It is pretty much a carved in stone fact that inhaling smoke is bad for the lungs, and possibly other organs. Concentrating inhaled smoke can't be any healthier no matter the substance.
There is more than one way to enjoy a drug delivery substance, but smoking simply seems to be more convenient for marijuana for the most part, with a faster delivery of the effects than eating the plant. I am not an experienced marijuana user, but it is rumored that eating the plant has a longer period of intoxication but not as powerful a "high".
One thing is for sure, no one ever got a contact high from sitting too close to someone eating pot brownies.
Will this lead to more lost hikers on Hamilton Mt?
Re: Will this lead to more lost hikers on Hamilton Mt?
"Why are you always chasing women?"
"I'll tell you as soon as I catch one!"
"I'll tell you as soon as I catch one!"
Re: Will this lead to more lost hikers on Hamilton Mt?
A long while ago I was curious about smoking and longevity so I did a web search on longevity and a study I read about concluded that smoking did not have an effect on longevity. In fact, the study I read mentioned smoking was not a factor. Of course that was about tobacco not marijuana. (longevity = stress vs happiness with hedonistic individuals living the longest)FluttershyIsMagic wrote:So, I've been wondering, is smoking this stuff bad for a person's health? It seems there are many different perspectives on this matter that don't agree with each other.
Regardless, like lumpy says there is no doubt smoking anything (MJ) is very harmful to health theres nothing natural about inhaling smoke in the lungs designed for clean air. But the counter to that is (in my observation) MJ smokers do not smoke near as much as tobacco smokers do on a daily basis (perhaps this will change with the new legalization but its not like your going to ever be allowed an MJ break at work....) and I'd argue there more medicinal benifits to smoking MJ than tobacco to counter the occasional use of MJ. The takeaway here sounds just like all those articles justifying drinking wine for health... moderation.
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
- retired jerry
- Posts: 14417
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: Will this lead to more lost hikers on Hamilton Mt?
Like Karl said, since marijuana is class I, no studies, so there's no scientific data about danger or longevity.
"A long while ago I was curious about smoking and longevity so I did a web search on longevity and a study I read about concluded that smoking did not have an effect on longevity."
There is a lot of scientific data that says tobacco causes cancer and other diseases which would reduce longevity. I don't understand your statement.
Are you familiar with "Merchants of Doubt"? Both the book and the movie being released? They document how Tobacco companies knew tobacco was dangerous but didn't want to make this popularly known which would reduce their sales, so they "manufactured" scientific data that disputed the danger. A lot of scientists weren't totally mercenary for tobacco company profits, but were opposed to do-gooders telling other people what to do, anti communist, pro capitalism,...
Anyway, a lot of confusing data out there. Even if there weren't people intentionally trying to confuse us, some of these issues are complicated and hard to figure out.
There was a documentary on PBS about the physiological effect of 4 plants, one of them being marijuana. There are brain receptors that are only effected by marijuana chemicals. So, their premise was that marijuana plants and the human brain co-evolved. That would mean humans have been consuming marijuana for a long time.
"A long while ago I was curious about smoking and longevity so I did a web search on longevity and a study I read about concluded that smoking did not have an effect on longevity."
There is a lot of scientific data that says tobacco causes cancer and other diseases which would reduce longevity. I don't understand your statement.
Are you familiar with "Merchants of Doubt"? Both the book and the movie being released? They document how Tobacco companies knew tobacco was dangerous but didn't want to make this popularly known which would reduce their sales, so they "manufactured" scientific data that disputed the danger. A lot of scientists weren't totally mercenary for tobacco company profits, but were opposed to do-gooders telling other people what to do, anti communist, pro capitalism,...
Anyway, a lot of confusing data out there. Even if there weren't people intentionally trying to confuse us, some of these issues are complicated and hard to figure out.
There was a documentary on PBS about the physiological effect of 4 plants, one of them being marijuana. There are brain receptors that are only effected by marijuana chemicals. So, their premise was that marijuana plants and the human brain co-evolved. That would mean humans have been consuming marijuana for a long time.
Re: Will this lead to more lost hikers on Hamilton Mt?
my statement was referencing an article I read about a study on longevity which mentioned smoking was not a factor. It was a while ago so I cant critique it anymore nor cite a source. Im not arguing against the risk of smoking its plain bad but was responding in context to fluttershy's comment.retired jerry wrote:"A long while ago I was curious about smoking and longevity so I did a web search on longevity and a study I read about concluded that smoking did not have an effect on longevity."
There is a lot of scientific data that says tobacco causes cancer and other diseases which would reduce longevity. I don't understand your statement.
FluttershyIsMagic wrote: It seems there are many different perspectives on this matter that don't agree with each other.
