This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

Should Marijuana be legalized?

Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by Domk, Apr 18, 2009.

  1. SouthernTrendkill

    SouthernTrendkill Super Normie

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    All I can say with absolute certainty is that if all the alcoholics were potheads, planet Earth would be a moderately better place. A bunch of alcoholics gathered together tend to get rowdy, a bunch of potheads tend to get mellow. Personally I've never seen anyone throw up from smoking too much weed. The fact that it's vastly safer than alcohol doesn't mean it should be legal merely by that virtue; the fact that the government deems alcohol use a freedom which we are allowed sets an immutable precedent that use of marijuana is no crime. There's such a thing as civil disobediance. ;)
     
  2. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I think the world would be a much better place if all the pussys would put a buzz on and mellow the fuck out
     
  3. imaeatyoursoul

    imaeatyoursoul i prefer cheerios

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    right here
    theres no good reason for it to be illegal in the first place, its not hurting anyone. as a person who used to be a little bit of a stoner and still enjoys the herb on a regular basis i say legalize it.
     
  4. DEATH_TO_THE_FALSE

    DEATH_TO_THE_FALSE REPRESENTATIVES OF TRUTH

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    California
    For the taxable amount it will bring in alone, yes marijuana should be legalized.

    Also, it will lower crime rates of drug possesion/drug distribution thus keeping the jails from overcrowding from stupid bullshit crimes.
     
  5. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    unfortunantly that is an exageration of reality, most people would still be "illegal" users, growers and distributors. Unless someone can provided a reasonably proven argument that it would be more affordable with the taxes put on it. As well as our government would not create a even larger beaurocratic division wasting tax dollars trying to regulate and control it. Further I would like to see proof that it would still not be discriminated against in the work place as well as create a Nazi police assult aimed at forcing drivers to piss in a cup, thus proving nothing.

    Im still of the position that nothing would really change, it would be little more than a first step and more costly on the governments behalf than it is currently. If they didnt seek to regulate, control and tax every aspect of human life that would be another thing but we all know what the chances of that ever changing is.
     
  6. Rough Divide

    Rough Divide Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    No these laws are necessary for health and society, just because you smoke it doesn't mean it has to meet your standards the only reason you think its stupid is that reason. But what's better losing more people every year due to marijuana or not losing as as much? I'd go with the last choice. Clearly you don't give a shit about the health of other people it would seem. Try to take into consideration about the bad things that can happen and not just the upside of things, from what I can see there isn't an upside. Most of you guys are claiming it would stop a lot of the marijuana distribution going around, but the only thing it would change is the legal part. Nothing else, people would still sell it and kill people for it, nothing would change other than the legal factor. If anything there would be more crime and deaths if it was made legal, there'd be more crashes, rapes, abuse, and much more. It seems I'm one of the few people that is the only one thinking rationally here.

    Lol, your argument is invalid it doesn't make sense, any person would know pot is a lot stronger then cough medicine lol I mean I can't believe you even brought that up seriously kill yourself. Every drug has side effects, don't be such a moron comparing cough medicine with marijuana is just asinine hell using both of them in the same sentence makes you seem retarded.

    If it was ignored it would cause anarchy you may think it sounds good but it doesn't most of you whiners think the government is the bad guys but their not, someone has to manage the fucking country and keep it stable otherwise everything would be all chaotic.

    Who care's no one asked for your life story, and from your attitude it seems like you're a raging stoner who takes all his problems on other people.

    How would it be a better place? it would be a fucked up economy to live in everyone would be stoner's and drunks, nothing would get done, we wouldn't have any good schools or health, everyone would eventually just die off. The whole concept is completely foolish, also marijuana isn't safer than alcohol considering marijuana causes a lot more health effects than alcohol does. I don't know what kind of bullshit you've been reading, but you need to read up seriously, I mean anyone who thinks marijuana is safer than alcohol is an idiot you need to get your head out of your ass.

    It is hurting people, read the whole thread before posting ridiculous comments, I've listed many dreadful health effects it causes, Schizophrenia is one of them. Obviously you don't read other peoples posts before posting because if you did you wouldn't of posted such nonsense. Also people don't stay small time stoner's they get addicted to it just like smoking it has that effect, but its a stronger addiction when someone first gets high they want to feel the same as they did their first time doing it. So they keep smoking it and never get the same feeling again but they try anyway because their addicted.
     
