But you are very misinformed on all accounts. We are 40 years deep into a wide spred base of occasional to reasonably steady smokers and there is no visible proof of anything you state. There is no proof of addiction, no proof of mental illnesses due strictly to smoking weed. First time smokers can achieve the same high anytime in the future. Sorry its all the crazyest bunch of nonsense I have ever heard and really not worth addressing all of it. It does seem you have swallowed everything you have been spoon fed... whole... without chewing on it a bit first to see how it tastes. There is all kinds of propaganda available out there to feed whomever is swallowing for one side or the other. Myself I always prefered to run straight down the middle avoiding the muck that lies to the left and the right... of any issue. This includes your disillusion that the government has the concerns of its people in mind, one only need to wipe their eyes clear and look around to have governments motives slap you in your face. Even more sad is that its far more obvious today in these insane and extremely troubled times than it was a few decades ago and still some cant see it.
No I'm not, you're just being ignorant there's tons of visual proof are you kidding me? you're basically saying people who've gotten diagnosed by professional doctors that they have lung cancer from cigarettes there's no visual proof? wow you must be an idiot. I think you need to get your ego checked because quite frankly you're the biggest idiot I've met when it comes to this. There's tons upon tons of documentaries on alcohol and marijuana and cigarettes but you choose to believe the stoner philosophy which is you don't give a shit about the facts or what people say you just want to get high. Which is retarded, no one is telling you, you have to stop, but if you're going to post here at least be mature about it or at least know what the hell you're talking about. Honestly I never laughed so hard in my life, well not really but I still laughed pretty hard while reading this.
First time smokers can't obtain the same high ever again, you obviously are just making this up as you go, which is quite pathetic really, I have friends that smoke marijuana and have for a few years and they said the exact same thing they said they can never get the same high they did when they first got high. So clearly you don't know what you're talking about it would seem. Any stoner or person who've smoked marijuana will tell you they could never get the same high they did when they first started. Just read this maybe you will actually grasp something from another for once.
"Originally Posted by Oniw17
It's not that I don't get high anymore, I just don't get the same kind of high. I remember last year when I was hanging out with my old friends I used to smoke a blunt and get a yellow glaze over my eyes, and they'd get so bloodshot they'd look like they had a red grid on them. I'd get to the state where I would have a hard time comprehending the Wendy's menu enough to order(because a number 9 was a 10 peice chicken nugget). Now I can smoke a 40 and only feel relaxed. It's weird because I didn't notice the same difference between a year and 2 years ago. Lately, I've been missing the kind of high that I used to get... alot. Seriously, if the $40 eighth(yes, it's expensive) I buy next month doesn't get me blazed, I'm going to stop smoking weed so I can run longer...but I was wondering, why I haven't been getting as high. I know the stuff that I used to get wasn't laced because it never made my mouth numb, and there's no way that the weed was that much better(it's like a completely different high now), so, I figure I must be getting immune to it or semi-immune. I'd like to know the physiological reason why this happens, in full detail if at all possible. For example, which cells are responsible, what process do they perform, what is responsible for the initiation of these processes, et cetera. Basically I want to conceptualise the reason why I've become more tolerant of weed."
That was quoted from a friend on a forum I used to go on. Anyway obviously it isn't bullshit if people are saying it. I mean wow Its people like you that give communities a bad name, with your elitist attitude, seriously you don't know everything quit pretending you do. You need to get off your high horse.
Also How is it nonsense? just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it untrue or nonsense. That's just plain ignorant, also spoon fed? Lol hardly, I know whats the truth and what isn't obviously I'm not just going to believe something just because someone says its true, but if I know it is and actually did some research myself, not just the retarded theories little kids or psychos did, then I'll know what's fiction and whats not. You only believe what you want to believe don't deny this because this whole time every negative thing I've said about marijuana you jumped right on it. You are also giving this moronic philospophy saying you should experiment or try it first before judging or saying anything about it. Yes that may apply to some things but it doesn't apply to this. People choose to make their own choices I chose not to waste my life on drugs, which in my opinion was a good decison. What may be good for one person may be bad for another. Another thing mental illnesses are caused from marijuana use, whether you want to believe it or not, Schzophrenia is one of the main diseases that are caused from marijuana use over time. Here I'll prove it,
Long-term effects
Main article: Long-term effects of cannabis
The smoking of cannabis is the most harmful method of consumption, as the inhalation of smoke from organic materials can cause various health problems. By comparison, studies on the vaporization of cannabis found that subjects were "only 40% as likely to report respiratory symptoms as users who do not vaporize, even when age, sex, cigarette use, and amount of cannabis consumed are controlled."Another study found vaporizers to be "a safe and effective cannabinoid delivery system."
