In smoking either a large part of the damage is from the smoke. As far as cancer goes tobacco is probably worse, nicotine is far more carcinogenic than THC (the active chemical in canabis) and some of the compounds it turns into during the preparation of tobbacco are equally nasty. On the other hand I've read that canabis burns hotter though I'm not convinced (and I don't know what, if any, effect that would have on the various unpleasant things in the smoke).

Also consider quantity, very few people smoke 10 joints a day whereas 20 cigarettes a day isn't uncommon, and tobacco smokers smoke everyday. Its also worth noting that marijuana is often not smoked like a cigarette and most of these ways (especially eating or with a vapouriser) introduce comparativly few carcinogens to the body.

I would however agree that chronic use is similarly bad due to the complete lack of drive and the mental problems it can cause.

As far as the dangers of smoking cigs versus dope:

Smoking a joint uses rolling tobacco, most people who smoke cigs use ready mades - like Camels, Marlbrough etc.

Ready mades use filters at the ends. This is where the most harmful toxins are stored - cyanide, fibreglass and a thousand other poisons. These are used to keep the cigarette burning consistently, unlike a roll up which may require frequent re-lighting. Roll ups have nowhere near the amount of poisons, but they still have one major disadvantage. The paper used to roll with is considerably thinner than normal cigs, so the nicotine enters the blood stream much faster.

Basically, both are bad for you. Dope is bad for you because it uses tobacco. Rolling baccy is bad for you because it still contains nicotine and tar. Ready mades are even worse for you - nicotine, tar, fibreglass, cyanide etc etc.

I do agree with one comment though. When I was younger I used to smoke dope, and never had more than 3-4 joints a day. I gave that up, but I still smoke cigs. I average about 20 a day. And that's not a stressful day. I'm probably doing more damage to myself with my rollups (I did quit ready mades), than if I was smoking 3-4 joints a day still. I just don't particularly want the side effects of joints anymore. For the same reason I don't drink much anymore. I work, and have to be up at 5:30 in the morning, every week day. Alcohol or drugs of any kind make that damn near impossible. So for me, it wasn't a moral decision, simply a practical one.

On the moral level, hell yeah, make it legal. As soon as it's legal, it loses the "rebel" mystique - which will reduce the amount of people using it - and they can tax it. And hopefully reduce taxes on other items in response.

I don't really care. I voted no because I think smoking dope makes intelligent and active people stupid and lazy. I smoked pot when I was younger but I stopped for no special reason and now I really have no desire to try again. Same for tobacco, though except it was way more hard to stop. Sometimes I think all people I know smoke marijuana and look me as a weirdo because I don't smoke. They try to explain to me the benefit of smoking, as if I was born yesterday.

Here, some "very smart" guys make their own alcool. I tried to tell them at least to remove the core from the fruit but "they know better". Of course, after years of drinking wood alcohol... But what is wrong is they really think their poison is better than the alcool sold in stores and they gladly offer it as a natural product to all their friends and relatives. Same apply to marijuana. Withut any control you don't really know what you smoke and you are confident in criminals to deliver a clean prooduct.
Legalization could be better for public health. And the legal money could find a better use than in the low-life or international crime organizations pocket.

I've seen a lot of good points in favour of legalization here. They would convince me to change my mind if it wasn't for the fact that I'm a dreadfully obstinate person.

I don't appreciate being patronized when providing research information.


Actually Alex is right, most studies believe quite the opposite of your statement when comparing marijuanna and tobacco, even U.S. morality statistics issued by the government disagree with you. I can't see why they would lie considering it isn't legal in the united states. Although this statistic was from 1987 it is believed to be accurate.


Related links- http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/fact...o.know.about.mj
http://www.webmd.com/news/20030918/marijua...ing-doesnt-kill

oh hell yea!

I honestly don't care about the issue all that much. I'm not against the legalization of marijuana, because it's not really all THAT harmful - after all, alcohol and tobacco are arguably more dangerous. However, I am not an advocate for it, either, because 1) I don't care, and 2) I don't use myself because I don't personally think it's a good idea to take mind-altering substances for recreational use. (At least, it isn't for me - I have a bad family history of addiction).

In any case, I think there are far more important issues facing my country today.

This post has been edited by bbqplatypus: Jan 20 2009, 05:36 AM

I see no reason for it not to be.

People who are anti-legalisation seem to be of the mindset that it'll become rampant. That they won't be able to do anything about people driving high, coming into work baked, drug dealers will take over the streets even in the daytime...

No, it won't be like that. If it's restricted sensibly, just like any other drug; just like alcohol, (hell, you could restrict it even MORE than alcohol if you please) there shouldn't be any problems.

The various studies I've run across (not that I actively sought them out, so mebbe I'm behind the times), it is no more dangerous than cigarettes. Well sure; I've never seen a filtered joint, but you know what I mean. It's no heroin or cocaine.

Then again there are six pages of thread here, so maybe I'm in above my head... >_>

This post has been edited by Roshambo: Jan 19 2009, 11:44 PM

Meh, I don't care anymore.

Refraining from making some immature comment about 'smoking the budwah', I'll say that I don't think it should really be legalised. The arguments that are pro-legalisation are good, but it still is a drug. If it were to be legalised, strong restrictions would have to be enforced and with all the hubbub about alcohol and cigarettes anyway, is it really worth the government's time and money when more important matters are at hand?

How would it sound if people in LEDC's were starving to death and living in abject poverty while Britain is spending its money on deciding whether it should allow people to get high or not?

Plus legalising it takes away the thrill.

im against almost everything(cigarettes,alcohol,and drugs) but i think weed should be legalized everywere just for addicts who cant stop and medical reasons. u dont want addicts losing control and freaking out right? i hope that didnt sound like i was being rude im not trying to be

Weed addicts freaking out?

I don't think it is quite as addictive as you think...somewhere near the same category of caffiene I believe.

Near the addictiveness of Caffine? Dear lord, we're all doomed.

This is with the supposition that the rest of the world meets Tim Hortons.

You never hear of people selling their belongings to buy more coffee. Its not a dangerous addiction, and most people can miss a cup and be completely fine.

It should be legal, but only for medical purposes.

What medical purpose would marijuana have though?

It is used to help people with painful glaucoma.

It is also prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy. Help counter the pain, the stomach problems, and the loss of appetite that commonly goes with chemo.

Ah okay. I still think the most important thing here is the 'moral' issue of legalising it. We should be working out how to save the planet and its plants, not smoke them.

Well, I'm a bit of a case: I'm a serious teetotaller, meaning that I don't partake in even alcohol, let alone tobacco, and any recreational drugs. And opinion-wise, I'll admit to feeling a little giddy over any prospect of a second, better-enforced Prohibition. So in fact, I honestly don't approve of the use of marijuana for recreation. As a medicine, I can see it as potentially useful, just like how Morphine is used. However, smoking it isn't exactly the most effective means of it as a medication.

Of course, if it's "legalized," then it can be regulated and taxed... And apparently nothing dissuades a behavior quite like having to pay taxes on it... So I could favor legalization if it can be shown that it'd actually result in less use.

At any rate, figures that claim that smoking Marijuana is harmless is utter BS; regardless of the leaf, you're still burning something, (PLUS chemical-bleached paper) and inhaling the smoke. While Marijuana growers don't use the Polonium-210-laden fertilizer most tobacco farmers do, it still gets pollutants from the soil and air. And it's those pollutants that cause the lung damage in tobacco smoking, which doesn't go away just because you switched the species of plant. And as a drug, while it is less harmful than MOST others, it still harmful, with the potential to cause lasting damage; its use has been linked to increases in mental disorders, and potential lasting mental capacity reduction. And while its boosters often tout its low/lack of physical addiction, they neglect to mention that it is a rather potently addictive psychologically, beyond that of Ecstacy and LSD, and more on a par with Amphetamines and Alcohol. So sure, while it's no Heroin or Cocaine, that doesn't exactly say much.

I just don't understand how its even a legal issue. (I guess you should understand when you read this that I believe in the smallest possible government)

If I wanted to go out, grow daisies, pick them, and smoke them, nobody would care. If I did the same with marijuana, I could go to jail for god knows how long.

As far as marijuana being harmful: of course, you're inhaling smoke so there's lung damage there. But daisy smoke would hurt my lungs too: should the government ban daisies for the sake of the daisy-smoker's lung? Absolutely not. That kind of thing shouldn't be included in the powers of government.

And 'psychologically addictive'? That means it's addictive like video games are; you don't have a physical urge to keep on playing all night, you simply enjoy it and choose to even though you have work early in the morning. And again, the simple fact that people can be addicted to it doesn't mean that it should be made illegal.

From a purely political standpoint, its absolutely ridiculous. So what if it has harmful effects on the user? The user is most likely aware of it (as in tobacco) and wants to continue smoking. In a 'free' society, he or she should be able to. It isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) the government's job to protect us from ourselves. You mentioned prohibition: during that time alcohol consumption in the US went WAY up and created a whole new underground criminal network. Kind of had the opposite effect than what was intended.

Also, marijuana is the number 1 cash crop here in the US. Legalization for purely economic reasons would be logical.