Mason Tvert, director of communications at the Marijuana Policy Project, which works to end pot prohibition, says the study comes as good news for people on both sides of the marijuana legalization debate.
“Hopefully it will inspire parents, educators and government officials to have a more honest conversation with teens about marijuana,” he said to Yahoo News via email. “Decades of scare tactics and exaggerations about the potential harms of marijuana have failed to prevent many young people from trying it.”
[Edited on 8/6/2015 by robslob]
thats a relief
😛
I hope that's true, but I doubt it. I find it highly suspicious that after decades of govt reports and other studies warning us about "refer madness," how weed is a "gateway" drug and categorizing in the same class as heroine, I am equally skeptical of a new flood of "studies" and "findings" that marijuanna is somehow "harmless" at a time when the economy is weak and governments are desperate for tax revenues and jobs. I think some sanity and balance is finally emerging in the way the government and society looks at marijuanna but let's also not go trusting every study and report we see. One joint still has 1,000 times the carcinogens as a cigarette and while it may not be physically addictive, a lot of people make a habit of it pretty quick (no sarcasm/implication. Just observation). Regarding this study, hope their right but I think their a lot of ways that marijuanna affects young people that need more study and I'd be very surprised if there was absolutely no adverse effects.
I hope that's true, but I doubt it. I find it highly suspicious that after decades of govt reports and other studies warning us about "refer madness," how weed is a "gateway" drug and categorizing in the same class as heroine, I am equally skeptical of a new flood of "studies" and "findings" that marijuanna is somehow "harmless" at a time when the economy is weak and governments are desperate for tax revenues and jobs. I think some sanity and balance is finally emerging in the way the government and society looks at marijuanna but let's also not go trusting every study and report we see. One joint still has 1,000 times the carcinogens as a cigarette and while it may not be physically addictive, a lot of people make a habit of it pretty quick (no sarcasm/implication. Just observation). Regarding this study, hope their right but I think their a lot of ways that marijuanna affects young people that need more study and I'd be very surprised if there was absolutely no adverse effects.
I'm not reading anything into your post, but just so you know, I'm not advocating marijuana for teens. In fact, I think it could have very negative consequences, and I'm a smoker. I look back at myself in my teens: I experimented with it. Then when I graduated from high school and enrolled in a community college at age 18, I stopped completely for those two years of college (yes, I picked it up again afterwards). I wanted to prove to myself that I could do college work and I wasn't going to let marijuana get in the way. Two years later I came out with an A.A. degree in Liberal Arts which helps me to this day. When I went back to school at age 37 to become a respiratory therapist, all of those general education credits transferred so I was able to graduate in only two years. I have NEVER regretted that decision. Problem is, many (if not most) teens are not mature enough to make the decision I did.
I am of the position that marijuana is for adults 21 years of age or older. The reason I posted this study is that there has been, for so many years, so many "scare tactics and exaggerations" regarding marijuana as Mason Tvert said in the quote I posted. FINALLY, scientists are being allowed to study the drug, and allowed to post positive results. Did you know that researchers in the U.S. knew way back in the early 70's that marijuana showed clear evidence of retardation of the growth of cancer cells? The Nixon administration covered up those results as bogus and misleading. THINK OF HOW MANY LIVES COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. It is still extremely difficult to this day to get Federal approval and funding if the purpose of a study is to look for beneficial effects regarding marijuana. Studies on the retardation of cancer cells have been going on in Spain for many years and are showing exciting and positive results.
One joint still has 1,000 times the carcinogens as a cigarette
That's a very interesting statement and one I've heard in some similar form or other many times. My own sister even told me something similar to that 20 years ago. Poor girl, she never smoked marijuana but ate junk food and never exercised, is morbidly obese, and has terminal cancer. I'm not making fun of her, this is a tragedy to me, she's only 18 months younger than me, I LOVE HER.
Can you show me a study which says that marijuana smoke has 1,000 times the carcinogens as a cigarette? I'm waiting to see it. And even if you can (I seriously doubt it), how do you explain this: I've been a respiratory therapist for 21 years now. How many people in 21 years do you think I've watched die from smoking cigarettes? Lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema, bronchitis, interstitial lung disease, you name it, the root cause in many cases being cigarette smoking.
All of that lung disease from tobacco, yet never ONE single time have I seen a patient with lung disease who smoked marijuana but not cigarettes. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT? 21 years is a pretty good trial period, wouldn't you say?
[Edited on 8/6/2015 by robslob]
One joint still has 1,000 times the carcinogens as a cigarette
Quite possibly the most misleading bit of information used by those who oppose legalization.
More carcinogens in a joint than a cigarette? Okay, I don't have the clinical numbers in front of me but consider that many (if not most) cigarette smokers smoke more than 10 - 15 of those things a day. The tobacco smokers that I know personally smoke a lot more than that. One of the wonderful things about cannabis is the social factor. Joints are typically smoked by several people at a time. A member of a foursome sharing a joint might get 4-5 tokes off the doobie. The biggest "stoners" that I know rarely smoke more than 2 joints in a day. Thats a lot - most don't smoke anywhere near this amount.
I was a "teenage zombie" in the 1970's. As an adult (58 years old) who still partakes (when available) I maintain a rigid physical regimen. I'm out of bed and on the road much earlier than most folks. Despite having a physical disability, I'd go up against most anybody half my age in any physical activity. I read, play music and keep myself mentally engaged. I volunteer at several organizations in my community.
At my last 5 annual physicals, my heart rate, EKG, breathing etc. have proven to be immaculate. My doctor says that I have the EKG of a 25 year od athlete.
Oh yeah - I don't drink alcohol or smoke tobacco.
We are on the same page here Rob, as I said I am glad sanity is emerging in the way the government and mainstream society is viewing marijuana. I do believe it will lead to better research and decriminalization. My point is I didn't trust the government when they used scare tactics when criminalization was in vogue and I don't trust them now when they suddenly need revenue (see the speedy end of prohibition during the Great Depression.)
As far as the 1,000 times more carcinogens, that number is a bit hyperbole in that I do not know the exact number but I am confident it is vastly higher than cigarettes based on debates my friend and I had with my friend's father who was a top doctor in New York city. We were in high school and crusaders for the course and he never dropped the hammer on us but he would spend considerable time telling us we were kidding ourselves if we thought smoking joints was harmless to our health and that there was a considerable level of toxicity in smoking weed. He specifically mention carcinogenic levels that were higher than cigarets. He wasn't trying to scare us, he always reasoned with us and he was a pretty good doctor. Take it for what its worth.
