420 friendly Halo Tournaments !!!Winner wins free 1/8!! - $5

[MrPopo]

Looked at that site. They list 0 as marijuana deaths, and cite a CDC PDF. I went to said CDC PDF and to the "Drug-induced mortality" section, which was where the citation pointed to. It mentions two tables and several statistics but it lumps together all drugs into a single category, and so do the tables. Unless it's buried in that PDF deeper than I looked I don't see anything that says 0 marijuana deaths. Seems to be a bit of flim-flam on the part of that website.

[Overload]

That pdf probably doesn't mention marijuana because it's not a cause (or at least a significant one) of death. They list the drugs that kill people.

The CDC obviously doesn't recognize it as something that's causing people to die.

I never said it was safe

You sure as hell were implying it. If you felt it wasn't safe you would have said "Yes, driving while stoned is unsafe, just like driving drunk." Instead you came back with "THey realize they're stoned and compenstate."

I should have been more clear.

The thing is, I don't KNOW how safe it is. I said it probably wasn't a wise decision, but I'm not going to claim I know how safe it is. From personal experience, it doesn't seem too unsafe, but that obviously isn't enough to go by.

[Dylan]

That pdf probably doesn't mention marijuana because it's not a cause (or at least a significant one) of death. They list the drugs that kill people.

The CDC obviously doesn't recognize it as something that's causing people to die.

Or it simply wasn't included in the research. Assuming that marijuana causes 0 deaths based on a research of dangerous drugs that doesn't mention it is literally pulling something out of nothing.

[MrPopo]

That pdf probably doesn't mention marijuana because it's not a cause (or at least a significant one) of death. They list the drugs that kill people.

The CDC obviously doesn't recognize it as something that's causing people to die.

You misinterpreted what I said. The PDF does not break down drug induced deaths AT ALL by the drug in question. All it does is show the trend of drug induced deaths by sex and race. They give no indication as to how many deaths are caused by marijuana vs. cocaine vs. methamphetamines. The only thing they break out is that they consider alcohol to be different from drugs.

Also, what Dylan said. If a study doesn't include something the only thing you can conclude is that said thing wasn't included. Only if they specifically say "there were no deaths because of X" can you surmise that X was the cause of no deaths.

[Overload]

That pdf probably doesn't mention marijuana because it's not a cause (or at least a significant one) of death. They list the drugs that kill people.

The CDC obviously doesn't recognize it as something that's causing people to die.

You misinterpreted what I said. The PDF does not break down drug induced deaths AT ALL by the drug in question. All it does is show the trend of drug induced deaths by sex and race. They give no indication as to how many deaths are caused by marijuana vs. cocaine vs. methamphetamines. The only thing they break out is that they consider alcohol to be different from drugs.

Also, what Dylan said. If a study doesn't include something the only thing you can conclude is that said thing wasn't included. Only if they specifically say "there were no deaths because of X" can you surmise that X was the cause of no deaths.

I can agree with that. My apologies.

I still haven't come across a single case of death from marijuana though.

Also, this is good to note.
Taken from: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/58

"Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug. Laboratory animals (rats, mice, dogs, monkeys) can tolerate doses of up to 1,000 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person swallowing 70 grams of the drug—about 5,000 times more than is required to produce a high. Despite the widespread illicit use of cannabis there are very few if any instances of people dying from an overdose. In Britain, official government statistics listed five deaths from cannabis in the period 1993-1995 but on closer examination these proved to have been deaths due to inhalation of vomit that could not be directly attributed to cannabis (House of Lords Report, 1998). By comparison with other commonly used recreational drugs these statistics are impressive."
Source:
Iversen, Leslie L., PhD, FRS, "The Science of Marijuana" (London, England: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 178, citing House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology, "Cannabis — The Scientific and Medical Evidence" (London, England: The Stationery Office, Parliament, 1998).

[Hobie-wan]

I'd like to see this evidence linking marijuana-smoking with cancer. If it does cause cancer, it can't be a very high number seeing as marijuana-use kills an average of ZERO people a year.

As I'm positive you have a source for this number, mind citing it?

Just to jump off this. Every single person I've ever known to be a pot smoker was also a cigarette smoker. Either they already smoked cigarettes and wanted to get high, so having a spliff was a small leap because they were already accustomed to inhaling smoke. Or they smoked cigarettes out of habit so they had something to do the times they weren't getting high. Inhaling smoke is bad, your body knows this because you cough until you get used to it. It would take a study with people who only smoke pot to prove or disprove this, but logic would seem to point to inhaling smoke on a regular basis is going to cause issues and cancer wouldn't be a surprising result.

[Octopod]

I say legalize the shit. If any drugs should be illegal it should be alcohol and tabacco which actually do cause society problems. Never happen though because there is big money behind them.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

I say legalize the shit. If any drugs should be illegal it should be alcohol and tabacco which actually do cause society problems. Never happen though because there is big money behind them.

Octopod hit the nail on the head. They are probably more worried about it inflicting damage on their tobacco and alcohol profits than pleasing the people on this one. Unless they see some way that pot could make them more money than the hit on tobacco and alcohol sales, its probably not going to happen.

[Luke]

Just to jump off this. Every single person I've ever known to be a pot smoker was also a cigarette smoker.

Not in my experience.

Wait, not that I smoke pot and don't smoke cigarettes, I've known people who only smoke pot.

Promise.

"I use to do drugs. I still do, but I also use to"-Mitch Hedberg

[Hatta]

Yeah, I smoke pot like a chimney, and never touch tobacco. My GF smokes more pot than me, and quit smoking cigarettes years ago. Awful stuff. Doesn't even get you high, don't see why anyone would do that.

Concerning the cancer issue, THC appears to be a pro-apoptotic agent. That means it induces damaged cells to "commit suicide" before they become a problem. It actually fights the cancer that the carcinogens in all smoke contains. So cancer isn't a big worry. You still have to worry about stuff like emphysema though. And having a constantly dry mouth is a very large risk factor for gum disease. There are always side effects to any drug, but the side effects of cannabis are well within the range of risks we take every day.

But that's a red herring. Even if it was extremely dangerous, we have no right to tell others what to do with their body. That's freedom.