if you believe health care is a civil right you should then......

I'm not sure whose side I'm on in this argument, and I'm too tired to look for reliable information on cancer, but the National Academy of Sciences in the US or the Royal Society (I might have the name wrong.) in the UK would probably be good places to start.

Anyway, regardless of whether pot causes cancer, even if it's laced with cyanide, as long as the smoker knows about the cyanide that's his choice and no one else's business.

 

If you really care ask you doctor what makes marijuana smoke less of a cancer risk that tobacco smoke. Than coal or hay or palm tree smoke. Have a real conversation with someone who has done more than read a few paragraphs in a junk blog he googled.

Or go join the Dutch boy's party. Puff away.




​

 

Look no further than the last link I posted of the three, it is from science daily that takes the article directly from American Association for Cancer Research which in turn takes it from the research conducted at Harvard University.

I am not saying Taxpayer is wrong or right, I am simply saying that as it stands there is no scientific evidence to show that smoking marijuana causes lung cancer .. one of the current ideas is that it is mixing the marijuana with tobacco that causes lung cancer because as we all know tobacco smoking does cause lung cancer.

 

This isn't an argument. Fire fighters and train engineers have known for a very long time that smoke is bad for you. I have no interest in demonstrating that to Einstein.

But I agree with your other point. It's none of my business if Zippy likes to suck in smoke — laced with hydrogen cyanide or lavender oil. Until those pot-heads get sick and then say "The government's job is to protect my rights, one of which is life. Therefore, If I am in danger of losing my life, the government needs to do whatever is in its power to protect my life. A national health care plan seems pretty constitutional to me."

... and suddenly I'm asked to pay for "his choice."




​

 

Amazing isn't it how the insults just seem to come so easy for some people .. usually when they have a problem answering valid questions, I'm sure Harvard University don't consider their research part of a "junk blog" .. but there again I doubt you even read it, and why would a doctor know when the research is not even completed yet .. ah yes that would the same assumption you are making.

I notice no actual rebuttal to the Harvard research, probably because you don't have any.

as to your final comment, I'll treat it with the contempt it so richly deserves and chalk it down to just another person blowing smoke (pun intended) out of their arse.

 

I have no rebuttal to your Harvard study, I haven't read it. Doubt you have either. And I have no interest trying to figure out why an anecdote that appeared in a junk blog a decade ago never materialized into anything real.

But if we're trading contempt feel free to puff away on that smoke you expect me to blow.





​

 

Your doubt does not indicate reality, though it is noted you have attempted to rebut something you haven't even read.

So now the Harvard study is an anecdote in a junk blog and what difference does it make concerning the age of the study, does its age make it of any less value, now of course if you can find some research that refutes that study you might have a point.

Perhaps these studies would cater more to you - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=cannabinoid cancer oh BTW no I haven't read them all.

There is no expectation, the smoke is already there.

 

What are you trying to establish and why should I give a damn?



​

 

Whether you give a damn or not is entirely up to you, I just thought this was a debating forum and not a place for people to express their opinions with no response .. am I wrong?

As to establishing anything, nothing beyond the fact that "burning marijuana" has no research stating that it causes lung cancer, something you have advocated it does. If I am wrong then please post the research that refutes what I have linked to.

 

Slow burning complex hydrocarbons produces a soup of partially combusted free radicals (for that go to freshman chemistry). The free radical soup in tobacco smoke has been extensively analyzed and characterized.* Cancer has been seen to occur in lung cells exposed to this soup.** Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) radicals seem to be particularly effective (probably because they are stable enough to hang around and reactive enough to chew up pretty much any cell they get a hold of). As an example, spiking smoke with 1,4-naphthoquinone shows a 5 fold increase in small cell cancer incidence. ***

There are differences in the soup composition when burning different hydrocarbons, but PAH radicals will result from burning pretty much any plant. The particular PAH composition that results from tobacco and marijuana smoke has been shown to be qualitatively similar (the worst 50 things are in both).**** and ****** It has also been shown to be quantitatively similar (similar concentrations of bad stuff), ******* although some exist in marijuana at 3-5 times the concentration as in tobacco. ******* Not that surprising, stuff that get's you high tends to have a polycyclic hydrocarbon skeleton.

There is no research that will prove smoking marijuana cigarettes will give you lung cancer. There is no research that will prove smoking tobacco cigarettes, stoking a furnace, or working in a coal mine will give you lung cancer. Science doesn't work that way. Science is about organizing observations to reveal patterns which suggest explanations that might offer useful models of the physical world. You need to use your brain to connect the dots. If you don't find these observations compelling... then *shrug* puff away.
​

* Church, D. F., Pryor, W.A. Free-Radical Chemistry of Cigarette Smoke and Its Toxicological Implications Environmental Health Perspectives 64 : 111-126, (1985)

** Lyons, M. J., Gibson, J. F., and Ingram, D. J. E. Free-radicals in cigarette smoke. Nature 181: 1003-1004 ( 1958 ).

*** Pryor, W. A., Hales, B. J., Premovic, P. I., and Church, D. F. The radicals in cigarette tar: their nature and suggested physiological implications. Science 220: 425-427 (1983).

**** Ingram, D. J. E. ESR studies of the free radicals produced in tobacco pyrolysis and in other related compounds. Acta Med. Scand. (Suppl.) 369: 43-62 (1961).

****** Lee, M. L., Novotny, M., and Bartle, K. D. (1976) Gas chromatography/mass spectrometric and nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometric studies of carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in tobacco and marijuana smoke condensates. Anal. Chem. 48 (2), 405–416.

****** Hoffmann, D., Brunnermann, K. D., Gori, G. B., and Wynder, E. L. (1975) On the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry (Runeckles, V. C., Ed.) pp 63–81, Plenum, New York.

******* Moir, D., Rickert, W., Levasseur, G., Larose, Y., Maertens, R., White, P., Desjardins, S. A comparison of mainstream and sidestream Marijuana and Tobacco Cigarette Smoke Chem. Res. Toxicol 21: 494-502 ( 2008 )​

​

 

The government need stop peoples from drinking, drugs , smoking ,buy guns etc.. I have my own rights in our life.

 

Everyone of your citations (except one) is concerning TOBACCO alone or tobacco mixed with marijuana, not marijuana on it's own. Show me the research into marijuana on it's own and even the one study you cited where tobacco is not involved does not say what you think it says - http://www.ukcia.org/research/smoke-contents.php

 

The right to healthcare is a term used to force the sale of a product that is doing the exact opposite. It is nothing more than an expansion on the existing health care system that masks symptoms in the name of profit. We spend more on health care, there are more drugs available than ever, and more people have access. So how come our country is sicker than ever?

If there was profit in prevention, we would not be in this shape. As a country, we have done nothing more than make the beast more powerful.

 

... and pursue your joy?




​

 

Yes, absolutely. That is what the Constitution is for, to protect our republic from the excesses of unrestrained democracy.

I don't agree with you, however, that the FDA is unconstitutional. I tend to believe that the "general welfare" clause authorizes quite a bit as long as it does not directly violate Constitutional rights and can be proven to be effective at improving the general welfare of American citizens.

 

Since nothing has been covered, the goal in healthcare should be to reduce the costs associated with healthcare,
how is that done ? Preventive medicine techniques.
Hypertension is one very expensive disease, it kills and disables and costs the healthcare system untold amount of money, strokes, kidney failure, blindness, etc... Necessitating dialysis, long term medical care, blindness and disabilities.
The idea of wellness over medicating or treatment of illnesses is a supperior idea, I did a three year study of hypertension, with aqua therapy excercise, every patient with hypertension 150/90 on antihypertensive meds, was able to discontinue meds after 3 -6 months.

I have a healthcare plan; Contract America:
Everyone gets a client number and an evaluation and an option,
If you are at your ideal weight, good health, you agree not to abuse your health and do your part to stay healthy, excercise, and you have coverage based on your willingness to perform excercise at a wellness center under the free public healthcare plan.

You also agree to percentage scale malpractice settlements.

Everyone on public healthcare must work to maintain good health within guidlines, if not, pay into a private carrier that will have capped fees.

All healthcare payments will build equity, no one is dropped.
If the patient wants additional malpractice coverage,
Additional malpractice insurance will be voluntarily paid by the patient amortized over a lifetime amounting to an additional small tax.

This will greatly reduce the cost of healthcare.

Change and improve the way medicine is studied, since medical schools are teaching medicine in an obsolete manner and contributes to the high cost of medical care, and medical practice is mostly technical and high tech diagnostic equipment.

New medical personnel designations Medical Paraprofessional level 1,
MP-1 Nursing assistant, phlebotomist, x-ray tech, vital signs tech. Medical records tech.
MP-2
MP-3
MP-5 = LPN
MP-6
MP-7
MP-8
MP-9
MP-10 = R.N.
With increasing levels of patient care.

All the way up to M.D.


All training at teaching hospitals divided between classroom and clinical modules at an accelerated learning curve, paid work experience, zero tuition, housing included, near the teaching facilty, tax exempt status for medical students.

Healthcare is best defined as a mutual responsibility between the healthcare provider and the patient by contract and defined by mutual agreement.

Not as a civil right or entitlement.

 

Life filled with chaos. People get sick and can't work. If nothing to help them apart from bankrupcy with insurance ceos hunting them down like rabid dogs. Then need a rethink of societies needs.

 

Where does that help come from? I'm all for helping the next guy and pulling together in bad times, but it's not fair to say "bad stuff happened to me, you need to solve it" to your neighbor. People need to prepare better for the chaos before it happens.

The way it is now, it's not going to work much longer.



​

 

Intelligent government not wasting tax. Part of me is idealistic dreamer.

 

Not wasting something isn't the same as producing it. Anyone can choose not to waste a million dollars, that doesn't produce even one dollar.



​

 

Well if some people want to die from cancer, goody for them.
Smoking is a poor and inefficient method anyway, extracting Cannibinoids with oils and wax making is more efficient.

 

The argument was that smoking cannabis can cause cancer, yet there is no research that shows this .. certainly smoking tobacco and cannabis together can cause cancer

 

How much does it cost? You don't know either. That is because you are not on the level of negotiating pricing for health care. I just want to know how much it really costs.

 

Let's pretend that healtcare is a right.

Why is it the government's duty to provide it for me? If you believe it is their duty to provide for my rights then is it also the government's duty to supply me with arms so I can exercise my second amendment right? Of course not. It is up to me to provide for my rights. It is up to the government to punish those individuals or groups which try or succeed in violating my rights.

So. No. It is not up to the government to give me anything.

 

I actually support government-issued arms for people who complete a year-long militia training program.