  7. MetalAges

    MetalAges Captain Spectacular
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2001
    Messages:
    353,974
    Likes Received:
    398
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    Hey razor, if you are going to come in to a subject and start ranting like a madman, and someone happens to call you out on your hostile ranting, it's not reportable as a "personal attack" - chill with the way you express yourself sometimes and realize that a lot of people don't care to hear it the way you come off (which is hostile and arrogant and I say that from a neutral standpoint).

    Anyways, chill out a bit, and quit reporting every time someone bumps into you. You create work for me, unnecessary work. Thanks.
     
  8. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    The pussifacation and intervention into personal life in America is well documented. Did you read his entire post, he attacked everyone. I was told to stop standing my ground and report it in the future.

    at Einherjar he responds
    at southerntrendkill he responds

    at imaeatyoursoul he responds
    I dont see what it had to do with me, but whatever
     
  9. zabu of nΩd

    zabu of nΩd Free Insultation

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2007
    Messages:
    14,781
    Likes Received:
    694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Would you make activities like rock climbing and sky diving illegal because they kill people? Even just hiking is pretty risky depending upon where you do it.

    Also, your paranoia over all the 'terrible things' that could happen if weed were made legal does not justify keeping it illegal, and there are already places where it is legal (or close to it) that have not experienced 'epidemics' of crime as a result:

    * 2005-2010 death rate in Netherlands is 8.7/1000pop compared to 10.0 in neighboring Belgium and 10.7 in neighboring Germany.
    * The Netherlands' intentional homicide rate in 2006 was 0.78/100000pop, as opposed to 1.81 in Belgium and 0.88 in Germany.
    * Norway, Sweden and Finland, three countries with some of the more restrictive drug laws in Europe, all have death rates around 9 to 10, which is if anything above par for their peers. Their 2006 intentional homicide rates were 0.71, 1.47 and 2.17 respectively.

    If you really think legalising drugs = creating a crime wave, I suggest showing some numbers to back your statements up instead of just mouthing off.

    http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/

    Please know what on earth you're talking about before throwing insults around.

    Here's some evidence that suggests you're wrong:

    A World Health Organization study of the leading causes of preventable deaths found the following:
    * Alcohol: 85,000/year or 3.5% of total deaths
    * Drug abuse: 17,000/year or 0.7% of the total deaths

    So alcohol kills more than every other drug combined, except tobacco. And according to one site, half of the accidental deaths from illegal drug usage are from heroin and morphine. (link)

    Also:
    Global study finds that 3.5% of all cancer-related deaths worldwide are caused by alcohol drinking
    Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

    Here are some numbers by the US National Survey on Drug Use and Health on how many people become dependent on a drug after trying it:
    * Tobacco: 21%
    * Alcohol: 11%
    * Heroin: 7%
    * Cocaine: 4%
    * Cannabis: 4%

    Not only is alcohol (and of course tobacco) far more addictive than weed, but the vast majority of people who have tried weed are not addicted to it.

    http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2010/02/as_many_dependent_on_cannabis.php
     
  10. Rough Divide

    Rough Divide Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    LOL is all I have to say.

    What you bring to the table doesn't even show any relevance to marijuana, what does rock climbing and sky diving have to do with marijuana? NOTHING. Which doesn't make sense why you'd bring something completely irrelevant up. And Its not paranoia its just I actually appreciate the rules and the safety and well being of people that posted to have it legal. They only care about getting the next high, an act of selfishness one would say. And I believe that because if their only fighting for their own reasons then that's an act of selfishness and just plain ignorant. Everything I said does justify keeping it legal, the only reason you don't think so is because you're stubborn and obviously don't care about the well being of people. Its not what could happen, its what has happened and continues to happen, pay better attention, or just don't bother.

    Also yes there are places that its legal but that doesn't excuse the fact people still end up with severe illnesses, your whole imaginary perfect world where pot would be legal is completely unrealistic. There's tons of downsides to it, and barely any upsides. And the reasons why those places have no crime is because its legal there, there's no drug crime such as possession for marijuana that's probably the only crime that isn't there because of it. But there's still the same crimes over there as here regardless of the legal right. Its a global problem not just a USA/Canada issue. Also an epidemic? lol obviously there wouldn't be a pot epidemic if its legal over there, wow that was totally idiotic of you. Also you just said the death rate is Europe was 9/10 so basically you contradicted yourself, if its 9/10 then there's obviously a problem with it, because rates aren't usually that high because of one thing usually it takes several things, and clearly drugs is one of them.

