Pot not a major cancer risk

[MullManiac]

Ok for the last time evelution is a term used to decribe the effect of natural selection over time. Natural selection happenes every mateing season when the female will chose the most sutable (and most genectily fit) male to mate with, that isnt evelution but if this happens over a number of years and is coupled with mutation, immergration or any other mechanism of evelution then it will result in evelution, any other use of the term, no matter how popular it is, is incorrect.

As for the hacking at you lungs with a razor blade i never said any such thing, i said smoking killing healthy cells and allowing them to grow back is like say cutting your arm, ie killing healthy cells so that they can grow back, seems very simmilar if you ask me.

And as for those links i wouldnt call them credible sources, if i looked how many sites do you think i could find that say wedd give you cancer, 60 years ago they thought one drag would make you go crazy.

Lastly there are very few lung cancers directly associated with smoking tobbaco, it doesnt matter how much weed you have smoked in your lifetime, if you have ever had a drag of a cig theres a chance you could have got cancer from that so they cant say it is from the weed as there is doubt there.

And i recognise there are a lot of people in this forum that no almost nothing about cancer/the human body ect so i am trying to make it as simple as possible. If i had the time i could write pages and pages on this sort of stuff. So please dont question my inteligance when all i did was simplify my answer for the benifits of others.

[Goodman3eb]

1) http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution

2) I wasn't commenting on the subject matter of your post so much as the imagery used.

3) Who's to say your sources are any more credible than mine? Studies have been done showing both sides; I was just posting links to the ones that supported my case. If you can show me any studies (that aren't government funded) that showed the lung cancer risk-- and I mean studies, not just anecdotes or pamphlets--please post them.

Also, the government never thought marijuana would make you go crazy; they simply made that the basis of their anti-hemp campaign to hide their ulterior political motives. If you want, you can read my term paper on the subject here:
http://boards.cannabis.com/showthread.php?t=37653

4)Source on that tobacco statistic? AFAIK it's flat-out wrong. Moreover, the study I posted showed the numbers, which thus far, you have failed to do.

5)I don't mean to question your intelligence so much as your fact-finding. Also, it's not spelled "inteligance" (or "evelution", either). Have you even read Darwin's "Origin of Species"?

[MullManiac]

I infact own Origin of Species and am very intrested in evelution, also you shot yourself in the foot with that link as it shows nothing surgesting that a natural responce to an infection can be termed as evelution. But as for dictionaries these days, did you know google is in the new macquary dictionary (as in the internet site). I guess anything can be classed as a word these days.

And as for my source i do enough of that at uni and i just cant be bothered scaning stuff. Andjust because something is govenment funded doesnt mean its wrong... where else are they gonna get enough money from to fund a reliable experiment.

I'm not sure exactly how many cases of lung cancer a year are caursed exclusivly by smoking cigs but it cant be many, have you got any idea how hard it is to outright prove something lile that? very difficlt soemtimes.

What is the problem with some of you guys here, sure the gov hasnt done everything right but they do what they do in the intrests of the majority of the people, just because the gov said it doesnt make it wrong!

Ps. what does AFAIK mean?

Pps. oh yeah the spelling... i'm dyslexic