age group has 260 deaths or 36% of the total.

They are only 8.6% of the smokers,there are other factors that are more invoved than smoking.

..............

1 in 10 of the ever 65's will have Alzheimer's Disease(AD).

There are over 3 million smokers over the age of 65,there may be over 300,000 of them with AD.

Will those 300,000 smokers cause sad things to happen because they have forgotten that they were smoking or forgotten that they put their cigarettes down somewhere or empty an ashtray with a smoldering cigarette in it?

Unfortunately, YES!

Over 65 deaths from smoking 'caused' fires is 1 per about 12,076 smokers.
(3.14 million smokers divided by 260 deaths)

Under 65 deaths from smoking 'caused' fires is 1 per about 93,111 smokers.
(41,900,000 smokers divided by 450 deaths)

Will FSC's help much?

Some maybe;but,not very much!

[gary k]

" is anybody else sick of the "for the children" mantra"
------------------------

Ohhhh yes, especially since the anti-smokers lie about what they have done 'for the kids'!!!

The anti-smokers claim to have caused a reduction in the teen smoking rate.

However,since 1991 the number of teens has increased by 20%.

The reduction in the teen smoking rate is about 10%, from 34% to 31%.

The increase in the actual number of teens smoking is 9%, from 5.13 million to 5.6 million.

Just think of it;hundreds of millions of dollars spent(billions perhaps),thousands of lectures given,hundreds of smoking ban laws passed,and price increases of several hundred percent, JUST TO HAVE 9% MORE KIDS SMOKE!!!

The "for the children" mantra",is indeed VERY tiresome!!

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/...ml/ mm5526a2.htm
1990 the population was 250 million,there were 15 million high school age teens(6%).

About 30% of high school kids drop out of school ,that would be 4.5 million teens.

At least 50% the drop outs smoke,that would be 2.25 million.

In 1991, 27.45% of 10.5 million teens in high school smoked,that would be 2.88 million teens.

Total teens smoking in 1991 was 5.13 million or 34% of the teens.

2007 population was 300 million,there were 18 million high school age teens.(6%)

About 30% of high school kids drop out of school ,that would be 5.4 million teens.

At least 50% the drop outs smoke,that would be 2.7 million.

In 2005(23% of 12.6 million) about 2.9 million high school kids smoked.

Total teens smoking in 2007 was 5.6 million or 31% of the teens

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/ ce...stpopcounts.htm
Alaska and Utah had the highest percentages of high school-age population. Nationally, 6 percent of the population fell in this age group.

[crauley]

I find it interesting that, according to a large epi study, marijuana smoking, even if smoked heavily, doesn't appear to be associated with lung cancer. In fact, it appears to have a small protective effect. See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

This article notes, just like yours, that marijuana has much higher levels of the so-called carcinogens supposed to cause cancer.

So much for the theory that it is these 'carcinogens' in tobacco smoke that account for any association between lung cancer and tobacco smoking.

I also posted this under N.America....Hope this is the right place:-)

This article is almost 2 years old, but relevant; especially being that we have a California assemblyman who wants to legalize and tax weed (which I am in favor of, btw). However, there is clearly a double-standard here, as Mr. Ammiano is also known to be a rabid anti-smoker, uh, because of the toxic "health" concerns due to tobacco smoke. Amazingly, he chooses to ignore the even more (according to Science Daily) toxic 1st and 2nd hand smoke from marijuana. Oh, the political posturing and doublespeak clearly have become the norm.

Hmmmmmm.........

I'm going to have a tough time explaining this to my pot-smoking friends, who think that their weed is so much superior to mine. But, as Gandhi has said: "The truth stands, even if there be no public support".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 110328.htm

[crauley]

Just a further note on this marijuana study. According to the authors of the study, 'there was no evidence of a positive association between marijuana and cancer among those with heavy use of tobacco or alcohol'.

So one cannot say that the reason the study failed to find an association between (even heavy) pot smoking and cancer is that people don't smoke enough pot. For here we have a lack of association (between pot and cancer) even with heavy tobacco smokers. On the assumption that these components of the marijuana smoke cause cancer, surely the extra smoke from pot should have at least an additive effect when combined with the tobacco smoke. And yet no such additive effect was found.

Thus: another anomolous statistical finding.

[Harlow]

I don't like Maryjane but it should still be legal. I'm tired of everything being illegal. Who decides what's legal and what isn't? Whoever gets the biggest payoff - that's who!

[jredheadgirl]

Just a further note on this marijuana study. According to the authors of the study, 'there was no evidence of a positive association between marijuana and cancer among those with heavy use of tobacco or alcohol'.

So one cannot say that the reason the study failed to find an association between (even heavy) pot smoking and cancer is that people don't smoke enough pot. For here we have a lack of association (between pot and cancer) even with heavy tobacco smokers. On the assumption that these components of the marijuana smoke cause cancer, surely the extra smoke from pot should have at least an additive effect when combined with the tobacco smoke. And yet no such additive effect was found.

Thus: another anomolous statistical finding.

Oi. Now I'm confused....

[annemary100]

thanks for postings

Drug rehab

[WinstonSmith]

Event though that it is a known fact that marijuana is more toxic than tobacco smoke but tobacco can give more list of the incurable diseases than marijuana.Yet both was a bad and addicting habit gifted to mankind.

Tonight, is the happening of laziness to myself. Tomorrow, I make of you good delete and ban. Make busy time.

[oldstudent]

I love it when you do that Winston -I laugh out loud! So I guess I look for these for my morning chuckle! Thanks for that.

[jredheadgirl]

I love it when you do that Winston -I laugh out loud! So I guess I look for these for my morning chuckle! Thanks for that.

Morning chuckles are good:-)

[Ariel]

Perhaps I have more of a silly streak -- 'cause I don't chuckle -- I LOL like a crazy person when he does that!

BTW -- something entirely OT -- but so funny!


http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3890842/Foo ... gin-Mumbai—London-flight

[WinstonSmith]

Oh! Ha Ha! LOLs! All banned good now for happy time!

[jredheadgirl]

Perhaps I have more of a silly streak -- 'cause I don't chuckle -- I LOL like a crazy person when he does that!

BTW -- something entirely OT -- but so funny!


http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3890842/Foo ... gin-Mumbai—London-flight

...a backstreet underground cookie! That's a good one:-)