Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 65
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Marijuana Deaths = 0

  1. #1
    420 Member NoDirtWeed4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,101

    Marijuana Deaths = 0

    HOW DANGEROUS IS MARIJUANA COMPARED WITH OTHER SUBSTANCES?
    Number of American deaths per year that result directly or primarily from the following selected causes nationwide, according to World Almanacs, Life Insurance Actuarial (death) Rates, and the last 20 years of U.S. Surgeon Generals' reports.
    • TOBACCO 340,000 to 450,000
    • ALCOHOL (Not including 50% of all highway deaths and 65% of all murders)150,000+
    • ASPIRIN (Including deliberate overdose 180 to 1,000+
    • CAFFEINE (From stress, ulcers, and triggering irregular heartbeats, etc.) 1,000 to 10,000
    • DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from legal, prescribed or patent medicines and/or mixing with alcohol - e.g. Valium/alcohol 14,000 to 27,000
    • ILLICIT DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental) from all illegal drugs. 3,800 to 5,200
    • MARIJUANA 0 (Marijuana users also have the same or lower incidence of murders and highway deaths and accidents than the general non-marijuana using population as a whole.)

    Crancer Study, UCLA; U.S. Funded ($6 million), First & Second Jamaican Studies, 1968 to 1974; Costa Rican Studies, 1980 to 1982; et al. LOWEST TOXICITY 100% of the studies done at dozens of American universities and research facilities show pot toxicity does not exist. Medical history does not record anyone dying from an overdose of marijuana (UCLA, Harvard, Temple, etc.).
    Last edited by 420 Girl; 04-05-2011 at 05:55 PM.

  2. #2
    420 Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    46

    Re: Marijuana Deaths = 0

    When you say there's that many tobacco deaths, that means indirect deaths right? If so then under marijuana wouldn't be 0, I'm sure people have died from lung / throat cancer from smoking cannabis wether youd like to beleive it or not.

  3. #3
    420 Member NoDirtWeed4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,101

    Re: Marijuana Deaths = 0

    I don't know. I don't think that I've ever heard of someone that smoked nothing but cannabis and got throat/lung cancer. Anyone ever hear of a case?

  4. #4
    420
    420 is offline
    Administrator 420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1993
    Location
    California
    Posts
    62,753

    Re: Marijuana Deaths = 0

    never

  5. #5
    New Member DEATHWISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    39

    Re: Marijuana Deaths = 0

    You cannot get lung cancer or any of that from smoking Marijuana.
    It doesnt have nicotine and tar in it, does it?
    Thats what fucks up your lungs,
    and all those cleaning detergents and crappy stuff put into it.

    Marijuana is pure,
    this is why WE ALL smoke it

  6. #6
    420 Member J842P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,238

    Re: Marijuana Deaths = 0

    Quote Originally Posted by DEATHWISH
    You cannot get lung cancer or any of that from smoking Marijuana.
    It doesnt have nicotine and tar in it, does it?
    Thats what fucks up your lungs,
    and all those cleaning detergents and crappy stuff put into it.

    Marijuana is pure,
    this is why WE ALL smoke it
    Uhhh...
    Weed definatly has a LOT of tar... more than ciggarettes... (I'm not sure if that holds true against rolling tobacco/unfiltered cigs/pipetobacco etc.)
    Anyway, lysol, those are weed deaths for anything... cancer, etc. No reported cases. I'm sure there might have been, but obviously not enough to be on the radar.
    Simply put, the habit of smoking marijuana is less harmful to your lungs than the habit of smoking cigarettes.
    Peace and Prosperity

    I consider myself to be a competent combuster,or a smoker supremist. - OnionGobbler

  7. #7
    420 Member NoDirtWeed4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,101

    Re: Marijuana Deaths = 0

    Yeah there is alot of tar in Marijuana that can cause emphysema, bronchitis etc. But as far as that and the irritation from the smoke in general are the only health problems that I have ever heard about. Marijuana has been shown to do ALOT more good than harm. But the safest ways are to eat it or vaporize it.

  8. #8
    New Member DEATHWISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    39

    Re: Marijuana Deaths = 0

    it has tar in it?
    shit, never knew that.
    learn something new everyday on this website :D

  9. #9
    420 Member NoDirtWeed4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,101

    Re: Marijuana Deaths = 0

    Yeah that's the resin that collects in your bong dude.