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
- retired jerry
- Posts: 14417
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: Will this lead to more lost hikers on Hamilton Mt?
http://www.pbs.org/thebotanyofdesire/
apples, tulips, marijuana, and potatoes
or the book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Botany_of_Desire
apples, tulips, marijuana, and potatoes
or the book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Botany_of_Desire
- retired jerry
- Posts: 14417
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: Will this lead to more lost hikers on Hamilton Mt?
and it wasn't that humans and marijuana evolved, it's that man has bred apples, tulips, marijuana, and potatoes.
although maybe human brain receptors have evolved, or maybe it's that we have inadvertently bred ourselves in the process of breeding marijuana
this is Michael Pollan's theory
if this is the case, then marijuana must be safe, need scientific studies...
although maybe human brain receptors have evolved, or maybe it's that we have inadvertently bred ourselves in the process of breeding marijuana
this is Michael Pollan's theory
if this is the case, then marijuana must be safe, need scientific studies...
Re: Will this lead to more lost hikers on Hamilton Mt?
There appear to be components of many plants that are beneficial to humans. It's how they are used that seem to cause problems for some of them.
"Why are you always chasing women?"
"I'll tell you as soon as I catch one!"
"I'll tell you as soon as I catch one!"
- retired jerry
- Posts: 14417
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: Will this lead to more lost hikers on Hamilton Mt?
Michael Pollan's theory isn't just that we're passively using chemicals from plants
but that we've bred the plants to produce useful chemicals
and in that in the course of breeding them, we've also bred ourselves
but he's not a scientist, he's a journalist He also has radical theories about food.
if we have bred marijuana for a long time, it must be safe. I wonder if humans were smoking it during this long period.
but that we've bred the plants to produce useful chemicals
and in that in the course of breeding them, we've also bred ourselves
but he's not a scientist, he's a journalist He also has radical theories about food.
if we have bred marijuana for a long time, it must be safe. I wonder if humans were smoking it during this long period.
Re: Will this lead to more lost hikers on Hamilton Mt?
He doesn't have a theory, he has a hypothesis. Theory is evidence driven proving the hypothesis to be true. A relatively worthless point to believe needs to be made, but since the word "theory" is being thrown around, I believe it's a worthwhile distinction.
Any claim requires evidence. Skepticism is perfectly healthy, and may indeed be much healthier than the alternative. A book isn't evidence. Mr Pollan may be able to intertwine various things so that they seem to be so closely related that the reader believes his ideas, but ideas are not facts just from the plausibility of the ideas alone. But ideas can sure sell a lot of books and maybe even create a movement.
Whether or not humans have been smoking marijuana for centuries doesn't necessarily make it safer to consume in that way. As I kinda said before, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and I'd bet there were people eating intoxicating substances long before they stuffed these things in a smoking pipe type of thing and applied fire to them.
Any claim requires evidence. Skepticism is perfectly healthy, and may indeed be much healthier than the alternative. A book isn't evidence. Mr Pollan may be able to intertwine various things so that they seem to be so closely related that the reader believes his ideas, but ideas are not facts just from the plausibility of the ideas alone. But ideas can sure sell a lot of books and maybe even create a movement.
Whether or not humans have been smoking marijuana for centuries doesn't necessarily make it safer to consume in that way. As I kinda said before, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and I'd bet there were people eating intoxicating substances long before they stuffed these things in a smoking pipe type of thing and applied fire to them.
"Why are you always chasing women?"
"I'll tell you as soon as I catch one!"
"I'll tell you as soon as I catch one!"
- retired jerry
- Posts: 14417
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: Will this lead to more lost hikers on Hamilton Mt?
okay, I'm lazy - theory, hypothesis, whatever...
totally agree, like I said he's a journalist who has radical ideas
scientific method - come up with hypothesis, then take data, then accept/throw out/modify hypothesis. We can't get beyond hypothesis step.
I'm not saying people should use marijuana, but it sure seems like illegalizing it has done way more damage than if they did nothing. If ending prohibition on marijuana turns out to be non-catastrophic, we should move on to other drugs including meth, cocaine, heroin,... Treat them medically, not legally, and use scientific data to determine effectiveness at preventing negative consequences.
totally agree, like I said he's a journalist who has radical ideas
scientific method - come up with hypothesis, then take data, then accept/throw out/modify hypothesis. We can't get beyond hypothesis step.
I'm not saying people should use marijuana, but it sure seems like illegalizing it has done way more damage than if they did nothing. If ending prohibition on marijuana turns out to be non-catastrophic, we should move on to other drugs including meth, cocaine, heroin,... Treat them medically, not legally, and use scientific data to determine effectiveness at preventing negative consequences.