Time to buy a LOT of dip
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=182060
Printed Date: 04 December 2025 at 4:11pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Time to buy a LOT of dip
Posted By: rednekk98
Subject: Time to buy a LOT of dip
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 1:25pm
|
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/12/tobacco.bill/index.html - bye-bye flavored tobacco products That tears it. I've been willing to give this administration (and congress, to a lesser extent) the benefit of the doubt, but this is crap. I can see some of the motivation to turn it away from congressional control to avoid corruption, but turning it over to an unelected government body who's regulations carry the same weight of law pisses me off. I'm really going to miss skoal apple. |
Replies:
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 1:27pm
|
I really don't think your beloved dip is going anywhere. Calm down. Also, why do you hold Congress less accountable than Obama? They're the ones that passed this by such large margins. The article says that the bill will give the FDA the power to ban flavored products. It doesn't say that they will, or what they plan to do exactly. AFAIK, the bill is intended mostly for the FDA to monitor what kind of crap companies are putting into tobacco products through tighter standards and regulations, and to stop misleading branding and marketing. Stop dipping anyway. It's friggin gross. -------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 1:47pm
|
Flavored tobacco is for children anyway.
------------- 
|
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 1:47pm
|
I agree, don't dip. I'd much rather see tobacco and alcohol products available, but taxed something around 100% and go strait to healthcare. That way the cost of treating for the bad effects of those products is offest more by those who will use it. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 1:51pm
|
Good riddance. ------------- 
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 2:05pm
|
WGP wins.
------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: FROG MAN
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 2:14pm
|
Retarded right wing American stereotype? Check..
------------- <1 meg sig = bad> |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 2:36pm
|
Won't bother me, RYO cigs ftw.
------------- 
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 2:55pm
| First of all, re-read what I posted. I'm more likely to give the president some slack. You can't smoke anywhere anymore(at least in this state) so smokeless tobacco, without any second-hand effects, is a better alternative.Tobacco use is declining as it is, and I'm not totally against all parts of this, but limiting my ability to make choices is bull. I'm not even opposed to slightly high taxes to offset health care (this is assuming we will get some type of government run health care program, if not I'll gladly pay higher premiums). But banning flavored products is obnoxious, as is the attitude that you're protecting me from myself. If you're worried about health care costs, federally mandate helmets for motorcycles on highways, for bike riders of any age, ban extreme sports, and put a 100% tax on fast food. A brain injury can lead to a lifetime of medical costs and inability to work, and obesity is more epidemic than smoking. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 3:43pm
| Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah |
Posted By: FROG MAN
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 4:07pm
There is only a slight problem with that attitude, the amount of injuries/death from "extreme" sports is very small, and many regulations already exists such as life jackets on a boat ect... also, taxing fast food? you are blaming fast food on obesity in the states? sigh... The amount of deaths and disease caused from tobacco is very substantial and is very easy to tax an regulate... unlike food, durrrrr ------------- <1 meg sig = bad> |
rednekk98 wrote:Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 4:12pm
|
Welcome to the Hope and Change "nanny" state you all so desired. Big Brother only has YOUR personal interests at heart. Orwell hit it on the head. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 4:16pm
|
Wow... That's really not cool. If dip was taken off shelves I'd be very upset. And to all those people who say "Doesn't effect me LOL", it's just some freedom you're letting go down the drain.
------------- 
|
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 4:28pm
Stop the nagging attitude, please. It gets nothing done. I share many views with you but having an attitude like you've just displayed vastly detracts from your credibility. |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 4:29pm
|
OS: Stop grouping us all together. Cedric: Agreed. I'd almost never considered dipping, but if were having a good time at a party and didn't want to drink too much, a pinch would get me to where I wanted to be and I'd be good to drive in a while. This thread makes cultural differences even more apparent, we're supposed to be tolerant, but OK with government action that only effects social groups we tend to disagree with. If you're more liberal, cracking down on tobacco is OK, but pot should be legal. Whatever. I tend to believe that adults should be allowed to make decisions about their own bodies as it applies to substances, sex, etc. to the greatest extent practical. Maybe the birth control pill should come with a graphic label showing a herpes-blistered vagina as a warning that it does not protect against STD's. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 4:33pm
|
Change we can believe in... Oh, did you see that osmama (witty typo) said we need a paygo system from now on... (good thing since you kids will be paying for what he just spent for the rest of your lives... Yea!)