    Also those numbers are most likely a gross estimation, and I don't need to give numbers because their not just mere statements their real facts, I'm the only one thinking rationally about it here, and you shit bricks every time someone says something bad about marijuana. Learn to be more accepting of the truth whether it eats you up inside or not. The truth is the truth, also I didn't say I believed that it caused cancer, just because it was listed doesn't mean I believe it, I know for a fact it causes Schizophrenia though which is worse than cancer in a way, because at least cancer is treatable early, Schizophrenia is something you keep for life.

    Also alcohol doesn't kill more than every drug combined lol, its not the most lethal, it probably just causes the most accidents, but definitely not the most deaths. If that's the case its because of drivers, and the government could easily sell marijuana and make a ton of money off it but they obviously know its a bad idea considering the many health effects it causes over time. I know you'll probably say then why are they selling tobacco and alcohol then? well because its probably due to the fact they didn't realize it caused so many health problems when they started selling. But they could stop selling at any time, the only thing is it would effect the economy a lot "money wise" and their not greedy bastards because of it, because if they still pay for your health care or radiation when you have cancer their losing money.

    Besides all the shit people put in it now you honestly don't know what you're taking, people could easily spray marijuana with something and you wouldn't even notice so when you say marijuana it isn't the natural drug that once used to be. Its the messed up shit that everyone is passing around now. And you're probably thinking well some people grow it naturally well that's true but how do you know they didn't spray anything on it before they gave it to you? you honestly don't.

    Also the reason tobacco and alcohol have the highest rates is because people have easier access to it, they can buy it over the counter legally, where as with marijuana you can't. Which explains the higher rates, but if marijuana was legal the rates would be just as high, and you're wrong the vast majority that tried it does get addicted the only ones who don't are the people that didn't get high, because if you ask any person who had a lot of experience with it they'd say after you get high the first time, you want to feel the same way again. So they keep taking it in hopes of getting the same feeling but they can't because they've already took it. Its sort of like losing your virginity you enjoy your first time, well I did, but it'll never feel the same way it did when you first had sex. Although that was a bad example I'm sure the point still got across.
     
  11. Dak

    Dak mentat

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    24,218
    Likes Received:
    2,773
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Among the Horrors
    You still haven't, in all your incoherent ramblings, explained why it is government's responsibility to protect you from yourself.
     
  12. Rough Divide

    Rough Divide Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I wouldn't consider what I said incoherent because I did provide reason, many times actually and I didn't go off subject. Also I didn't say its the government's responsibility you're putting words into my mouth, and I don't think its the government's fault for people who get these illnesses because the person behind the joint has the choice whether to start doing it. Once they start they lose self control because they become addicted. The government is responsible for the well being of people though, is what I'm getting at, they make a lot of the big decisions and if marijuana were made legal that would be an example of a bad decision.
     
  13. Dak

    Dak mentat

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    24,218
    Likes Received:
    2,773
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Among the Horrors
    Just because you think something is bad doesn't mean it should be against the law. You still can't explain why it should be illegal. It isn't good to sit for hours and watch TV but there is no law against it. It isn't good to eat sugar all day long and most people are addicted to sugar.

    Your entire argument when narrowed down is "I think Marijuana is bad and no one else should either, so I want a bully to go make it happen".

    Now to be clear, I don't, and won't ever do drugs. But that doesn't mean I think there should be government intervention into it. If someone else wants to smoke it up all day that's fine with me. But the "free lunch" welfare programs need to go away to so the lazy bums can starve.

    If someone is a productive member of society and likes to enjoy a joint with or instead of a beer at the end of the day, what is the problem?
     
  14. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Really, this has been a bunch of inncoherant and misinformed bullshit. Sounds like someone clung too tight to their DARE brainwashing, perhaps quite recently. According to what I could bare to struggle through reading is that everyone that has smoked weed became addicted and developed mental illnesses, is a strain on society, cant perform in the workplace... and so much more interesting social and political NEWS. Yet from what I could bare to read I find myself questioning where doth mental illness hide.

    To make it simple the marijuana laws and rules are as discriminate as any form is if not more because they delve into any persons personal life. Two places the government and employers have no rights and dont belong is discrimination and personal life.
     