Cannabis is ranked one of the least harmful drugs by a study published in the UK medical journal, The Lancet. While a study in New Zealand of
79 lung-cancer patients suggested daily cannabis smokers have a 5.7 times higher risk of lung cancer than non-users, another study of 2252 people in Los Angeles failed to find a correlation between the smoking of cannabis and lung, head or neck cancers. These effects have been attributed to the well documented anti-tumoral properties of cannabinoids, specifically tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol. Some studies have also found that moderate cannabis use may protect against head and neck cancers, as well as lung cancer. Some studies have shown that cannabidiol may also be useful in treating breast cancer.
Cannabis use has been assessed by several studies to be correlated with the development of anxiety, psychosis, and depression. Indeed, a 2007 meta-analysis estimated that cannabis use is statistically associated, in a dose-dependent manner,
to an increased risk in the development of psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia. No causal mechanism has been proven, however, and the meaning of the correlation and its direction is a subject of debate that has not been resolved in the scientific community. Some studies assess that the causality is more likely to involve a path from cannabis use to psychotic symptoms rather than a path from psychotic symptoms to cannabis use, while others assess the opposite direction of the causality, or hold cannabis to only form parts of a "causal constellation", while not inflicting mental health problems that would not have occurred in the absence of the cannabis use. Though cannabis use has at times been associated with stroke, there is no firmly established link, and potential mechanisms are unknown. Similarly, there is no established relationship between cannabis use and heart disease, including exacerbation of cases of existing heart disease. Though some fMRI studies have shown changes in neurological function in long term heavy cannabis users, no long term behavioral effects after abstinence have been linked to these changes. here's the link if you don't believe me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)
Another thing Tobacco is a result of lung cancer, I would know I've studied Lung cancer for four years, plus my grandpa had it along with my uncle and they were both heavy smokers, so before you even think about saying a retarded statement such as "you're wrong" read this.
Lung cancer is a disease of uncontrolled cell growth in tissues of the lung. This growth may lead to metastasis, which is the invasion of adjacent tissue and infiltration beyond the lungs. The vast majority of primary lung cancers are carcinomas of the lung, derived from epithelial cells. Lung cancer, the most common cause of cancer-related death in men and women, is responsible for 1.3 million deaths worldwide annually, as of 2004. The most common symptoms are shortness of breath, coughing (including coughing up blood), and weight loss. The main types of lung cancer are small cell lung carcinoma and non-small cell lung carcinoma. This distinction is important, because the treatment varies; non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) is sometimes treated with surgery, while small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) usually responds better to chemotherapy and radiation. The most common cause of lung cancer is long-term exposure to tobacco smoke. The occurrence of lung cancer in nonsmokers, who account for as many as 15% of cases, is often attributed to a combination of genetic factors, radon gas, asbestos, and air pollution, including secondhand smoke. Lung cancer may be seen on chest radiograph and computed tomography (CT scan). The diagnosis is confirmed with a biopsy. This is usually performed by bronchoscopy or CT-guided biopsy. Treatment and prognosis depend upon the histological type of cancer, the stage (degree of spread), and the patient's performance status. Possible treatments include surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Depending on the stage and treatment, the five-year survival rate is 14%.
Causes
The main causes of any cancer include carcinogens (such as those in
tobacco smoke), ionizing radiation, and viral infection. This exposure causes cumulative changes to the DNA in the tissue lining the bronchi of the lungs (the bronchial epithelium). As more tissue becomes damaged, eventually a cancer develops.
Smoking, particularly of cigarettes, is by far the main contributor to lung cancer. Across the developed world, almost 90% of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking. In the United States, smoking is estimated to account for 87% of lung cancer cases (90% in men and 85% in women). Among male smokers, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is 17.2%; among female smokers, the risk is 11.6%. This risk is significantly lower in nonsmokers: 1.3% in men and 1.4% in women. Cigarette smoke contains over 60 known carcinogens, including radioisotopes from the radon decay sequence, nitrosamine, and benzopyrene. Additionally, nicotine appears to depress the immune response to malignant growths in exposed tissue. The time a person smokes (as well as rate of smoking) increases the person's chance of developing lung cancer. If a person stops smoking, this chance steadily decreases as damage to the lungs is repaired and contaminant particles are gradually removed. In addition, there is evidence that lung cancer in never-smokers has a better prognosis than in smokers, and that patients who smoke at the time of diagnosis have shorter survival times than those who have quit.