And now the truth about obamacare is coming out... Massive tax increases... (I'm sure its only for the rich... you know people like "peter")
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqLNecbH0dcg - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqLNecbH0dcg ------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 4:54pm
|
"Massive tax increases... (I'm sure its only for the rich... you know people like "peter")" But our millionaires in Congress will ensure the tax hike does not affect them, only us "middle classer's who make (insert number here), and the plan they impose on you will not be the plan they provide for themselves.
-------------
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 5:02pm
------------- 
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 5:13pm
You mean straight to ... socialized healthcare?
Of course socialized healthcare results in tax increase - nobody has ever said otherwise (but sidenote: neither this bill, nor anything that Obama has proposed, is actually "socialized healthcare").
The whole point of socialized healthcare is to pay for healthcare with taxes - it would be hard to go to such a system without raising taxes.
Duh.
The REAL question isn't whether taxes go up, but whether the increased taxes are offset by reduced private costs.
You know, this is a very funny post. First, it is funny for the tinfoil-hat-ism required to believe that Congress would somehow excempt themselves from taxation. Second, it is funny because OS (and others) love to say how we shouldn't tax the rich - but suddenly now turn that into how Congress is going to be mean ... by not taxing the rich. I guess it is bad to tax the rich - except the rich that you really don't like.
Very impressive mental gymnastics were required to make that post. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 5:21pm
Because freedom that purposefully causes health issues is the type of freedom that I want! -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 5:21pm
|
Congress is very adept at Tax legislation, and they will ensure thier money is well protected before any Tax hikes come down the Pike. I mean all (R),(D),(I) the millionaires who have made thier fortunes using the systems emplace now, are now deciding to change the system, punishing investment, corperate pay, etc, well after they have thier money. Congress right now be it one term or life get a sweet retirement, and medical plan, that only the very rich could afford privately, all on your dime. Read Lenin on how one set of elite, will attempt to replace another, and ensure they are never replaced, and are the ones with the money and the power to decide who succeeds and who fails. Communism, Capitalism, as well as Socialism have a two if not three tiered economic system of haves and have nots, and ensures that the status quo is maintained. That aerial picture of N Korea to this day, Pyongyang the Capital lit up, the rest of the country dark as night, and guess where the elite live in that equal classless society. -------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 5:42pm
And how will they do this? Any details on the plan here? And if they could do this, why haven't they done so already? The past 200 years of Congress were altruists, but suddenly this batch are evil corruptors?
That would be those "rich" people who create jobs, and whom we should not tax unnecessarily?
Do you have any actual facts to back up your wild speculation? More importantly, do you have any sense of history at all? Are you familiar with the history of taxation in the US?
Members of Congress are eligible for FEHBP. This is the same healthcare insurance available to most non-military Federal employees - including, for instance, your mailman. There is no special "Congress healthcare" - Congress is just a tiny fraction of the people on FEHBP. And FEHBP is only 75% paid for by the employer, not 100%. Granted that most private employers pay 50% of premiums and not 75%.
This whole silly tale about Congress' super-duper self-serving special healthcare arrangement is a massive red herring that just won't die, despite that 20 seconds with Google will tell you the truth. This one is so easy to track down, in fact, that anybody still repeating this wild tale isn't even trying to get to the truth, but just happily accepting anything they are told if it fits their tinfoil-hat ideology.
Oh, and while FEHBP isn't the cheapest healthcare around, it is also not the most expensive. My healthcare premium (for my nice-but-not-great PPO plan) is higher than the most expensive plan under FEHBP. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 7:06pm
I like having the option. Maybe you like more government control than you let on, Linus. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 7:10pm
| lol FE |
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 7:31pm
Nope, I mean to cover the cost of what taxpayers are already spending to treat alcohol and tobacco related health issues. I saw a recent study saying that it is now an average of $313 Billion per year, but of course I can't find it. So, quick google search turned this up, study from a few years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/28addiction.html - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/28addiction.html Basically, I don't see the need for me to contribute to health care for those who participate in activities repeatedly that have been proven to be detrimental to health in most cases. I'm saying by buying those products, the tax they pay should go into the pool to pay for the health problems they will likely have from using that product they just bought. |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 7:37pm
|
WGP isn't cool enough to dip.
