> Justin yahoo.com> wrote innews:01e9372b-4f08-41eb-9991-706905cc5bb7@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>

>> WELLINGTON, New Zealand, Jan. 29 -- Smoking a single marijuana joint
>> may be as carcinogenic to the lung as 20 tobacco cigarettes,
>> researchers here determined.

>

>> Those who smoked the equivalent of one joint a day for 10 years had a
>> 5.7 times higher lung cancer risk than nonsmokers even after adjusting
>> for tobacco use, reported Richard Beasley, M.B.Ch.B., of the Medical
>> Research Institute of New Zealand here, and colleagues in the Feb. 1
>> issue of the European Respiratory Journal.

>

>> The effect on lung cancer risk in the population-based case-control
>> study was even greater than the one joint to five cigarettes
>> equivalency for lung damage previously reported by the research group.
>> (See: One Cannabis Joint Equals Smoking Up to Five Cigarettes)Action
>> Points

>
> ...

> On Jan 31, 4:42 am, fanghorn wrote:

>> Justin yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:01e9372b-4f08-41eb-9991-706905cc5bb7@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.co
>> m:
>>
>>
>>

>> 1. Absolutely no mention of whether the people who didn't smoke
>> cigarettes when the study started had *ever* smoked cigarettes or a
>> pipe or cigars.
>>
>> 2. No mention of whether they eliminated...

> Mycoloteur gmail.com> wrote innews:2d9747b9-d958-4799-9c07-ed9e16b58836@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>

>> On Jan 31, 4:42 am, fanghorn wrote:

>>> Justin yahoo.com> wrote
>>> innews:01e9372b-4f08-41eb-9991-706905cc5bb7@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.co
>>> m:

>

>>>

>

>>> 1. Absolutely no mention of whether the people who didn't smoke
>>> cigarettes when the study started had *ever* smoked cigarettes or a
>>> pipe or cigars.

>

>>> 2. No mention of whether they eliminated other possible causes of
>>> lung cancer - such as asbestos, polution, bad genes, health and if so
>>> how.

> ...

> On Jan 31, 9:28 pm, fanghorn wrote:

>> Mycoloteur gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:2d9747b9-d958-4799-9c07-ed9e16b58836@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.co

>>> On Jan 31, 4:42 am, fanghorn wrote:

>>>> Justin yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> innews:01e9372b-4f08-41eb-9991-706905cc5bb7@i7g2000prf.googlegroups
>>>> .co m:

>>

>>>>

>> I wish I could track down that study that Trudeau/Pearson (or one of
>> his underlings) had done a while back. I mentioned it once here (or
>> in Buzzs' group or the culitvation group). That seems on the surface

> Actually if pot contains carcinogens and they aren't just produced by
> burning it, it wouldn't matter how it was consumed. Not that it matters
> I think. If there was proof of cancer, there would be undeniable proof.
> Hell they knew radium caused it in the 30's. There's *lots* of studies
> "proving" something causes cancer. Are you old enough to remember the
> saccarine scare? It's just the faint hope of proof that pot is harmful I
> think, nothing more.

> Mycoloteur gmail.com> wrote innews:e303120b-acff-4419-9e30-413d4cd439e4@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>

>> On Jan 31, 9:28 pm, fanghorn wrote:

>>> Mycoloteur gmail.com> wrote
>>> innews:2d9747b9-d958-4799-9c07-ed9e16b58836@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.co

>>>> On Jan 31, 4:42 am, fanghorn wrote:

>>>>> Justin yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> innews:01e9372b-4f08-41eb-9991-706905cc5bb7@i7g2000prf.googlegroups
>>>>> .co m:

>

>>>>>

>>> I wish I could track down that study that Trudeau/Pearson (or one of
>>> his underlings) had done a while back. I mentioned it once here (or
>>> in Buzzs' group or the culitvation group). That seems on the surface

>
> "cultivation: that was supposed to be of course
>

>>> far more valuable/truthful than these junk ones we see all the time.

> ...

> On Feb 2, 9:54 am, fanghorn wrote:
>

>> Actually if pot contains carcinogens and they aren't just produced by
>> burning it, it wouldn't matter how it was consumed. Not that it matters
>> I think. If there was proof of cancer, there would be undeniable proof.
>> Hell they knew radium caused it in the 30's. There's *lots* of studies
>> "proving" something causes cancer. Are you old enough to remember the
>> saccarine scare? It's just the faint hope of proof that pot is harmful I
>> think, nothing more.

>
> The biggest single problem is pot's legal status and those
> that wish to keep it that way. It has been ages since Ansinger and his
> minions equated cannabis with bizzare supposed side effects and sadly
> this is what our congressional representatives remember from the
> propaganda touted when *they* were at the impressionable school age.
> This hurdle will be hard to leap; a lie, repeated often enough, is
> taken as the truth.
> Once impartial studies can be performed (without using NIDA/
> DEA crappy government pot!!) there will likely be some progress made. ...

> On Feb 2, 8:51 am, BudBurner hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Feb 2, 9:54 am, fanghorn wrote:

>

>>> Actually if pot contains carcinogens and they aren't just produced by
>>> burning it, it wouldn't matter how it was consumed. Not that it matters
>>> I think. If there was proof of cancer, there would be undeniable proof.
>>> Hell they knew radium caused it in the 30's. There's *lots* of studies
>>> "proving" something causes cancer. Are you old enough to remember the
>>> saccarine scare? It's just the faint hope of proof that pot is harmful I
>>> think, nothing more.

>

>>         The biggest single problem is pot's legal status and those
>> that wish to keep it that way. It has been ages since Ansinger and his
>> minions equated cannabis with bizzare supposed side effects and sadly ...