  15. Rough Divide

    Rough Divide Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I don't think its just bad, and I already explained why it should remain illegal read back a few pages, not just the recent posts. You are only taking into count one of the bad things that heavy smokers do, yes a good deal of them probably sit on their asses all day but that isn't all, some go to work and act like an imbecile and get fired another bad result from marijuana, unemployment is a big issue which really speaks for itself. I could list many reasons why it shouldn't be legalized but I don't think its necessary to list 200 reasons, a few is good enough to make a point. Another result of marijuana use is obesity its actually a big problem in american if marijuana was legal that would only make it worse.

    Also I'm not saying Marijuana smokers are idiots they can do whatever they choose, people do tons of things illegally why would it need to be legal then it would just become a global problem, that's all I'm saying. I'm not criticizing people's choices for doing the drug I'm just saying making it legal would be a bad idea for so many reasons. So that was a really bad rationalization of me because its completely flawed its not at all what I think, you got it all wrong. People can live their lives however they want I could care less.

    Maybe to you, but honestly its not incoherent nor misinformed their all facts whether you want to believe them or not is your problem. And once again you got it wrong, I didn't say everyone that has smoked weed became addicted I said anyone who has gotten high their first time, becomes addicted to it, because they like the feeling. And they want to get the same feeling again when they were first high so they keep doing it. Also it depends if you have an addictive personality, or a neurotic one, or if you're really young and you have yet to make actual rational decisions about what you do when you're high. Also I didn't say everyone who smokes it developed mental illnesses I said it happens over time its not caused by a temporary use.

    Another thing the Marijuana laws and rules are placed so that people wont be able to get it easily without trouble. You talk as if the government destroyed all the marijuana or something, they just don't allow it if you're caught then that's your own fault. Their not interfering with anyone's personal life, considering your personal life is your personal life. How would they know if its personal? if you keep it to yourself, then its personal thus they can't interfere unless you are being an idiot and get caught with it.

    You act as if the government follows you around everywhere and watches you, that's not the case people still smoke marijuana without getting caught there's enough people who have access to it, I just don't see a reason to make it even worse by legalizing it you are just increasing the problem that way because then EVERYONE has access to it even children from ages 5-10. Which means the earlier the person starts it the higher chance they have for developing health problems especially around those ages, If you don't see a problem with this then obviously you need some help or are unaware of your carelessness for humanity.
     
  16. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    But you are very misinformed on all accounts. We are 40 years deep into a wide spred base of occasional to reasonably steady smokers and there is no visible proof of anything you state. There is no proof of addiction, no proof of mental illnesses due strictly to smoking weed. First time smokers can achieve the same high anytime in the future. Sorry its all the crazyest bunch of nonsense I have ever heard and really not worth addressing all of it. It does seem you have swallowed everything you have been spoon fed... whole... without chewing on it a bit first to see how it tastes. There is all kinds of propaganda available out there to feed whomever is swallowing for one side or the other. Myself I always prefered to run straight down the middle avoiding the muck that lies to the left and the right... of any issue. This includes your disillusion that the government has the concerns of its people in mind, one only need to wipe their eyes clear and look around to have governments motives slap you in your face. Even more sad is that its far more obvious today in these insane and extremely troubled times than it was a few decades ago and still some cant see it.
     
  17. Dak

    Dak mentat

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    24,218
    Likes Received:
    2,773
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Among the Horrors
    As razoredge says, on this subject you are so drastically misinformed there is pretty much no way to make a point with you. Every reason you have is non-existent or wrong.
     
  18. Rough Divide

    Rough Divide Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    No I'm not, you're just being ignorant there's tons of visual proof are you kidding me? you're basically saying people who've gotten diagnosed by professional doctors that they have lung cancer from cigarettes there's no visual proof? wow you must be an idiot. I think you need to get your ego checked because quite frankly you're the biggest idiot I've met when it comes to this. There's tons upon tons of documentaries on alcohol and marijuana and cigarettes but you choose to believe the stoner philosophy which is you don't give a shit about the facts or what people say you just want to get high. Which is retarded, no one is telling you, you have to stop, but if you're going to post here at least be mature about it or at least know what the hell you're talking about. Honestly I never laughed so hard in my life, well not really but I still laughed pretty hard while reading this.

    First time smokers can't obtain the same high ever again, you obviously are just making this up as you go, which is quite pathetic really, I have friends that smoke marijuana and have for a few years and they said the exact same thing they said they can never get the same high they did when they first got high. So clearly you don't know what you're talking about it would seem. Any stoner or person who've smoked marijuana will tell you they could never get the same high they did when they first started. Just read this maybe you will actually grasp something from another for once.