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 8:48pm
I like the control that takes away a carcinogen that causes people to have health problems that causes them to use WAY too much money in health care, which makes people contemplate nationalized health care. -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 9:07pm
|
Linus, this plug's for you. -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 9:18pm
This.
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 9:34pm
You bring cancer on your self. Don't make other Americans pay for your bad habits. -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 12 June 2009 at 11:55pm
You are such a patsy. -------------
|
Posted By: MeanMan
Date Posted: 13 June 2009 at 12:42am
|
I've noticed that the people in high school who use dip, are the people that the average, normal people, and the more intelligent people in the school hated. They try to act cool, gangsta, or tough. But, the adults I've met that use it, aren't like these other people who I have a good filtered name for. I don't know what happens at a certain age that makes this transition. But, I know that the people in high school that use it, went after flavors because they liked it. I used to be good friends with this one kid before he changed, and at 18, he has damage from dip in his mouth already. At age 18.
Sure, it may be stupidity that causes people to do things like this, and usually I agree with the whole " it's the persons choice and now it's their own fault" thing, but, I don't know. If it didn't taste good, I'm sure there really wouldn't be a big point to use it. ------------- 
hybrid-sniper~"To be honest, if I see a player still using an Impulse I'm going to question their motives." |
Posted By: Shub
Date Posted: 13 June 2009 at 1:33am
|
Posted By: ammolord
Date Posted: 13 June 2009 at 1:59am
------------- PSN Tag: AmmoLord XBL: xXAmmoLordXx ~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~ |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 13 June 2009 at 2:06am
So...we should probably disallow people from purchasing skittles and snickers bars. While my example is extreme, you cannot deny that there is no real point in disallowing the production and purchase of tobacco. It is a major, heavily regulated industry. It cannot advertise, and minors cannot purchase it. What else can Congress do that doesn't sound unconstitutional if you apply it to a less venomized health risk? -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 13 June 2009 at 4:01am
| Yeah, the "I'm fine with socialized healthcare, for some" thing doesn't work. You're really that attached to the sliver you pay with your taxes that you will only help those you deem worthy? No. That's childish. |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 13 June 2009 at 7:45am
Right on. Linus and WGP need to grow up. -------------
|
Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 13 June 2009 at 8:40am
| this better not affect hookah tobacco |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 13 June 2009 at 9:03am
So...we should probably disallow people from purchasing skittles and snickers bars. While my example is extreme, you cannot deny that there is no real point in disallowing the production and purchase of tobacco. It is a major, heavily regulated industry. It cannot advertise, and minors cannot purchase it. What else can Congress do that doesn't sound unconstitutional if you apply it to a less venomized health risk? [/QUOTE] I'm fairly sure that this bill passed in order to reduce the exposure of minors to tobacco products. They may not be able to legally buy it, but there are a wide range of tobacco products clearly targeted at teens. Since most of these products were either purposefully or accidentally designed in such a way that the FDA does not regulate them, giving them the power to do so only makes sense. And if you don't think so, let me make a short point here: Food and Drug Administration. Any cigarettes or dip you buy have lots of added nicotine in them. This happens to be highly addictive. If you think that doesn't require regulation, feel free to keep whining. Especially when your kids start smoking. I will feel free to laugh at you. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 13 June 2009 at 11:03am
And hooka tobacco was specifically mentioned in the CNN discussion.... |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 13 June 2009 at 11:30am
|
What is the fine line between idiotic behavior leading to health problems, and health care needs. We are all born with a terminal disease, AGE, we just choose the behavior patterns to decide when we "check out". If you want to be involved with "risky" behavior leading to severe health care issues, why should more responsible people pay for your choice?