Passive smoking—the inhalation of smoke from another's smoking—is a cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers. A passive smoker can be classified as someone living or working with a smoker as well. Studies from the U.S., Europe, the UK, and Australia have consistently shown a significant increase in relative risk among those exposed to passive smoke. Recent investigation of sidestream smoke suggests that it is more dangerous than direct smoke inhalation. Roughly ten-fifteen percent of lung cancer patients have never smoked. That means between 20,000 to 30,000 never- smokers are diagnosed with lung cancer in the United States each year. Because of the five-year survival rate, each year in the U.S. more never-smokers die of lung cancer than do patients of leukemia, ovarian cancer, or AIDS.
Diagnosis
Chest radiograph showing a cancerous tumor in the left lung.
Performing a chest radiograph is the first step if a patient reports symptoms that may suggest lung cancer. This may reveal an obvious mass, widening of the mediastinum (suggestive of spread to lymph nodes there), atelectasis (collapse), consolidation (pneumonia), or pleural effusion. If there are no radiographic findings but the suspicion is high (such as a heavy smoker with blood-stained sputum), bronchoscopy and/or a CT scan may provide the necessary information. Bronchoscopy or CT-guided biopsy is often used to identify the tumor type. Abnormal findings in cells ("atypia") in sputum are associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. Sputum cytologic examination combined with other screening examinations may have a role in the early detection of lung cancer.
The differential diagnosis for patients who present with abnormalities on chest radiograph includes lung cancer as well as nonmalignant diseases. These include infectious causes such as tuberculosis or pneumonia, or inflammatory conditions such as sarcoidosis. These diseases can result in mediastinal lymphadenopathy or lung nodules, and sometimes mimic lung cancers. Lung cancer can also be an incidental finding: a solitary pulmonary nodule (also called a coin lesion) on a chest radiograph or CT scan taken for an unrelated reason.
Prevention
See also: Smoking ban and List of smoking bans
Prevention is the most cost-effective means of fighting lung cancer. While in most countries industrial and domestic carcinogens have been identified and banned, tobacco smoking is still widespread. Eliminating tobacco smoking is a primary goal in the prevention of lung cancer, and smoking cessation is an important preventive tool in this process. Most importantly, are prevention programs that target the young. In 1998 the Master Settlement Agreement entitled 46 states in the USA to an annual payout from the tobacco companies.[73] Between the settlement money and tobacco taxes, each state's public health department funds their prevention programs, although none of the states are living up to the Center for Disease Control's recommended amount by spending 15 percent of tobacco taxes and settlement revenues on these prevention efforts. Policy interventions to decrease passive smoking in public areas such as restaurants and workplaces have become more common in many Western countries, with California taking a lead in banning smoking in public establishments in 1998.
Ireland played a similar role in Europe in 2004, followed by Italy and Norway in 2005, Scotland as well as several others in 2006, England in 2007, France in 2008 and Turkey in 2009. New Zealand has banned smoking in public places as of 2004. The state of Bhutan has had a complete smoking ban since 2005. In many countries, pressure groups are campaigning for similar bans. In 2007, Chandigarh became the first city in India to become smoke-free. India introduced a total ban on smoking at public places on Oct 2 2008. Arguments cited against such bans are criminalisation of smoking, increased risk of smuggling, and the risk that such a ban cannot be enforced.
The long-term use of supplemental multivitamins—such as vitamin C, vitamin E, and folate—does not reduce the risk of lung cancer. Indeed long-term intake of high doses of vitamin E supplements may even increase the risk of lung cancer. The World Health Organization has called for governments to institute a total ban on tobacco advertising to prevent young people from taking up smoking. They assess that such bans have reduced tobacco consumption by 16% where already instituted.
Epidemiology
Worldwide, lung cancer is the most common cancer in terms of both incidence and mortality (1.35 million new cases per year and 1.18 million deaths), with the highest rates in Europe and North America. The population segment most likely to develop lung cancer is over-fifties who have a history of smoking. Lung cancer is the second most commonly occurring form of cancer in most Western countries, and it is the leading cancer-related cause of death. In contrast to the mortality rate in men, which began declining more than 20 years ago, women's lung cancer mortality rates have been rising for over the last decades, and are just recently beginning to stabilize. The evolution of "Big Tobacco" plays a significant role in the smoking culture. Tobacco companies have focused their efforts since the 1970s at marketing their product toward women and girls, especially with "light" and "low-tar" cigarettes. Among lifetime nonsmokers, men have higher age-standardized lung cancer death rates than women.