    "Originally Posted by Oniw17
    It's not that I don't get high anymore, I just don't get the same kind of high. I remember last year when I was hanging out with my old friends I used to smoke a blunt and get a yellow glaze over my eyes, and they'd get so bloodshot they'd look like they had a red grid on them. I'd get to the state where I would have a hard time comprehending the Wendy's menu enough to order(because a number 9 was a 10 peice chicken nugget). Now I can smoke a 40 and only feel relaxed. It's weird because I didn't notice the same difference between a year and 2 years ago. Lately, I've been missing the kind of high that I used to get... alot. Seriously, if the $40 eighth(yes, it's expensive) I buy next month doesn't get me blazed, I'm going to stop smoking weed so I can run longer...but I was wondering, why I haven't been getting as high. I know the stuff that I used to get wasn't laced because it never made my mouth numb, and there's no way that the weed was that much better(it's like a completely different high now), so, I figure I must be getting immune to it or semi-immune. I'd like to know the physiological reason why this happens, in full detail if at all possible. For example, which cells are responsible, what process do they perform, what is responsible for the initiation of these processes, et cetera. Basically I want to conceptualise the reason why I've become more tolerant of weed."

    That was quoted from a friend on a forum I used to go on. Anyway obviously it isn't bullshit if people are saying it. I mean wow Its people like you that give communities a bad name, with your elitist attitude, seriously you don't know everything quit pretending you do. You need to get off your high horse.

    Also How is it nonsense? just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it untrue or nonsense. That's just plain ignorant, also spoon fed? Lol hardly, I know whats the truth and what isn't obviously I'm not just going to believe something just because someone says its true, but if I know it is and actually did some research myself, not just the retarded theories little kids or psychos did, then I'll know what's fiction and whats not. You only believe what you want to believe don't deny this because this whole time every negative thing I've said about marijuana you jumped right on it. You are also giving this moronic philospophy saying you should experiment or try it first before judging or saying anything about it. Yes that may apply to some things but it doesn't apply to this. People choose to make their own choices I chose not to waste my life on drugs, which in my opinion was a good decison. What may be good for one person may be bad for another. Another thing mental illnesses are caused from marijuana use, whether you want to believe it or not, Schzophrenia is one of the main diseases that are caused from marijuana use over time. Here I'll prove it,

    Long-term effects
    Main article: Long-term effects of cannabis
    The smoking of cannabis is the most harmful method of consumption, as the inhalation of smoke from organic materials can cause various health problems. By comparison, studies on the vaporization of cannabis found that subjects were "only 40% as likely to report respiratory symptoms as users who do not vaporize, even when age, sex, cigarette use, and amount of cannabis consumed are controlled."Another study found vaporizers to be "a safe and effective cannabinoid delivery system."

    Cannabis is ranked one of the least harmful drugs by a study published in the UK medical journal, The Lancet. While a study in New Zealand of 79 lung-cancer patients suggested daily cannabis smokers have a 5.7 times higher risk of lung cancer than non-users, another study of 2252 people in Los Angeles failed to find a correlation between the smoking of cannabis and lung, head or neck cancers. These effects have been attributed to the well documented anti-tumoral properties of cannabinoids, specifically tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol. Some studies have also found that moderate cannabis use may protect against head and neck cancers, as well as lung cancer. Some studies have shown that cannabidiol may also be useful in treating breast cancer.

    Cannabis use has been assessed by several studies to be correlated with the development of anxiety, psychosis, and depression. Indeed, a 2007 meta-analysis estimated that cannabis use is statistically associated, in a dose-dependent manner, to an increased risk in the development of psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia. No causal mechanism has been proven, however, and the meaning of the correlation and its direction is a subject of debate that has not been resolved in the scientific community. Some studies assess that the causality is more likely to involve a path from cannabis use to psychotic symptoms rather than a path from psychotic symptoms to cannabis use, while others assess the opposite direction of the causality, or hold cannabis to only form parts of a "causal constellation", while not inflicting mental health problems that would not have occurred in the absence of the cannabis use. Though cannabis use has at times been associated with stroke, there is no firmly established link, and potential mechanisms are unknown. Similarly, there is no established relationship between cannabis use and heart disease, including exacerbation of cases of existing heart disease. Though some fMRI studies have shown changes in neurological function in long term heavy cannabis users, no long term behavioral effects after abstinence have been linked to these changes. here's the link if you don't believe me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)

    Another thing Tobacco is a result of lung cancer, I would know I've studied Lung cancer for four years, plus my grandpa had it along with my uncle and they were both heavy smokers, so before you even think about saying a retarded statement such as "you're wrong" read this.