Every thing we do, or put into our bodies has some degree of risk anymore, example I am on an extensive drug regiment for my RSD and other blood clotting issues, several TIA's and a full blown stroke from blood clots. Now the drugs prescribed by the VA as determined by them are destroying my liver and kidney's based on the volumn prescribed. Choice, limit the drugs, deal with the pain, and potential of another clot breaking away and "checking out" or continue and deal with the potential of liver or kidney failure. I am going with #1 and have begun reducing on my own the amount of drugs taken and dealing with the pain. My past has come back to haunt me physically, but the majority of the injuries and conditions are the result of my military service, and "service connected", so I recieve VA 100% medical care in exchange for that service, not a free plan, I paid for it, believe me. -------------
|
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 13 June 2009 at 12:49pm
And again, that's NOT what I said. I'll explain again. Tax tobacco and alcohol enough so that the money from the taxes matches that of the government spending to treat the ill effects of those products. I did not say give them their own pot of funds separate from everyone else; it's still all the same pool of cash but more of it will come from tobacco and alcohol sales, enough to offset the spending. |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 13 June 2009 at 1:17pm
I think this, the reactions on the previous page to Linus' posts, and OS' post above, do a pretty job illustrating the oddness of the US resistance to "socialized" healthcare.
Because the bottom line is that there is a very fine line between private health insurance and public healthcare. In both cases the risk is spread across participants - which is pretty much the definition of "socialized."
The reality is that we already HAVE socialized healthare insurance - we just have the world's WORST socialized healthcare insurance. It is called "private healthcare insurance." It is chock full of inefficiencies and problems, which irrationally run up costs. There are other unrelated problems as well, of course, but frankly this is the biggest one.
The reality is at socialized healthcare is the only rational way to handle healthcare. Everything we do affects our health, and the cost of anybody's healthcare affects everybody else. The public health is a public problem, whether we like it or not. Your health affects me, no matter what we do.
And despite the American obsession with "personal responsibility" and individuality, we have also realized this, which is why we have backed our way into our quasi-socialized medical structure by pretending that we are doing it the capitalist way.
When we talk about switching to "socialized" healthcare, what we really mean is nothing more than evening out the kinks in our already existing socialized healthcare system, and thereby reducing costs and filling gaps.
That's all.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 13 June 2009 at 1:27pm
| Wow, neat progression from chew to socialized health care. Kudos forum, kudos. |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 14 June 2009 at 5:19pm
|
Has anyone ever noticed that the same people who believe in the legalization of other plant products that seem to believe that anyone else's vices are completely unacceptable? Just a question from a person outside of this discussion.
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: Apu
Date Posted: 14 June 2009 at 5:45pm
|
As a cigarette smoker of ~6-7 years, I wouldn't mind of Obama made the **edited** illegal just so I could get away from the evil things. usaf, if you're referring to marijuana, it's apples to oranges my friend. Marijuana is known to help people with cancer, where tobacco is PROVEN to be one of the biggest causes of it in the first place.
------------- I need a new Sig... |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 14 June 2009 at 5:50pm
Harsh generalization much? -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 14 June 2009 at 5:54pm
|
There are just as many medical problem associated with C21/H30/O2 as there are with C10/H14/N2. Just not the same ones. Each has a degree of long term health effects that can cause problems. So it is not apples to oranges, unless the brain damage has already started. -------------
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 14 June 2009 at 6:00pm
It is, and a poorly worded one at that. I simply jotted down the thought because it presented itself to me as I was getting up to leave. Regardless, I do find it amusing that people who are so Pro-other personal choices can be so anti- this one. I don't dip, and have only tried it a couple times. It's not my cup of tea, but I do fail to see the huge difference in all the issues. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 14 June 2009 at 6:00pm
Lie. -------------
|
Posted By: Apu
Date Posted: 14 June 2009 at 6:19pm
------------- I need a new Sig... |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 14 June 2009 at 6:36pm
| Maybe it helps people with cancer tolerate cancer and the associated treatment, but inhaling tar can't be good for you. Blah blah blah, someone will mention a vaporizer, but similar devices for nicotine are supposed to be banned under this takeover. It just seems odd to me that governments across the country are making it less risky to smoke weed, but cracking down on tobacco. If you feel the need to do something illegal because of personal choice(or whatever pseudo-scientific research you can find to support your habit) and are for limiting peoples personal choices to smoke or dip, you're a hypocrite in my book. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 14 June 2009 at 8:45pm