  10. #10
    420 Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    46

    Re: Marijuana Deaths = 0

    Anything that is burned has tar....

    and they don't put cleaning shit into tobacco, tobacco when burned releases chemicals that are found in cleaning shit and I'm sure cannabis does too, not that you're inhaling bleach... they just happen to share chemicals.

  11. #11
    420 Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    46

    Re: Marijuana Deaths = 0

    Eh, regardless of what has been 'proven' or not, I know any veteran smoker will verify that since starting smoking they have developed a cough or a noticeable decrease in the quality of their breathing.. So its obviously not good for your lungs.. and the resin that develops inside of your bowl is all over the inside of your lungs. it contains tar and tar in your lungs is what causes cancer.

  12. #12
    420 Member bctoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    145

    Re: Marijuana Deaths = 0

    True but no one that Ive meet smokes 50+ joints a day.

  13. #13
    New Member DEATHWISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    39

    Re: Marijuana Deaths = 0

    Quote Originally Posted by bctoker
    True but no one that Ive meet smokes 50+ joints a day.
    LMFAO.

  14. #14
    420 Member J842P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,238

    Re: Marijuana Deaths = 0

    Quote Originally Posted by lysol
    it contains tar and tar in your lungs is what causes cancer.

    It is an attempt to point out some of the absurdities in the marijuana-
    is-bad-for-you-like-cigarettes bullshit, as well as take a few cheap
    (but well aimed) shots at the tobacco industry.
    It is written from a pro-marijuana-relegalization perspective,
    and if you want a copy, mail us a Self Addressed Stamped Envelope.
    (we're poor.)

    An address and some sources are at the end.

    So, you thought it was the tar that caused cancer...

    Think again. Cigarette companies will have you believing
    anything just as long as you continue to buy their products. The
    fact is, although insoluble tars are a contributing factor to the
    lung cancer danger present in today's cigarettes, the real danger
    is radioactivity. According to U.S. Surgeon General C. Everette
    Koop (on national television, 1990) radioactivity, not tar,
    accounts for at least 90% of all smoking related lung cancer.
    Tobacco crops grown in the United States are fertilized by law
    with phosphates rich in radium 226. In addition, many soils have
    a natural radium 226 content. Radium 226 breaks down into two long
    lived 'daughter' elements -- lead 210 and polonium 210. These
    radioactive particles become airborne, and attach themselves to the
    fine hairs on tobacco leaves.
    Studies have shown that lead 210 and polonium 210 deposits
    accumulate in the bodies of people exposed to cigarette smoke.
    Data collected in the late 1970's shows that smokers have three
    times as much of these elements in their lower lungs as non
    smokers. Smokers also show a greater accumulation of lead 210 and
    polonium 210 in their skeletons,though no studies have been
    conducted to link these deposits with bone cancer. Polonium 210 is
    the only component of cigarette smoke which has produced tumors by
    itself in inhalation experiments with animals.
    When a smoker inhales tobacco smoke, the lungs react by
    forming irritated areas in the bronchi. All smoke produces this
    effect. However, although these irritated spots are referred to as
    'pre-cancerous' lesions, they are a perfectly natural defense
    system and usually go away with no adverse effects. Insoluble tars
    in tobacco smoke can slow this healing process by adhering to
    lesions and causing additional irritation. In addition, tobacco
    smoke causes the bronchi to constrict for long periods of time,
    which obstructs the lung's ability to clear itself of these
    residues.
    Polonium 210 and lead 210 in tobacco smoke show a tendency to
    accumulate at lesions in specific spots, called bifurcations, in
    the bronchi. When smoking is continued for an extended period of
    time, deposits of radioactivity turn into radioactive 'hot spots'
    and remain at bifurcations for years. Polonium 210 emits highly
    localized alpha radiation which has been shown to cause cancer.
    Since the polonium 210 has a half life of 21.5 years (Due to the
    presence of lead 210), it can put an ex-smoker at risk for years
    after he or she quits. Experiments measuring the level of polonium
    210 in victims of lung cancer found that the level of 'hot spot'
    activity was virtually the same in smokers and ex-smokers even though
    the ex-smokers had quit five years prior to death.
    Over half of the radioactive materials emitted by a burning
    cigarette are released into the air, where they can be inhaled by
    non-smokers. In addition to lead 210 and polonium 210 it has been
    proven that tobacco smoke can cause airborne radioactive particles
    to collect in the lungs of both smokers and non-smokers exposed to
    second hand smoke. Original studies conducted on uranium miners
    which showed an increased risk of lung cancer due to exposure to
    radon in smokers have been re-run to evaluate the radioactive lung
    cancer risk from indoor air radon. It turns out that tobacco smoke
    works as a kind of 'magnet' for airborne radioactive particles,
    causing them to deposit in your lungs instead of on furniture.
    (Smoking indoors increases lung cancer risks greatly.)
    It has been estimated that the total accumulated alpha
    radiation exposure of a pack-a-day indoor smoker is 38 to 97 rad by
    age 60. (Two packs a day yields up to 143 rad, and non-smokers
    receive no more than 17 rad.) An exposure of 1 rad per year yields
    a 1% risk of lung cancer (at the lowest estimate.)
    Don't smoke. Or if you do, smoke lightly, outdoors, and
    engage frequently in activities which will clear your lungs.
    Imported India tobacco has less than half the radiation content of
    that grown in the U.S.
    Kicking the nicotine habit is not easy, and nobody has the
    right to expect it of you. Often physical addictions are
    reinforced by emotional and psychological needs. Filling or coming
    to terms with those needs can give you the inspiration and added
    freedom to succeed.
    Most of all, inform yourself, even if the information is
    disturbing. You are a lot less likely to be taken in by tobacco
    advertising once you know the facts.