    Lung cancer is a disease of uncontrolled cell growth in tissues of the lung. This growth may lead to metastasis, which is the invasion of adjacent tissue and infiltration beyond the lungs. The vast majority of primary lung cancers are carcinomas of the lung, derived from epithelial cells. Lung cancer, the most common cause of cancer-related death in men and women, is responsible for 1.3 million deaths worldwide annually, as of 2004. The most common symptoms are shortness of breath, coughing (including coughing up blood), and weight loss. The main types of lung cancer are small cell lung carcinoma and non-small cell lung carcinoma. This distinction is important, because the treatment varies; non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) is sometimes treated with surgery, while small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) usually responds better to chemotherapy and radiation. The most common cause of lung cancer is long-term exposure to tobacco smoke. The occurrence of lung cancer in nonsmokers, who account for as many as 15% of cases, is often attributed to a combination of genetic factors, radon gas, asbestos, and air pollution, including secondhand smoke. Lung cancer may be seen on chest radiograph and computed tomography (CT scan). The diagnosis is confirmed with a biopsy. This is usually performed by bronchoscopy or CT-guided biopsy. Treatment and prognosis depend upon the histological type of cancer, the stage (degree of spread), and the patient's performance status. Possible treatments include surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Depending on the stage and treatment, the five-year survival rate is 14%.

    Causes

    The main causes of any cancer include carcinogens (such as those in tobacco smoke), ionizing radiation, and viral infection. This exposure causes cumulative changes to the DNA in the tissue lining the bronchi of the lungs (the bronchial epithelium). As more tissue becomes damaged, eventually a cancer develops.

    Smoking, particularly of cigarettes, is by far the main contributor to lung cancer. Across the developed world, almost 90% of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking. In the United States, smoking is estimated to account for 87% of lung cancer cases (90% in men and 85% in women). Among male smokers, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is 17.2%; among female smokers, the risk is 11.6%. This risk is significantly lower in nonsmokers: 1.3% in men and 1.4% in women. Cigarette smoke contains over 60 known carcinogens, including radioisotopes from the radon decay sequence, nitrosamine, and benzopyrene. Additionally, nicotine appears to depress the immune response to malignant growths in exposed tissue. The time a person smokes (as well as rate of smoking) increases the person's chance of developing lung cancer. If a person stops smoking, this chance steadily decreases as damage to the lungs is repaired and contaminant particles are gradually removed. In addition, there is evidence that lung cancer in never-smokers has a better prognosis than in smokers, and that patients who smoke at the time of diagnosis have shorter survival times than those who have quit.

    Passive smoking—the inhalation of smoke from another's smoking—is a cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers. A passive smoker can be classified as someone living or working with a smoker as well. Studies from the U.S., Europe, the UK, and Australia have consistently shown a significant increase in relative risk among those exposed to passive smoke. Recent investigation of sidestream smoke suggests that it is more dangerous than direct smoke inhalation. Roughly ten-fifteen percent of lung cancer patients have never smoked. That means between 20,000 to 30,000 never- smokers are diagnosed with lung cancer in the United States each year. Because of the five-year survival rate, each year in the U.S. more never-smokers die of lung cancer than do patients of leukemia, ovarian cancer, or AIDS.


    Diagnosis

    Chest radiograph showing a cancerous tumor in the left lung.
    Performing a chest radiograph is the first step if a patient reports symptoms that may suggest lung cancer. This may reveal an obvious mass, widening of the mediastinum (suggestive of spread to lymph nodes there), atelectasis (collapse), consolidation (pneumonia), or pleural effusion. If there are no radiographic findings but the suspicion is high (such as a heavy smoker with blood-stained sputum), bronchoscopy and/or a CT scan may provide the necessary information. Bronchoscopy or CT-guided biopsy is often used to identify the tumor type. Abnormal findings in cells ("atypia") in sputum are associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. Sputum cytologic examination combined with other screening examinations may have a role in the early detection of lung cancer.

    The differential diagnosis for patients who present with abnormalities on chest radiograph includes lung cancer as well as nonmalignant diseases. These include infectious causes such as tuberculosis or pneumonia, or inflammatory conditions such as sarcoidosis. These diseases can result in mediastinal lymphadenopathy or lung nodules, and sometimes mimic lung cancers. Lung cancer can also be an incidental finding: a solitary pulmonary nodule (also called a coin lesion) on a chest radiograph or CT scan taken for an unrelated reason.


