can weed kill you?

[Zylka]

You can die injecting any drug, even nicotine. Some die smoking crack, but even that is rare. Don't know about heroin - but imagine it's a little more likely

In any case.. dying from toking would have to be within an extreme set of variables. You would definitely have a higher chance biting it with a massive (tobacco) chainsmoke

[Berzerker]

Krazyhorse -

Do me a favour, and never attempt to take a statistical mechanics class.

Why? Aren't these classes designed to educate and since you obviously think I'm uneducated, logic dictates you'd advise me to take this class, not avoid it.

Is it possible that all libertarians simply have a blind spot when it comes to understanding inherently statistical processes?

I take it you find my experiment unworthy? You know, you could have said that without insulting me and everyone else who claims to be a libertarian.

Astronomy is a subdiscipline of physics, which is why most universities combine the two. And yes, you can throw out astronomy too.

Where's the kitchen sink? Oh, I must have thrown that out too. But by all means, tell us how astronomy helps us determine cause and effect wrt cancer and tobacco.

Hey Krazyhorse, did you know you ignored all of my questions/points except for throwing out astronomy?

What is my attitude? I'd settle for an answer to that one...

[Mr. Harley]

Berzerker, I was assuming historical context. Mexicans brought marijuana onto the modern American scene (or at least were blamed for it), as in pre-depression. It was anti-Mexican sentiment and Randolph Hearst (wanting to keep cheap hemp pulp out of the paper market) that pushed the beginning of the modern anti-marijuana era, at least in the US. The working conditions for the immigrant laborers were inexecrable, so that was the context for the pot. The tradition of course was out of Mexican, where the lot of the poor peasant farmer was hideous.

Reference cancer, if 10,000 people smoke cigarettes, then more will get lung cancer than a SIMILAR control population. Critical item their, which is why comparisons between countries, time-periods, etc. often don't work. 10,000 smokers in Mexico City (terrible air pollution) will probably have a much higher lung cancer rate than 10,000 smokers in Fiji. Both groups of smokers WILL have higher cancer rates than their non-smoking neighbors. Cigarette smoking is a causitive factor in lung cancer rates (note - it doesn't cause all lung cancers). Period.

Of course the anti-smokers don't want unvarnished statistics either. When they did a study, funded by the tobacco industry, about the actual cost of smoking, in I believe the Czech republic, they confirmed something I already suspected. It doesn't cost society extra (for the smokers, the verdict on innocent bystanders concerning second hand smoke is still out, but that one doesn't look too good for tobacco, due to children and various associated lung problems - getting children sick can be very expensive in the long term). You are going to die. You may die as a result of cigarette smoking and your genetic predisposition, or twenty years later because you didn't smoke. It turns most of the medical costs occur in the last two years, especially in the last six months, of life. You are going to have a last six months of life either way .

edit to add - and Berzerker, your pun was intended

[Berzerker]

edit to add - and Berzerker, your pun was intended

No, it wasn't. I typed out that sentence and upon realising the unintentional pun added "no pun intended".

Here's some interesting info, anyone have anything to add or refute it?

US Surgeon General C Everett Koop stated on national television in 1990 that tobacco radiation is probably responsible for 90% of tobacco-related cancer.8 Dr RT Ravenholt, former director of World Health Surveys at the Centers for Disease Control, has stated that "Americans are exposed to far more radiation from tobacco smoke than from any other source."9

Researchers have induced cancer in animal test subjects that inhaled polonium 210, but were unable to cause cancer through the inhalation of any of the non-radioactive chemical carcinogens found in tobacco.10 The most potent non-radioactive chemical, benzopyrene, exists in cigarettes in amounts sufficient to account for only 1% of the cancer found in smokers.9

Smoke screen

Surprisingly, the US National Cancer Institute, with an annual budget of $500 million, has no active grants for research on radiation as a cause of lung cancer.1