|
Research indicating negative side-effects
Some studies claim a variety of negative effects associated with constant, long-term use, including short-term memory loss. Other studies have refuted this by evidence of MRIs of long-term users, showing little or no difference to MRIs of the non-using control group. Using positron emission tomography (PET), one study claims to have observed altered memory-related brain function in marijuana users. [39] Conceivable long-term ill effects of THC on humans are disputed. Its status as an illegal drug in most countries makes research difficult. Some studies have suggested that marijuana users have a greater risk of developing psychosis than non-users. This risk is most pronounced in cases with an existing risk of psychotic disorder.[40] Other studies have made similar associations, especially in individuals predisposed to psychosis prior to cannabis use.[41] A literature review on the subject concluded that "Cannabis use appears to be neither a sufficient nor a necessary cause for psychosis. It is a component cause, part of a complex constellation of factors leading to psychosis."[42] Recent research has also shown a correlation between cannabis use and increased cognitive function in schizophrenic patients.[43] A 2008 National Institutes of Health study of 18 chronic heavy marijuana users with cardiac and cerebral abnormalities (averaging 78 to 350 marijuana cigarettes per week, or 2 to 9 ounces) and 24 controls found elevated levels of apolipoprotein C-III (apoC-III) in the chronic smokers.[44][45][46] An increase in apoC-III levels induces the development of hypertriglyceridemia. A 2008 study by the University of Melbourne of 15 heavy marijuana users (consuming at least 5 marijuana cigarettes daily for on average 20 years) and 16 controls found an average size difference for the smokers in the hippocampus (12 percent smaller) and the amygdala (7 percent smaller).[47][48] It has been suggested that such effects can be reversed with long term abstinence.[49] Again it all depends on the "research" you care to believe. Intaking of any "smoke" into the lungs is not a "good" thing in any way means manner or form, just comman sense. Cocaine was considered a non-additive or destructive drug for quite some time also, and was legal. Then the genie came out of the bottle and reality crept in. I know my share of "stoners" and the degree of success is also related to thier amount of use. Just as addictive, as nicotine, and of course if it is your self interest to not belief the various studies, you will not. Alaska tried legalization, the problems outweighed the benifits. -------------
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 14 June 2009 at 11:33pm
|
Find some more scientific studies other than a select few smokers who use 2 to 9 ounces per week (Jesus H. Christ, that's either the worst ditch grown cannabis or these people have a serious problem). Also, it was being lightly compared to tobacco in terms of causing cancer. OS, just look at it logically. If it were just as bad as tobacco, as you seem to say it is, then we would have as many people hospitalized from it's use. We would also see as many deaths from pot as we do from tobacco. But that simply isn't the case. You know that, we all know that, stop trying to fool yourself.
And you need to get over yourself, nekk. No pothead here is saying dip should not be available to you. Some may not like it, I know I think it is gross, but that's your choice to do it. Hell, I still haven't seen any credible source reporting bans on dip. SMOKE MOAR. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 14 June 2009 at 11:53pm
You mean besides taking a VERY PREVENTABLE burden off of the healthcare system? Besides taking pointless cases out of the court? Besides protecting fetus' from idiotic mothers that smoke while pregnant? Besides protecting asthmatics and COPDers from smoke? Besides protecting non-smokers from second hand smoke? Besides protecting smokers from their own idiotic decisions? /me waits for the comparison to alcohol. -------------
|
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 1:10am
|
The First thing I learned when I got to the Fleet in the Marines. If you had your Soda Bottle away from your sight and grasp for more than a Second. Some hillbilly spit his Dip Spit in it. Might as well throw it away. ------------- 
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 9:07am
|
Now, if marijuana becomes commercially available, and the three pack a day habits start, would that not seriously put a dent into current statistical evidense. All smoke has carcinigens, be it wood, tobacco, or marijuana, and it is not a good idea to put continuous volumn of any smoke into the lungs. When cocaine was legal and the use began to expand, the costs to society seriously outweighed its benifit so it was made illegal, cocaine(coca leaf) was an original ingrediant in Coca-Cola for christ sake. Someone saw the medical and social problems and the substance was illegal. The Alaska expierience with marijuana had the same effect on Alaskan society.