    Prevention

    See also: Smoking ban and List of smoking bans


    Prevention is the most cost-effective means of fighting lung cancer. While in most countries industrial and domestic carcinogens have been identified and banned, tobacco smoking is still widespread. Eliminating tobacco smoking is a primary goal in the prevention of lung cancer, and smoking cessation is an important preventive tool in this process. Most importantly, are prevention programs that target the young. In 1998 the Master Settlement Agreement entitled 46 states in the USA to an annual payout from the tobacco companies.[73] Between the settlement money and tobacco taxes, each state's public health department funds their prevention programs, although none of the states are living up to the Center for Disease Control's recommended amount by spending 15 percent of tobacco taxes and settlement revenues on these prevention efforts. Policy interventions to decrease passive smoking in public areas such as restaurants and workplaces have become more common in many Western countries, with California taking a lead in banning smoking in public establishments in 1998.

    Ireland played a similar role in Europe in 2004, followed by Italy and Norway in 2005, Scotland as well as several others in 2006, England in 2007, France in 2008 and Turkey in 2009. New Zealand has banned smoking in public places as of 2004. The state of Bhutan has had a complete smoking ban since 2005. In many countries, pressure groups are campaigning for similar bans. In 2007, Chandigarh became the first city in India to become smoke-free. India introduced a total ban on smoking at public places on Oct 2 2008. Arguments cited against such bans are criminalisation of smoking, increased risk of smuggling, and the risk that such a ban cannot be enforced.

    The long-term use of supplemental multivitamins—such as vitamin C, vitamin E, and folate—does not reduce the risk of lung cancer. Indeed long-term intake of high doses of vitamin E supplements may even increase the risk of lung cancer. The World Health Organization has called for governments to institute a total ban on tobacco advertising to prevent young people from taking up smoking. They assess that such bans have reduced tobacco consumption by 16% where already instituted.


    Epidemiology

    Worldwide, lung cancer is the most common cancer in terms of both incidence and mortality (1.35 million new cases per year and 1.18 million deaths), with the highest rates in Europe and North America. The population segment most likely to develop lung cancer is over-fifties who have a history of smoking. Lung cancer is the second most commonly occurring form of cancer in most Western countries, and it is the leading cancer-related cause of death. In contrast to the mortality rate in men, which began declining more than 20 years ago, women's lung cancer mortality rates have been rising for over the last decades, and are just recently beginning to stabilize. The evolution of "Big Tobacco" plays a significant role in the smoking culture. Tobacco companies have focused their efforts since the 1970s at marketing their product toward women and girls, especially with "light" and "low-tar" cigarettes. Among lifetime nonsmokers, men have higher age-standardized lung cancer death rates than women.

    Not all cases of lung cancer are due to smoking, but the role of passive smoking is increasingly being recognized as a risk factor for lung cancer—leading to policy interventions to decrease undesired exposure of nonsmokers to others' tobacco smoke. Emissions from automobiles, factories, and power plants also pose potential risks. Eastern Europe has the highest lung cancer mortality among men, while northern Europe and the U.S. have the highest mortality among women. Lung cancer incidence is currently less common in developing countries. With increased smoking in developing countries, the incidence is expected to increase in the next few years, notably in China and India. Lung cancer incidence (by country) has an inverse correlation with sunlight and UVB exposure. One possible explanation is a preventive effect of vitamin D (which is produced in the skin on exposure to sunlight).

    From the 1950s, the incidence of lung adenocarcinoma started to rise relative to other types of lung cancer. This is partly due to the introduction of filter cigarettes. The use of filters removes larger particles from tobacco smoke, thus reducing deposition in larger airways. However the smoker has to inhale more deeply to receive the same amount of nicotine, increasing particle deposition in small airways where adenocarcinoma tends to arise. The incidence of lung adenocarcinoma in the U.S. has fallen since 1999. This may be due to reduction in environmental air pollution

    History

    Lung cancer was uncommon before the advent of cigarette smoking; it was not even recognized as a distinct disease until 1761. Different aspects of lung cancer were described further in 1810. Malignant lung tumors made up only 1% of all cancers seen at autopsy in 1878, but had risen to 10–15% by the early 1900s. Case reports in the medical literature numbered only 374 worldwide in 1912, but a review of autopsies showed that the incidence of lung cancer had increased from 0.3% in 1852 to 5.66% in 1952. In Germany in 1929, physician Fritz Lickint recognized the link between smoking and lung cancer, which led to an aggressive antismoking campaign. The British Doctors Study, published in the 1950s, was the first solid epidemiological evidence of the link between lung cancer and smoking. As a result, in 1964 the Surgeon General of the United States recommended that smokers should stop smoking.