    Nicotine, the active ingredient in tobacco smoke, has long
    been known to be highly addictive. In fact, doctors and
    pharmacologists are not in consensus as to which is more addictive
    -- nicotine, or heroin. Physical addiction occurs when a chemical
    becomes essential for the body or metabolism to function. In other
    words, a substance is said to be physically addictive if extended
    use results in a build up of tolerance in the body to the extent
    that discontinuing use of the substance results in negative side
    effects. Called "withdrawal symptoms," these consequences can
    include anxiety, stress, trauma, depression and physical conditions
    such as shakes or nausea. It is to avoid these consequences that
    an addict will keep using his or her substance.
    In addition to being addictive, nicotine is also a toxin (i.e.
    lethal if ingested in sufficient quantities.) Nicotine has been
    shown to have a negative effect on the heart and circulatory
    systems, causing a constriction in veins and arteries which may
    lead to a stroke or heart attack. In fact, nicotine is so
    poisonous that smokers who ignore their doctor's advice and
    continue to smoke while using dermal nicotine patches have managed
    to overdose and die of heart seizure.

    Many people think smoking marijuana is just as harmful as
    smoking tobacco, but this is not true. Those who hold that
    marijuana is equivalent to tobacco are misinformed. Due to the
    efforts of various federal agencies to discourage use of
    marijuana in the 1970's the government, in a fit of "reefer
    madness," conducted several biased studies designed to return
    results that would equate marijuana smoking with tobacco smoking,
    or worse.
    For example the Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the
    late 1970's concluded that "marijuana is one-and-a-half times as
    carcinogenic as tobacco." This finding was based solely on the
    tar content of cannabis leaves compared to that of tobacco, and
    did not take radioactivity into consideration. (Cannabis tars do
    not contain radioactive materials.) In addition, it was not
    considered that:
    1) Most marijuana smokers smoke the bud, not the leaf, of
    the plant. The bud contains only 33% as much tar as tobacco.
    2) Marijuana smokers do not smoke anywhere near as much as
    tobacco smokers, due to the psychoactive effects of cannabis.
    3) Not one case of lung cancer has ever been successfully
    linked to marijuana use.
    4) Cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not cause any narrowing of
    the small air passageways in the lungs.
    In fact, marijuana has been shown to be an expectorant and
    actually dilates the air channels it comes in contact with. This
    is why many asthma sufferers look to marijuana to provide relief.
    Doctors have postulated that marijuana may, in this respect, be
    more effective than all of the prescription drugs on the market.
    Studies even show that due to marijuana's ability to clear
    the lungs of smog, pollutants, and cigarette smoke, it may
    actually reduce your risk of emphysema, bronchitis, and lung
    cancer. Smokers of cannabis have been shown to outlive non-
    smokers in some areas by up to two years. Medium to heavy
    tobacco smokers will live seven to ten years longer if they also
    smoke marijuana.
    Cannabis is also radically different from tobacco in that it
    does not contain nicotine and is not addictive. The psychoactive
    ingredient in marijuana, THC, has been accused of causing brain
    and genetic damage, but these studies have all been disproven.
    In fact, the DEA's own Administrative Law Judge Francis Young has
    declared that "marijuana in its natural form is far safer than
    many foods we commonly consume."

