Originally posted by dirkdirden
A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers8. Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.
and what are the figures of people who only smoke tobacco but not weed?
why wouldn't they include that?
Originally posted by PVS
and what are the figures of people who only smoke tobacco but not weed?
why wouldn't they include that?
Becuase this is the study of THC not Tobacco. The only reason they said smoke weed and not tobacco is becuase they had to be sure the effects were being caused by the weed not the tobacco. If they used people who smoke weed and tobacco the results wouldn't be conclusive becuase they wouldn't know if it was caused by the tobacco or the weed or both.
Originally posted by dirkdirden
Becuase this is the study of THC not Tobacco. The only reason they said smoke weed and not tobacco is becuase they had to be sure the effects were being caused by the weed not the tobacco. If they used people who smoke weed and tobacco the results wouldn't be conclusive becuase they wouldn't know if it was caused by the tobacco or the weed or both.
no, it suggests rather bluntly that weed is more damaging to the lungs than tobacco based on that. since it is incomplete, being that there was no control (smokers of tobacco and not weed) i find it odd that they would include that and imply so much.
im not trying to debunk the study as a whole, but that part should have been left out as its baseless.
Originally posted by PVS
no, it suggests rather bluntly that weed is more damaging to the lungs than tobacco based on that. since it is incomplete, being that there was no control (smokers of tobacco and not weed) i find it odd that they would include that and imply so much.im not trying to debunk the study as a whole, but that part should have been left out as its baseless.
It says it may be more damaging than tobacco not that it is more damaging. So the study is sound, also there are thousands studies that all back up the same common effects listed. Weed may be more harmless than all other drugs but it’s still harmful.
Originally posted by PVS
yes, it suggested strongly, as i clearly said. and also, as i clearly said, that suggestion is baseless, lacking any control. fact.
easy there killa if you want to argue with every doctor, researcher, scientest in the world be my guest but be sure to give me a beer and a woman I'll give that wata bed a work out.
Originally posted by dirkdirden
easy there killa if you want to argue with every doctor, researcher, scientest in the world be my guest but be sure to give me a beer and a woman I'll give that wata bed a work out.
every doctor, researcher and scientist? yeah, that makes sense [/sarcasm]
i pointed out a factual flaw in one of their suggestions based on elementary deduction. you need team of professionals to tell you what a control in an experiment is? why dont you just....look it up?
do you also need the c.e.o. of charmin to help wipe your ass?
Originally posted by PVS
every doctor, researcher and scientist? yeah, that makes sense [/sarcasm]i pointed out a factual flaw in one of their suggestions based on elementary deduction. you need team of professionals to tell you what a control in an experiment is? why dont you just....look it up?
do you also need the c.e.o. of charmin to help wipe your ass?
Well its not a flaw because they just said it "maybe more harmful" so if you say that Aarron Carter Maybe more gay than his brother you really wouldn't need scientific evidence to support that because of the word MAYBE which suggest uncertainty now if I said Aaron Carter “is” more gay than his brother I would need eveidnce to back up that clam. Also the point of that segment of the article is that it is harmful to the lungs which it is.
Also I don't need the c.e.o of charmin to help wipe my ass, but with his help my ass would get much cleaner.
Originally posted by dirkdirden
Well its not a flaw because they just said it "maybe more harmful" so if you say that Aarron Carter Maybe more gay than his brother you really wouldn't need scientific evidence to support that because of the word MAYBE which suggest uncertainty now if I said Aaron Carter “is” more gay than his brother I would need eveidnce to back up that clam. Also the point of that segment of the article is that it is harmful to the lungs which it is.Also I don't need the c.e.o of charmin to help wipe my ass, but with his help my ass would get much cleaner.
Yeah, but they are ****heads if they say it because there is no evidence at all to even assume that Marijuana might be more harmful than tobacco. There is evidence to the contrary tough.
Originally posted by dirkdirden
Well its not a flaw because they just said it "maybe more harmful" [pointless filler] Also the point of that segment of the article is that it is harmful to the lungs which it is.
you're either being deliberately dense of you just cant grasp simple logic
a simple "pot also is harmful to the lungs similar to that of smoking cigarettes" would have been accurate. that would not imply that it is more or less dangerous...especially with a complete lack of evidence to support it besides circumstantial and illogical observations.
the only way to properly assess which is more dangerous would be to either
a- have two groups, one which smokes pot but no cigarettes, and one which smokes cigarettes but no pot
or
b-split a group of people which have tried neither cigarettes nor pot and have each smoke their designated drug.
either of these would produce substantial evidence
substantial evidence is NOT having one group which already takes smoke into their lungs routinely, and another which never takes smoke into their lungs, unless the study is simply "does smoking cause immediate harmful effects to people who have never smoked?". (not needed, i know, but that is the only purpose such data would be relevant for)
accept it, that portion of the experiment is flawed. i guess you could just seal your ears shut and smoke about a 1/2 ounce of weed until your sense of logic is adequately dulled, and then you can feel right by continuing to say its not flawed 😬
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but they are ****heads if they say it because there is no evidence at all to even assume that Marijuana might be more harmful than tobacco. There is evidence to the contrary tough.
Yeah that may be so but they have nothing else to compare it too. They really can't say Smoking Weed maybe worse on your lungs then smoking potpourri because people don't smoke potpourri at least the last time I checked. If they are going to use something as a comparison the only thing they really have to compare it to is tobacco.
Originally posted by dirkdirden
Yeah that may be so but they have nothing else to compare it too. They really can't say Smoking Weed maybe worse on your lungs then smoking potpourri because people don't smoke potpourri at least the last time I checked. If they are going to use something as a comparison the only thing they really have to compare it to is tobacco.
Yeah, but to say maybe it is worse than smoking tobacco..they should just say "Smoking Marijuana is bad for your lungs... a little". Not imply that it could be worse than tobacco without even a bit of data supporting that.
Originally posted by PVS
that would imply that its less harmful than tobacco. maybe true but their evidence doesnt support that either.
Their evidence doesn't imply a whole lot at all, does it? And no, it wouldn't, since tobacco would not be mentioned at all. They leave it open without implying something.
all i know is that besides the fact that we are capable of breaking the world record for using the word "imply" in a debate, this:
Originally posted by dirkdirden
These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may be more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco.
is utter horseshit and kinda destroys the credibility of the study. whoever wrote that probably thought this moot point was the cherry to top his/her perfect study, but it really beams as a disclaimer: (just because you have a degree in science/chemistry/medicine, doesnt mean you have a degree in simple deductive logic)
You’re also forgetting the fact that hundreds of researchers have already done the research and have concluded that weed is worse that tobacco on the lungs. It would have been pointless for them to research tobacco when there subject was cannabis. The only reason they said it “maybe” instead it “is” was so that they didn’t have to link or site other researchers research, adding evidence to support an already know fact would waste time, space, and go off the subject of cannabis.
Rant and rave all you want but the fact is the article and research is sound.