Originally posted by dirkdirden
Yes you are correct I allow unreliable sources like doctors, researchers, scientist, us government, and the British lung foundation to cloud my mind of the truth that smoking weed is harmless. The only source you have used is yourself. You’re a fool who should listen to is own advice and take the shit out your ears and stop lalaing.Because you refuse to do look up information on the subject I’ll link a reference for you to read. I know you are WAY smarter then everyone at the British lung foundation and every one in the world for that matter but I'll link it anyways.
http://www.lunguk.org/downloads/A_Smoking_Gun.pdf
1-you never posted this study, so how could i have ignored it?
2-this is a study based partly on which is more potent: cigarettes or pot, which the other study did not focus on objectively and by proper research.
3-the burden of proof is not on me, since i never said that it was incorrect that weed was more potent then cigarette smoke, only that the assumption made in the initially posted topic study was baseless and relying on an illogical control, of which i am correct. come to think of it, the only one to boldly declare 'fact' was...you.
4-i have never and will never ignore data/information/news/etc from any reputable source, unless i clearly see such a flaw as i pointed out and you choose to continue ignoring like a child.
5-if any of the above is inaccurate, and i have declared as a fact or even suggested that pot smoke is harmless and/or less harmful than tobacco, post the quote, or have a nice big glass of 'STFU you petty liar'.
as far as the newly posted study i have read it, as i have respect and decency enough to read people's posts word for word and any non-bias, non-flawed, non-agenda based information they post, unlike you...who apparently chooses to lazily glaze over posts, lie and accuse the poster with ridiculous claims, and parrot the same response over and over.
and as for the newly posted study:
whats this? a study focusing on the bronchial effects of marijuana rather than a baseless assumption? well that is worth taking into serious consideration. btw, again, since you have trouble reading, i never said this was incorrect. oh, im full of shit? again, quote me or shut your hole.
now read the last sentence of page 9:
furthermore, tolerance to the bronchodilator effects of THC has been demonstrated after several weeks of use
so this would assume that the lungs either develop a tolerance to smoke, or perhaps alveoli become clogged with tar/resin (depending on tobacco or weed) causing the lungs to take in less smoke....who knows. i wont assume, but rather just say that this information proves me correct in my skepticism of the first posted article. if lungs can develop any tolerance to smoke, than you cannot assume that pot is more dangerous because those who smoke weed and tobacco as opposed to nothing at all are less likely to have a bronchial infection....btw this is the 4th time i've repeated this fact and the 4th time you will most likely ignore it.
until you have the respect to read what people post, perhaps you should not attempt to have a debate.
:edit: the fact that i can see that you're replying not only 15 seconds after i posted this tells me you have not read the damn post and are continuing to ignore 99% of these stated words and thus should just be ignored. i see alot of parroting of false accusations in this thread's immediate future. "blah blah ignoring scientists/doctors, etc"