    The disturbing thing about all of this information is that
    the majority of Americans are as yet unaware of the radioactive
    risk in cigarettes. In fact, many professionals: doctors,
    scientists and health administrators, either have never heard of
    polonium 210 or consider it to be just another scare story.
    Why is this information so hard to come by? When the
    studies were first released in the late 70's, many magazines were
    unable to print articles because their main advertisers,
    cigarette companies, threatened to pull support if they published
    the facts. Although network news did pick up the story,
    virtually nothing came out in print. Those who heard were hard
    pressed to produce collaborating evidence, and were eventually
    convinced it was nothing to worry about.
    The power of the cigarette industry to suppress information
    goes far beyond magazines, however. A well financed tobacco
    lobby has been very active in the United States Congress for
    decades procuring subsidies and fighting laws and proposed
    research which could hurt the American tobacco industry. Tobacco
    interests practically own Senate and House seats, as many
    campaign contributions come from cigarette profits. Tobacco pay-
    offs also go to fund organizations such as the Partnership For A
    Drug Free America, which adopt a harsh anti-drug agenda yet seem
    to omit alcohol and tobacco (claiming they are harmless.)
    As an example, a 1984 law which was intended to require
    tobacco companies to release to the public a list of additives
    used in the manufacture of cigarettes was watered down to the
    extent that the list is now released only to the Department of
    Health and Human Services on the condition that it not be shown
    to anyone else. Companies have been known in the past to add
    chemicals to cigarettes for flavor, and, many assert, for their
    addictive properties. In Britain such chemicals have included
    acetone and turpentine, as well as an assortment of known
    carcinogens.
    Tobacco companies argue that revealing their 'secret
    ingredients' would hurt their competitiveness. In fact, when
    Canada passed legislation forcing additive lists to be released,
    one large company reformulated its recipe for its Canadian
    distribution; another took its product out of Canada entirely.
    Tobacco companies do not have the right to poison the
    public. Don't trust them. Get the information you need to make
    your own decisions, and restore government to the people.

    Another destructive aspect of the Drug War is the
    unreasonable measures taken as a result of "reefer madness."
    Because of the long standing anti-pot-smoking paranoia begun in
    the 1930's, many law enforcement agencies have taken it upon
    themselves to censor and limit the marijuana culture through
    whatever channels they can find. This includes the banning of
    various forms of drug "paraphernalia" (pipes, clips, rolling
    papers, etc.)
    Water pipes, or "bongs," are quite often the target of such
    efforts. Claiming that water pipes are constructed to allow
    marijuana smokers to inhale "dangerous" marijuana smoke deeper
    into their lungs, many states and towns have passed laws
    controlling the sale, manufacture, and possession of these items
    for "health" reasons.
    The sad fact is, water pipes have been shown to be extremely
    effective in removing harmful materials from smoke before it
    reaches the lungs. They also cool the smoke and prevent injury
    and irritation to lung passages. In effect, laws against water
    pipes hurt all smokers, cannabis and tobacco, by preventing the
    development of safer forms of consumption.

    Produced as a public service by the University of Massachusetts
    at Amherst Cannabis Reform Coalition
    Researched and written by Brian S. Julin
    Corrections, comments, inquiries should be addressed to:

    UMASS CANNABIS
    S.A.O. Box #2
    Student Union
    UMASS Amherst, MA
    01003


    Sources:

    (radioactivity)

    o E.A. Martel, "Alpha Radiation Dose at Bronchial Bifurcations
    From Indoor Exposure to Radon Progeny", Proceeds of the National
    Academy of Science, Vol. 80, pp. 1285-1289, March 1983.
    o Naoimi H. Harley, Beverly S. Cohen, and T.C. Tso, "Polonium 210:
    A Questionable Risk Factor in Smoking Related Carcingenisis."
    o "Radiactivity: the New-Found Danger in Cigarettes," Reader's
    Digest, March 1986.
    o "Would You Still Rather Fight Than Switch?," Whole Life Times,
    Mid-April/May 1985.

    (secret ingredients)

    o "What Goes Up In Smoke?," Nation, December 23, 1991.