    The connection with radon gas was first recognized among miners in the Ore Mountains near Schneeberg, Saxony. Silver has been mined there since 1470, and these mines are rich in uranium, with its accompanying radium and radon gas. Miners developed a disproportionate amount of lung disease, eventually recognized as lung cancer in the 1870s. An estimated 75% of former miners died from lung cancer. Despite this discovery, mining continued into the 1950s, due to the USSR's demand for uranium.

    The first successful pneumonectomy for lung cancer was performed in 1933. Palliative radiotherapy has been used since the 1940s. Radical radiotherapy, initially used in the 1950s, was an attempt to use larger radiation doses in patients with relatively early stage lung cancer but who were otherwise unfit for surgery. In 1997, continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART) was seen as an improvement over conventional radical radiotherapy. With small cell lung carcinoma, initial attempts in the 1960s at surgical resection and radical radiotherapy were unsuccessful. In the 1970s, successful chemotherapy regimens were developed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer


    Also the government does have the concerns of its people in mind, the health of them if they didn't give a shit about their health they wouldn't be pushing for health care in USA, there's already health care in Canada we've had it for over 40+ years now. Obviously if they didn't care they would make everyone pay for their medical bills out of their own pocket. Also they wouldn't of banned people from smoking in restaurants if they didn't care, so your argument is invalid.

    Research

    Main article: Cancer research


    Cancer research is the intense scientific effort to understand disease processes and discover possible therapies. The improved understanding of molecular biology and cellular biology due to cancer research has led to a number of new, effective treatments for cancer since President Nixon declared "War on Cancer" in 1971. Since 1971 the United States has invested over $200 billion on cancer research; that total includes money invested by public and private sectors and foundations. Despite this substantial investment, the country has seen a five percent decrease in the cancer death rate (adjusting for size and age of the population) between 1950 and 2005. Leading cancer research organizations and projects include the American Association for Cancer Research, the American Cancer Society (ACS), the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, the National Cancer Institute, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and The Cancer Genome Atlas project at the NCI.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer


    All you're doing is making false assumptions without no proof or facts to back them, all you have is mere words with nothing behind them. Which is pathetic, also you may not agree with some of the governments rules and guidelines but you know what? suck it up the world doesn't go the way you like just because you want it to. You need to honestly get your head out of your ass, does this mentality come naturally for you?


    Nice sucking up, is that all you can do suck-up and make shitty philosophies? honestly if you're going to agree with someone at least say why they're right, but in this case you have nothing to say just "he's right you're misinformed everything you said doesn't exist and is wrong" that isn't much to go on at all. So I wont even comment on that note.

    Anyway I'm done posting here, if people are going to be idiots about it then I'm not going to bother, I have better things to do then argue with people that don't know what their talking about.
     
  19. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Holy fucking shit man... If I even felt like continuing to read that last ignorant post after the ton of verbal insults I never would have. How the fuck did it get turned into a arguement about tobacco and lung cancer ? There is clearly something a miss inside this individuals head even if one could ignore being insulted every two sentences.
    ==========================================================

    I find it quite interesting that Deron took issue with me indicating that we had a potential flamer on our hands... at least now it is clear. Fortunantly the spew is so off the hook that it creates its own sense of humor enough to simply pass it by. Elsewise I'd be ripping ass right now.

    Holy fucking shit... woo hoo... and a yee haw... :lol:

    Not something I'd normally talk about due to being taken a "bragging" about... as if to condone or influence but my various friends and I, a significantly large group over the years, spred out in different communities, work aquantences, friends of friends, ect, all successful, some very much so have been tokin in moderation for over 35 years... and I dont know nothin... cool

    Further it would stand to reason that on a METAl forum or ANY music forum that you would be in the presence of some dope smokers that might just have a clue or two... BUT NOOOOO... just a bunch of clueless dumb bastards... cool
     
  20. RinoSkWoZ

    RinoSkWoZ New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Yes, it would be a nice shot to the organized criminality.
    I've got another tought. Why alchool is legal and weed isn't?
    That's kinda weird.isn't it?
     

Share This Page