Legalizing and commercializing marijuana will not be a good health factor in the aging process, and will lead to health complications. Biology and chemistry seem to be exact sciences, and each in reports have determined adverse health issues with "casual" use, now lets legalize and commercialize and then get a three pack a dayer and see what he looks like at 50. -------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 9:27am
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 9:28am
|
OS, find me a case where someone developed cancer from smoking marijuana.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 9:34am
|
Young men who began using marijuana as adolescents or who smoked pot at least once a week were twice as likely as those who never used the drug to develop testicular cancer, according to researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
Researchers interviewed 371 men aged 18 to 44 who had been diagnosed with testicular cancer. They interviewed an additional 979 men of the same age group and from the same three Washington counties who did not have cancer. The researchers found a 70% higher risk of testicular cancer in those who were using pot at the time of diagnosis, with an even higher risk associated with younger age at first use and frequency of use. Hormonal changes during puberty are thought to make that a particularly vulnerable period for environmental influences. http://blogs.usatoday.com/betterlife/2009/02/testicular-canc.html - http://blogs.usatoday.com/betterlife/2009/02/testicular-canc.html Pick your cancer.................. -------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 9:47am
|
Ah, the testicular cancer claim. Even if there is an increased risk of testicular cancer from cannabis use, comparing marijuana to tobacco isn't going to get you very far. Tobacco use kills millions each year. Try finding a case where a death is attributed to directly marijuana. I seriously doubt you'd be able to find one. Either way, I'm not turning this into a pot debate. This is the last post in which I'm commenting on the issue. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 2:00pm
You're kidding, right? If you inhale ANY smoke on a regular/semi-regular basis, you can get cancer from it. Pot, cigarettes, or burning human flesh, doesn't matter. Having smoke IN YOUR LUNGS is bad, and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. -------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 2:05pm
|
O RLY? http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/21 ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 2:29pm
:P ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 2:30pm
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 2:53pm
So do it Linus. Find a death caused by, or cancer case from marijuana. |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 2:55pm
Unless the smoke you're inhaling doesn't contain carcinogens. -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 4:23pm
|
I still can not see how defending another drug that alters the mind state would be a good thing to unleash on society. Alcohol is bad enough, lets double the idiots on the highways and doing stupid stuff while "high". Yes, I can see society jumping right in and demanding that. How many deaths due to "driving under the influence", or other stupid actions that lead to the death or injury on another are will willing to accept to legalize marijuana. Seen many a life wrecked, and potentials lost due to marijuana, nothing breeds more confidense than knowing a couple of "stoners" are in the hole next to you, and the bad guys are inbound. Now imagine Joe High on Interstate 95 doing 80 laughing, playin dodge car while "high" and it is you wife and kids in that van up ahead. Yep, lets legalize another lack of responsibility on society. -------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 4:28pm
fixed. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 4:36pm
And here we see OS prove he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. |
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 4:45pm
i've done it. never hit anyone. me and notxxscared dip and weave down the freeway with our boys and smoke up a fat one ------------- 
|
Posted By: DaveEllis
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 4:50pm
I assume dip and weave with your boys is code for fellatio? |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 4:51pm
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 6:37pm
| LOL. So I got hired at a summer camp that's tobacco free, it starts tomorrow, and I have a whole tin to dip before then. Let's see if I can burn the flesh off my gums in 24 hours. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 8:26pm
|
HV you should be one of the last people I have to explain this to.
Finding carcinogen free smoke is like trying to find a fish that never lives in water. All smoke, when inhaled, will cause adverse health effects. If you feel differently, find me fact based research from a reputable source such as the AMA. No 3rd party sources. No pro-legalization sources. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 8:32pm
Once again, find me a death caused by marijuana. No anti-marijuana sources, no 3rd party sources. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 8:37pm
|
Find me proof that inhaling marijuana smoke, a substance with many known carcinogens, Is not detrimental to a persons health in any way. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 8:38pm
| I asked first shower bag |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 15 June 2009 at 8:42pm
|
Is that Choopie admitting that it doesn't exist? -------------
|
Posted By: JohnnyCanuck
Date Posted: 16 June 2009 at 1:28am
|
what about the smoke the catholic priests whip around in those metal nunchucks, probably pot now that I think about it, I left feeling happy.
------------- Imagine there’s a picture of your favourite thing here. |
Posted By: IMPULS3.