    (marijuana)

    o "The Emperor Wears No Clothes," Jack Herer, HEMP/Queen of Clubs
    Publishing, 1992

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    More Reasearch

    Winters-TH, Franza-JR, Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke,
    New England Journal of Medicine, 1982;
    306(6): 364-365 (reproduced w/o permission)

    To the Editor: During the 17 years since the Surgeon General's
    first report on smoking, intense research activity has been focused
    on the carcinogenic potential of the tar component of cigarette
    smoke. Only one definite chmical carcinogen -- benzopyrene --

    (typist note: He was later corrected on this "fact")

    has been found. Conspicuous because of its absence is research into
    the role of the radioactive component of cigarette smoke.
    The alpha emitters polonium-210 and lead-210 are highly con-
    centrated on tobacco trichomes and insoluble particles in cigarette
    smoke (1). The major source of the polonium is phosphate fertilizer,
    which is used in growing tobacco. The trichomes of the leaves con-
    centrate the polonium, which persists when tobacco is dried and
    processed.
    Levels of Po-210 were measured in cigarette smoke by Radford and
    Hunt (2) and in the bronchial epithelium of smokers and nonsmokers
    by Little et al. (3) After inhalation, ciliary action causes the insoluble
    radioactive particles to accumulate at the bifurcation of segmental
    bronchi, a common site of origin of bronchogenic carcinomas.
    In a person smoking 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes per day, the radia-
    tion dose to the bronchial epithelium in areas of bifurcation is 8000
    mrem per year -- the equivalent of the dose to the skin from 300
    x-ray films of the chest per year. This figure is comparable to total-
    body exposure to natural background radiation containing 80
    mrem per year in someone living in the Boston area.
    It is a common practive to assume that the exposure received
    from a radiation source is distributed throughout a tissue. In this
    way, a high level of exposure in a localized region -- e.g. bronchial
    epithelium -- is averaged out over the entire tissue mass, suggest-
    ing a low level of exposure. However, alpha particles have a range of
    only 40 um in the body. A cell nucleus of 5 to 6 um that is traversed
    by a single alpha particle receives a dose of 1000 rems. Thus, although
    the total tissue dose might be considered negligible, cells
    close to an alpha source receive high doses. The Po-210 alpha activity
    of cigarette smoke may be a very effective carcinogen if a multiple
    mutation mechanism is involved.
    Radford and Hunt have determined that 75 per cent of the alpha
    activity of cigarette smoke enters the ambient air and is unab-
    sorbed by the smoker, (2) making it available for deposit in the lungs
    of others. Little et al. have measured levels of Po-210 in the lungs of
    nonsmokers that may not be accounted for on the basis of natural
    exposure to this isotope.
    The detrimental effects of tobacco smoke have been considerably
    underestimated, making it less likely that chemical carcinogens
    alone are responsible for the observed incidence of tobacco-related
    carcinoma. Alpha emitters in cigarette smoke result in appreciable
    radiation exposure to the bronchial epithelium of smokers and
    probably secondhand smokers. Alpha radiation is a possible etio-
    logic factor in tobacco-related carcinoma, and it deserves further
    study.

    Thomas H. Winters, M.D.
    Joseph R. Di Franza, M.D.
    University of Massachesetts
    Worcester, Ma 01605 Medical Center

    1. Mertell EA. Radioactivity of tobacco trichomes and insoluble cigarette
    smoke particles. Nature. 1974; 249:215-7.
    2. Radford EP Jr, Hunt VR. Polonum-210: a volatile radioelement in cig-
    arettes. Science. 1964; 143:247-9
    3. Little JB, Radford EP Jr, McCombs HL, Hunt VR. Distribution of po-
    lonium-210 in pulmonary tissues of cigarette smokers. N Engl J Med.
    1965; 273:1343-51.

    This letter was followed up by 5 letters which appear to support Winters
    and Di Franza and 2 letters which appear to not support them. I'm not
    about to type all those in along with the author's rebuttal, however.
    Check out NEJM 307(5):309-313.

    --
    Lamont Granquist

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Brief Prepared by UMASS CANNABIS verdant@titan.ucs.umass.edu
    Last edited by 420; 01-08-2007 at 03:20 AM.
    Peace and Prosperity

    I consider myself to be a competent combuster,or a smoker supremist. - OnionGobbler

  15. #15
    420 Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    46

    Re: Marijuana Deaths = 0

    I was wrong.. but I'd still bet tar in your lungs CAN kill you though.
    Last edited by 420; 01-08-2007 at 03:20 AM.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast