Marijuana inhibits cancer tumour growth
Marijuana inhibits cancer tumour growth
http://au.news.yahoo.com/080122/2/15lg4.html
there was also a study done last year at John Hopkins as well that showed people who smoked weed had not only less chance of getting lung cancer than tobacco smokers, but something like a 0.1% chance less chance than people who smoke nothing at all!!!
there was also a study done last year at John Hopkins as well that showed people who smoked weed had not only less chance of getting lung cancer than tobacco smokers, but something like a 0.1% chance less chance than people who smoke nothing at all!!!
the difference here is these studies aren't propaganda - in fact with the John Hopkins study the admitted they were setting out just to prove their assumtions that it was as bad or worse than tobaccodcease wrote:i don't pay any attention to pro pot propaganda. it makes me sad. instead, i prefer anti-pot propaganda, as it makes me laugh.
anyway, I'm certainly not trying to spout propaganda!
-
- Posts: 4336
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: la
-
- Posts: 6490
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 4:23 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA.
-
- Posts: 4336
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: la
yeah I agree - but weed is something like 400% stronger than it was in the 70s now thanks to hydroponics etc, I dont think the headphuck was quite so bad when cheech and chong were doing it
nah I dont think it's good for your lungs, just something in it appears to actually inhibit cancer
I could imagine if those in the Hopkins study weren't smoking but just ingesting the key ingredient then maybe it would be more profound than 0.1%
nah I dont think it's good for your lungs, just something in it appears to actually inhibit cancer
I could imagine if those in the Hopkins study weren't smoking but just ingesting the key ingredient then maybe it would be more profound than 0.1%
oh, i'm just being sarcastic. it just seems that nothing will change, regardless of pot's clear advantage of pro's>con's. i have become cynical, for humor, because it helps me deal with the ineptitude of government officials, the world over. rich men shall always walk on the broken backs of the poor, so pills will most likely prevail over scientific reason. pills, on the other hand are released early, basically without regulations, only to cause damage, both to consumers, and the inevitable lawsuits the companies face. yet still, every 10 minutes i am reminded, while hitting a bowl, that i should speak to my doctor, and see if fuckmyassupticus is right for me.
cynical is how i deal with what bothers me. it works... for now.
cynical is how i deal with what bothers me. it works... for now.
-
- Posts: 4336
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: la
forge wrote:yeah I agree - but weed is something like 400% stronger than it was in the 70s now thanks to hydroponics etc, I dont think the headphuck was quite so bad when cheech and chong were doing it
nah I dont think it's good for your lungs, just something in it appears to actually inhibit cancer
I could imagine if those in the Hopkins study weren't smoking but just ingesting the key ingredient then maybe it would be more profound than 0.1%
absofucking lutely... I stopped smoking pot in 2002. I hate what they have done to it. Its not pot. its a super drug. its harder then ecstacy. it just makes me paranoid as all fuck. I remember being 14, and chillin with a joint, and it was a laugh, but by the time 2002 came around,, pot was a monster. and I am not old either. don't go thinking I am 50. its just todays pot, is sick. very crazy.
too many lasers...
-
- Posts: 4336
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: la