Tobacco smoking has been popular for centuries,11 but lung cancer rates have only increased significantly after the 1930's.12 In 1930 the lung cancer death rate for white US males was 3.8 per 100,000 people. By 1956 the rate had increased almost tenfold, to 31 per 100,000.13 Between 1938 and 1960, the level of polonium 210 in American tobacco tripled, commensurate with the increased use of chemical fertilizers.14

Cannabis is often compared to tobacco, with the damage caused by smoking tobacco given as a reason to prohibit use of cannabis. Yet most of the harms caused by tobacco use are due not to tar, but to the use of radioactive fertilizers. Surprisingly, radiation seems to be the most dangerous and important factor behind tobacco lung damage.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2221.html

[Berzerker]

What are antioxidants? They are compounds that combine with free radicals in the body and neutralize their damaging effects. What are free radicals? These are highly reactive molecules that are produced through normal body processes, as well as external stimuli such as air pollution and tobacco smoke. Also excessive physical exercise as in the elite athlete may increase the formation of free radicals in the body. Why are they important? These free radicals react with billions of cells in the body and may lead to the development of a number of chronic diseases including cancer, cataracts and heart disease.

http://www.askthemd.com/antioxidants.htm

A second, no, a third catalyst?

[Mr. Harley]

Actually, that has some interesting relationship to what I said about pesticides, etc. Plus some claims about lower rates for lung cancer in South Africa in the 1970's versus the US at the same time (argument then was over the link with air pollution). However, it could also be due to heavy metal toxicity. The human body is terrible when it comes to dealing with heavy metals, because unlike radiation, there is natural (read evolutionary pressures) exposure. Many people think that is the problem with depleted uranium rounds, not the radiation, "just" the inhaled particles of melted and then resolidified uranium.

Haven't gotten around to it, but I offered to grow some organic tobacco for a friend, just never got around to it. Maybe I should get around to it this year. Please note thought that you still have an increased risk of lung cancer when smoking cigarettes grown in non-organic environment. Probably pot too. What's sad? You've got a much better chance to get the organic pot ,because if he/she is smoking her product, she has less initiative to go fertilize it .

[JohnT]

Re: can weed kill you?

Originally posted by Zero
I have never heard of anyone that died from O.Ding THC. Is it possible to die from smoking too much weed?

I remember reading that a person would have to smoke about 15 pounds of marijuana in one sitting to actually overdose on THC itself. Obviously you're going to have serious breathing issues long before you puff that last fatal puff.

Of course there are likely people allergic to it as well - I'm sure if you dig deep enough, you'll find that everybody is allergic to something. I myself can't drink 'cause of an allergy to alcohol, for example.

[Starchild]

There's no such thing as a safe substance, just safe doses. Like JohnT pointed out, however, the unsafe dose for weed is ridiculously high. Just like you'd be trying to reach it.

[MikeH]

Drugs are bad mmm'kay?

[Spec]

Originally posted by Zero
oh and how much THC is in an ounce of weed?

It all depends on the weed quality.

Spec.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by MikeH
Drugs are bad mmm'kay?

Is giving the totally obvious reply what Counterglowers call an "own goal"? Or is it just asking questions that answer themselves?

[Q Classic]

if you try to inject weed directly into your bloodstream, or ingest too much at one time, it can kill you.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Yes, we have to explain why many people who smoke their entire lives don't get cancer. They are proof that cigarettes do not cause cancer. They are not proof cigarettes never cause cancer though, so what is the actual cause and effect?

that is not proof.

It has already been proven people have beter genetic code than others. Their bodies just have the ability to combat the cancer causing effects of tobacco.

[Kramerman]

Based on what evidence? People who inhale smoke and get cancer? How do we know they got the cancer from the smoke?

yeah... i suppsoe its just "coincidence"

[Spec]

Originally posted by Zylka
You can die injecting any drug, even nicotine

Dude, nicotine is one of the most lethal drugs outhere. One droplet of pure nicotine on your toungue or in your eye and you die.

Nicotine is not LSD or PCP.

Spec.