Not all cases of lung cancer are due to smoking, but the role of passive smoking is increasingly being recognized as a risk factor for lung cancer—leading to policy interventions to decrease undesired exposure of nonsmokers to others' tobacco smoke. Emissions from automobiles, factories, and power plants also pose potential risks. Eastern Europe has the highest lung cancer mortality among men, while northern Europe and the U.S. have the highest mortality among women. Lung cancer incidence is currently less common in developing countries. With increased smoking in developing countries, the incidence is expected to increase in the next few years, notably in China and India. Lung cancer incidence (by country) has an inverse correlation with sunlight and UVB exposure. One possible explanation is a preventive effect of vitamin D (which is produced in the skin on exposure to sunlight).
From the 1950s, the incidence of lung adenocarcinoma started to rise relative to other types of lung cancer. This is partly due to the introduction of filter cigarettes. The use of filters removes larger particles from tobacco smoke, thus reducing deposition in larger airways. However the smoker has to inhale more deeply to receive the same amount of nicotine, increasing particle deposition in small airways where adenocarcinoma tends to arise. The incidence of lung adenocarcinoma in the U.S. has fallen since 1999. This may be due to reduction in environmental air pollution
History
Lung cancer was uncommon before the advent of cigarette smoking; it was not even recognized as a distinct disease until 1761. Different aspects of lung cancer were described further in 1810. Malignant lung tumors made up only 1% of all cancers seen at autopsy in 1878, but had risen to 10–15% by the early 1900s. Case reports in the medical literature numbered only 374 worldwide in 1912, but a review of autopsies showed that the incidence of lung cancer had increased from 0.3% in 1852 to 5.66% in 1952. In Germany in 1929, physician Fritz Lickint recognized the link between smoking and lung cancer, which led to an aggressive antismoking campaign. The British Doctors Study, published in the 1950s, was the first solid epidemiological evidence of the link between lung cancer and smoking. As a result, in 1964 the Surgeon General of the United States recommended that smokers should stop smoking.
The connection with radon gas was first recognized among miners in the Ore Mountains near Schneeberg, Saxony. Silver has been mined there since 1470, and these mines are rich in uranium, with its accompanying radium and radon gas. Miners developed a disproportionate amount of lung disease, eventually recognized as lung cancer in the 1870s. An estimated 75% of former miners died from lung cancer. Despite this discovery, mining continued into the 1950s, due to the USSR's demand for uranium.
The first successful pneumonectomy for lung cancer was performed in 1933. Palliative radiotherapy has been used since the 1940s. Radical radiotherapy, initially used in the 1950s, was an attempt to use larger radiation doses in patients with relatively early stage lung cancer but who were otherwise unfit for surgery. In 1997, continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART) was seen as an improvement over conventional radical radiotherapy. With small cell lung carcinoma, initial attempts in the 1960s at surgical resection and radical radiotherapy were unsuccessful. In the 1970s, successful chemotherapy regimens were developed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer
Also the government does have the concerns of its people in mind, the health of them if they didn't give a shit about their health they wouldn't be pushing for health care in USA, there's already health care in Canada we've had it for over 40+ years now. Obviously if they didn't care they would make everyone pay for their medical bills out of their own pocket. Also they wouldn't of banned people from smoking in restaurants if they didn't care, so your argument is invalid.
Research
Main article: Cancer research
Cancer research is the intense scientific effort to understand disease processes and discover possible therapies. The improved understanding of molecular biology and cellular biology due to cancer research has led to a number of new, effective treatments for cancer since President Nixon declared "War on Cancer" in 1971. Since 1971
the United States has invested over $200 billion on cancer research; that total includes money invested by public and private sectors and foundations. Despite this substantial investment, the country has seen a five percent decrease in the cancer death rate (adjusting for size and age of the population) between 1950 and 2005. Leading cancer research organizations and projects include the American Association for Cancer Research, the American Cancer Society (ACS), the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, the National Cancer Institute, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and The Cancer Genome Atlas project at the NCI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer
All you're doing is making false assumptions without no proof or facts to back them, all you have is mere words with nothing behind them. Which is pathetic, also you may not agree with some of the governments rules and guidelines but you know what? suck it up the world doesn't go the way you like just because you want it to. You need to honestly get your head out of your ass, does this mentality come naturally for you?
As razoredge says, on this subject you are so drastically misinformed there is pretty much no way to make a point with you. Every reason you have is non-existent or wrong.
Nice sucking up, is that all you can do suck-up and make shitty philosophies? honestly if you're going to agree with someone at least say why they're right, but in this case you have nothing to say just "he's right you're misinformed everything you said doesn't exist and is wrong" that isn't much to go on at all. So I wont even comment on that note.
Anyway I'm done posting here, if people are going to be idiots about it then I'm not going to bother, I have better things to do then argue with people that don't know what their talking about.
Until you can come up with some objective proof of the 'best' way to lead life, you're assuming others share your values when you tell them they're doing it wrong...