Date Posted: 16 June 2009 at 1:45am
|
Ban tobacco, legalize herb. Keep booze. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Heres To You
Date Posted: 16 June 2009 at 1:56am
|
Linus - so what if you eat marijuana? It's not the government's job to tell us what's healthy or not... Does anyone know if it's just a ban of fruit flavors like apple and peach? Or are they taking away wintergreen too? Wintergreen was way before the whole flavor fad.... I'll quit dipping if the only thing I can get is straight.... ------------- |
Posted By: IMPULS3.
Date Posted: 16 June 2009 at 2:02am
|
I honestly think they will go after cigs long before dip. And I could care less if they banned apple,peach,grape,citrus,cherry, or Skoal for that matter. That stuff tastes horrible. Would they go after Wintergreen or Mint? Most likely. -------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 16 June 2009 at 8:18am
|
Hey Linus, did you read my link?
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 16 June 2009 at 11:55pm
|
This suddenly seems relevant: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/uol-ah061609.php - http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/uol-ah061609.php ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 1:23am
|
Link to the actual study, Rambs.
-------------
|
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 2:47am
All yours for $30: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx900106y - http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx900106y
------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 2:50am
| I wonder what the makeup of their marijuana cigarettes were as the first one mentions commonly being mixed with tobacco. |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 9:09am
The way I read it, their joints were just marijuana - they were noting that the lower combustibility often leads users to mix in tobacco for easier smoking. That same lower combustibility is part of what leads to the relatively higher rate of carcinogens in the smoke.
Seriously - does anybody really think that smoking joints does NOT increase your chance of cancer? The studies have been basically 100% consistent on this point. Joints are loaded with carcinogens. This is old news - this article is just zooming in on one of those known carcinogens.
If the MJ crowd wants any kind of credibility, it has to stop pretending that marijuana, as in common usage is (a) harmless, and (b) some kind of wonderdrug. Yes, the dangers of marijuana have probably been oversold, and yes, there are some benefits (both medical and recreational) to marijuana use - but putting the blinders on just makes y'all look like irrational fanatics, and greatly reduces the likelihood of legalization/acceptance in the near future.
I hear supporters calling for a rational debate - and then proceed directly to irrationality themselves. Good lord, just visit some toker boards. The guys on there are just as loony as freepers.
------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 2:49pm
|
Yeah I'm still skeptical because they make no mention of what grade of marijuana was used for the study. I have $5 that says they used ditch weed or mexibrick. Combustibility also relies heavily upon what condition it is in. Was it dried long enough and cured properly? Did they grind it all down and throw stems and seeds in too? Those burn slower than just bud and have much less THC (to the point that stems alone don't give you a buzz). Were leaves thrown in too? Else they would not suggest the daily habitual intake of 3 or 4 joints. I also take issue with them using a joint as a unit of measure. Not all joints weigh the same. Sure studies may seem consistent, but if you look closely many of them have flaws or don't provide complete information. Also, the original point I made was in comparison to cigarettes and how weed is less harmful. I have never said smoking anything lacks danger. Shall we also consider testing hash, edibles, and vaporizers for DNA altering potential? Or are we in agreement that those are safer, for the lungs, than smoking? -------------
|
Posted By: Apu
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 3:48pm
|
I agree, in that they are obviously not 100% harm free, as nothing is. Case in point alcohol, tobacco, nearly all OTC/prescription medicines, junk food, candy, soda/coffee/caffeine-in-general, etc. Now as marijuana is definitely less harmful as some of these legal goods I just mentioned, what is the reason it should be so heavily rejected not everything else I just mentioned?
------------- I need a new Sig... |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 4:39pm
| You know what is 100% proven to cause cancer? The sun. Let's ban it, right? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 5:25pm
Living causes cancer. Let's ban living. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 5:29pm
Now you're just being absurd. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 5:33pm
|
Says the person who wants to ban the only thing that can sustain life.
Don't believe me? Look up Ribosomes and RNA, and get back to me. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 7:12pm
Says this guy:
Banning living is COMPLETELY different than banning what sustains life. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 8:02pm
|
Hey, you said lets ban the sun since it causes cancer. Aging causes cancer. Same logic as yours. -------------
|
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 8:48pm
See how easy it is to sound rational while discussion marijuana?
Of course, we then get a great example of how to marginalize your position with silly arguments in the very next post:
------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |