Burn one down
May 23, 2006 3:10 PM Subscribe
Marijuana doesn't increase your risk of lung cancer. As presented at the American Thoracic Society International Conference today. "Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers."
What if you use Post-It notes when you run out of rolling paper?
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:16 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:16 PM on May 23, 2006
Are we sure that the folks who smoked 22,000 joints didn't have lung cancer and simply forgot about it?
posted by 27 at 3:18 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by 27 at 3:18 PM on May 23, 2006
Where's the paper itself?
It was just presented today. More legitimate conference than the former (personal opinion). I follow the thoracic news because I have an interest in cardiothoracic pathology.
There is no pubmed listing for the article yet.
Dupe it if you want.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 3:22 PM on May 23, 2006
It was just presented today. More legitimate conference than the former (personal opinion). I follow the thoracic news because I have an interest in cardiothoracic pathology.
There is no pubmed listing for the article yet.
Dupe it if you want.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 3:22 PM on May 23, 2006
Woohoo!
*Lights his asbestos bong with a burning tire*
posted by squirrel at 3:22 PM on May 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
*Lights his asbestos bong with a burning tire*
posted by squirrel at 3:22 PM on May 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
Another way of saying that is that even the lightest of marijuana smokers are in just as much peril of getting cancer as heavy pot smokers.
Depends on who's writing it, I guess. ;-)
posted by psmealey at 3:25 PM on May 23, 2006
Depends on who's writing it, I guess. ;-)
posted by psmealey at 3:25 PM on May 23, 2006
See, kids? Don't believe what they tell you in school, drugs are good for you.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:31 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by Meatbomb at 3:31 PM on May 23, 2006
i_am_a_Jedi: More legitimate conference than the former (personal opinion).
How does that matter? It was Tashkin who presented at the former conference, as well.
posted by daksya at 3:34 PM on May 23, 2006
How does that matter? It was Tashkin who presented at the former conference, as well.
posted by daksya at 3:34 PM on May 23, 2006
Because it is a gift from God.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 3:36 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 3:36 PM on May 23, 2006
psmealey writes "Another way of saying that is that even the lightest of marijuana smokers are in just as much peril of getting cancer as heavy pot smokers."
Or you could say that nonusers are in as much danger of getting lung cancer as heavy marijuana users. Everyone who doesn't use marijuana: you're in danger!!!
posted by mr_roboto at 3:43 PM on May 23, 2006
Or you could say that nonusers are in as much danger of getting lung cancer as heavy marijuana users. Everyone who doesn't use marijuana: you're in danger!!!
posted by mr_roboto at 3:43 PM on May 23, 2006
lung cancer, no, chronic bronchitis, more likely than not with heavy smoking. (Said the voice of experience.)
But even that's avoidable by using a vaporizer or simply by eating yer weed.
posted by telstar at 3:51 PM on May 23, 2006
But even that's avoidable by using a vaporizer or simply by eating yer weed.
posted by telstar at 3:51 PM on May 23, 2006
With all of the smoke ingested by smoking 22,000 joints, there must have been some detriment to their health. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that Doritos cures lung-cancer.
posted by robot at 3:54 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by robot at 3:54 PM on May 23, 2006
So now that it's quantified as more healthy than smoking and even alcohol, when can it be legal? Oh right, blacks and latinos do it -- nevermind.
posted by geoff. at 3:58 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by geoff. at 3:58 PM on May 23, 2006
Where's the paper itself?
I USED IT TO WRAP A HUGE JOINT
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:03 PM on May 23, 2006 [2 favorites]
I USED IT TO WRAP A HUGE JOINT
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:03 PM on May 23, 2006 [2 favorites]
i_am_a_Jedi: More legitimate conference than the former (personal opinion).
How does that matter?
Because if it weren't sufficiently legitimate research the poster would've been rejected by this conference?
posted by rxrfrx at 4:03 PM on May 23, 2006
How does that matter?
Because if it weren't sufficiently legitimate research the poster would've been rejected by this conference?
posted by rxrfrx at 4:03 PM on May 23, 2006
So now that it's quantified as more healthy than smoking and even alcohol, when can it be legal? Oh right, blacks and latinos do it -- nevermind.
Riiight. Because blacks and latinos don't drink or smoke . . . or something . . .
posted by JekPorkins at 4:05 PM on May 23, 2006
Riiight. Because blacks and latinos don't drink or smoke . . . or something . . .
posted by JekPorkins at 4:05 PM on May 23, 2006
So...it's the chocolate chip cookies that are bad?
posted by Smart Dalek at 4:05 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by Smart Dalek at 4:05 PM on May 23, 2006
While a clear increase in cancer risk was seen among cigarette smokers in the study, no such association was seen for regular cannabis users.... Cancer risk among cigarette smokers was not influenced by whether or not they also smoked marijuana.
This makes no sense - how can breaking up a cigarette to make a joint be better for you than smoking a cigarette? Unless they only mean people who exclusively smoke pipes, bongs and 100% weed joints, in which case they should probably have said so, really.
posted by jack_mo at 4:05 PM on May 23, 2006
This makes no sense - how can breaking up a cigarette to make a joint be better for you than smoking a cigarette? Unless they only mean people who exclusively smoke pipes, bongs and 100% weed joints, in which case they should probably have said so, really.
posted by jack_mo at 4:05 PM on May 23, 2006
The American Thoracic Society is a bunch of damned hippies!
posted by quadog at 4:09 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by quadog at 4:09 PM on May 23, 2006
“Because blacks and latinos don't drink or smoke . . . or something . . .” -posted by JekPorkins
Don’t be a goofball. Blacks and latinos smoke just like caucasians, you just don’t roll them as tightly.
This suprises me. I’d’ve thought anything you put in smokey-wise = bad for the lungs.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:10 PM on May 23, 2006
Don’t be a goofball. Blacks and latinos smoke just like caucasians, you just don’t roll them as tightly.
This suprises me. I’d’ve thought anything you put in smokey-wise = bad for the lungs.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:10 PM on May 23, 2006
jack_mo, when most people say "smoking marijuana", they mean "smoking marijuana", not "smoking tobacco with marijuana in it." Especially in the context of a study differentiating tobacco and marijuana.
I'd even go so far as to say that many people would be appalled that you're ruining perfectly good weed by adding tobacco to it. But maybe that's just me.
posted by ook at 4:11 PM on May 23, 2006
I'd even go so far as to say that many people would be appalled that you're ruining perfectly good weed by adding tobacco to it. But maybe that's just me.
posted by ook at 4:11 PM on May 23, 2006
You can watch Grass, narrated by Woody Harrelson here
posted by augustweed at 4:14 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by augustweed at 4:14 PM on May 23, 2006
Because if it weren't sufficiently legitimate research the poster would've been rejected by this conference?
Fair enough, but Tashkin conducted this study using NIDA grants and as the previous FPP article says, the DEA has cited him.
posted by daksya at 4:16 PM on May 23, 2006
Fair enough, but Tashkin conducted this study using NIDA grants and as the previous FPP article says, the DEA has cited him.
posted by daksya at 4:16 PM on May 23, 2006
The beurocracies keep us more confused than the weed does!
posted by augustweed at 4:18 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by augustweed at 4:18 PM on May 23, 2006
jack_mo writes "This makes no sense - how can breaking up a cigarette to make a joint be better for you than smoking a cigarette? Unless they only mean people who exclusively smoke pipes, bongs and 100% weed joints, in which case they should probably have said so, really."
I think this might be a British/American thing. People don't generally mix tobacco in with their weed over here.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:18 PM on May 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
I think this might be a British/American thing. People don't generally mix tobacco in with their weed over here.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:18 PM on May 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
However, the brownies will still make you really effing FAT!
posted by OhPuhLeez at 4:20 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by OhPuhLeez at 4:20 PM on May 23, 2006
Also in the news: Study suggests "You are all going to die anyway!" Pot may or may not speed up the prosess. No cure in sight
Oh no!
posted by indifferent at 4:21 PM on May 23, 2006
Oh no!
posted by indifferent at 4:21 PM on May 23, 2006
This suprises me. I’d’ve thought anything you put in smokey-wise = bad for the lungs.
Cancer's not the only bad thing that can happen to your lungs.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:23 PM on May 23, 2006
Cancer's not the only bad thing that can happen to your lungs.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:23 PM on May 23, 2006
The biggest danger from cigarette smoking is emphysema, not cancer. Only a small proportion of life-long cigarette smokers will get cancer, but most will suffer from emphysema to at least some extent.
And that's also true for people who smoke grass for long enough.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 4:24 PM on May 23, 2006
And that's also true for people who smoke grass for long enough.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 4:24 PM on May 23, 2006
Cancer's not the only bad thing that can happen to your lungs.
True. They could make some bad decisions, move to new orleans, vote republican, buy a PC, invoke 9/11, work at starbucks AND post a previously posted article to MeFi and call themselves dios
Did I hit all the hot button issues?
posted by lalochezia at 4:27 PM on May 23, 2006
Woah. I think my lungs are considering doing all of those things. How can I stop them?
posted by JekPorkins at 4:32 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 4:32 PM on May 23, 2006
And that's also true for people who smoke grass for long enough.
Not that I doubt this conclusion, but has it been studied?
posted by flaterik at 4:59 PM on May 23, 2006
Not that I doubt this conclusion, but has it been studied?
posted by flaterik at 4:59 PM on May 23, 2006
Steven C. Den Beste
You're right about cigarette smoking, lung cancer, and emphysema. But I question that any studies support the association between chronic doobie smoking and emphysema. Do you have a citation to support it? The research into the mechanisms of how tobacco smoke leads to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is incomplete. I would be surprised if there are human studies definitively showing a link with mj smoke.
posted by Mental Wimp at 5:10 PM on May 23, 2006
You're right about cigarette smoking, lung cancer, and emphysema. But I question that any studies support the association between chronic doobie smoking and emphysema. Do you have a citation to support it? The research into the mechanisms of how tobacco smoke leads to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is incomplete. I would be surprised if there are human studies definitively showing a link with mj smoke.
posted by Mental Wimp at 5:10 PM on May 23, 2006
jack_mo, when most people say "smoking marijuana", they mean "smoking marijuana", not "smoking tobacco with marijuana in it."
Not in the UK, or anywhere in Europe that I've smoked with the natives. I'd forgotten about the American way of smoking, sorry. I guess the different traditions are down to gear being cheaper in the US, and the fact that in the past resin was more readily available than grass over here?
Especially in the context of a study differentiating tobacco and marijuana.
Well, yeah - that's why I was puzzled. You couldn't really do such a study here, because the majority of people who smoke weed smoke it with tobacco.
posted by jack_mo at 5:14 PM on May 23, 2006
Not in the UK, or anywhere in Europe that I've smoked with the natives. I'd forgotten about the American way of smoking, sorry. I guess the different traditions are down to gear being cheaper in the US, and the fact that in the past resin was more readily available than grass over here?
Especially in the context of a study differentiating tobacco and marijuana.
Well, yeah - that's why I was puzzled. You couldn't really do such a study here, because the majority of people who smoke weed smoke it with tobacco.
posted by jack_mo at 5:14 PM on May 23, 2006
You also have to consider the frequency of smoking when it comes to emphysema risk. This article defines "very heavy, long-term marijuana users" as people who have smoked more than 22,000 joints. If you've got a pack-a-day habit, you can burn through that many cigarettes in three years. Pot smokers are kind of like pipe smokers, as far as smoke inhalation goes--it's not so much that the smoke is healthier, it's that you're not getting as much of it. The apparent lack of carcinogens is another pretty nice bonus.
posted by EarBucket at 5:17 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by EarBucket at 5:17 PM on May 23, 2006
I hate to say it, but I'm pretty sure Sticherbeast won.
posted by loquacious at 5:18 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by loquacious at 5:18 PM on May 23, 2006
Oh, and it's maybe worth noting that smoking weed is increasingly being associated with having a spontaneous pneumothorax, so any of you in the at-risk group of tall, thin men under 30 out there might want to watch out for that. (After five lung collapses, I can testify that you really don't want it happening, ever. It really hurts.)
posted by jack_mo at 5:20 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by jack_mo at 5:20 PM on May 23, 2006
Doritos cures lung-cancer
Nothing so simple for so odious a foe.
8 out of 10 doctors who smoke the doob recommend a Doritos~Pretzel~All Dressed Ruffles dose @ 33% per, prefaced by a 7-Eleven hamburger/hoagie regimen and followed by a chocolate bar series on the 5 minute mark - Cherry Blossom, KitKat, Mr. Big, and finally Mint Aero.
posted by CynicalKnight at 5:24 PM on May 23, 2006
Nothing so simple for so odious a foe.
8 out of 10 doctors who smoke the doob recommend a Doritos~Pretzel~All Dressed Ruffles dose @ 33% per, prefaced by a 7-Eleven hamburger/hoagie regimen and followed by a chocolate bar series on the 5 minute mark - Cherry Blossom, KitKat, Mr. Big, and finally Mint Aero.
posted by CynicalKnight at 5:24 PM on May 23, 2006
8 out of 10 doctors who smoke the doob recommend a Doritos~Pretzel~All Dressed Ruffles dose @ 33% per, prefaced by a 7-Eleven hamburger/hoagie regimen and followed by a chocolate bar series on the 5 minute mark - Cherry Blossom, KitKat, Mr. Big, and finally Mint Aero.
I think I just threw up in my mouth a whole lot.
posted by loquacious at 5:46 PM on May 23, 2006
I think I just threw up in my mouth a whole lot.
posted by loquacious at 5:46 PM on May 23, 2006
(After five lung collapses, I can testify that you really don't want it happening, ever.
Tell me about it. Collapsing organs beyond four in the afternoon are guache, gauche, gauche. The help goes to pieces and the entire party is just over.
But not, admittedly, as gauche as mixing weed and tobacco. Oh, mother country, how could you be so very, very wrong? Surely there are pot fiends who don't smoke? What about them? Won't someone think of the stoners?
posted by Sparx at 5:50 PM on May 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
Tell me about it. Collapsing organs beyond four in the afternoon are guache, gauche, gauche. The help goes to pieces and the entire party is just over.
But not, admittedly, as gauche as mixing weed and tobacco. Oh, mother country, how could you be so very, very wrong? Surely there are pot fiends who don't smoke? What about them? Won't someone think of the stoners?
posted by Sparx at 5:50 PM on May 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
Collapsing organs beyond four in the afternoon are guache, gauche, gauche.
Yeah, my lungs are uncouth little fuckers. Actually, only the left one. The right remains uncollapsed.
But not, admittedly, as gauche as mixing weed and tobacco.
Weed snob. Are you a white person with dreadlocks? ;-)
posted by jack_mo at 6:03 PM on May 23, 2006
Yeah, my lungs are uncouth little fuckers. Actually, only the left one. The right remains uncollapsed.
But not, admittedly, as gauche as mixing weed and tobacco.
Weed snob. Are you a white person with dreadlocks? ;-)
posted by jack_mo at 6:03 PM on May 23, 2006
as gauche as mixing weed and tobacco
YMMV. I actually find that mixing ganj with a nice Dutch tobacco like Drum or Samson to be very pleasant, and I'm not a tobacco smoker.
posted by psmealey at 6:12 PM on May 23, 2006
YMMV. I actually find that mixing ganj with a nice Dutch tobacco like Drum or Samson to be very pleasant, and I'm not a tobacco smoker.
posted by psmealey at 6:12 PM on May 23, 2006
Must be smokin' some nasty stuff to be mixing it with tobacco.
.. says the asian person with dreadlocks.
posted by melt away at 6:18 PM on May 23, 2006
.. says the asian person with dreadlocks.
posted by melt away at 6:18 PM on May 23, 2006
My first Amsterdam joint messed me up beyond belief. It was only later that I realized, and a friend confirmed, that it was the tobacco content that did it. Vicious drug. After that everything was a-ok.
posted by dreamsign at 6:47 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by dreamsign at 6:47 PM on May 23, 2006
Well, yeah - that's why I was puzzled. You couldn't really do such a study here, because the majority of people who smoke weed smoke it with tobacco.
That's how it was when I was a teenager visiting Italy.
Must be smokin' some nasty stuff to be mixing it with tobacco.
.. says the asian person with dreadlocks.
They warm-up a piece of VERY potent and VERY tasty hashish and mix it in with tobacco as a base. It is awsome, but I agree american sensemelia/bud (Pacific Northwest) is the best.
posted by augustweed at 6:50 PM on May 23, 2006
That's how it was when I was a teenager visiting Italy.
Must be smokin' some nasty stuff to be mixing it with tobacco.
.. says the asian person with dreadlocks.
They warm-up a piece of VERY potent and VERY tasty hashish and mix it in with tobacco as a base. It is awsome, but I agree american sensemelia/bud (Pacific Northwest) is the best.
posted by augustweed at 6:50 PM on May 23, 2006
jack_mo writes: I guess the different traditions are down to gear being cheaper in the US, and the fact that in the past resin was more readily available than grass over here?
As far as I can tell, it is (was?) mostly to do with the relative lack of cannabis buds/preponderance of hashish in the UK. In my experience, hashish is relatively rare in the States, though not unheard of. However, the tradition of mixing tobacco and cannabis is a long one--see "Philly Blunts."
Having never smoked tobacco (seriously, not once), I really, really hope this news is true. An evening cocktail just doesn't do it for me.
posted by retronic at 6:51 PM on May 23, 2006
As far as I can tell, it is (was?) mostly to do with the relative lack of cannabis buds/preponderance of hashish in the UK. In my experience, hashish is relatively rare in the States, though not unheard of. However, the tradition of mixing tobacco and cannabis is a long one--see "Philly Blunts."
Having never smoked tobacco (seriously, not once), I really, really hope this news is true. An evening cocktail just doesn't do it for me.
posted by retronic at 6:51 PM on May 23, 2006
WooooHoooooo!!!!
posted by lordrunningclam at 7:00 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by lordrunningclam at 7:00 PM on May 23, 2006
Well then: I've learned something new today. I feel so provincial. (The one time I ever saw tobacco and grass mixed together was in Germany, but at the time I put it down to my companions being freaks; never realized it was the social norm over there.)
Based on that single experience, though, I insist that you're doing it wrong.
posted by ook at 7:50 PM on May 23, 2006
Based on that single experience, though, I insist that you're doing it wrong.
posted by ook at 7:50 PM on May 23, 2006
Please understand the difference between Drum, for instance, and the shit they pack in Marlboros or worse. Having smoked a lot of Drum I can vouch for the fact the experience is very different and the sensations much more pleasant.
That said, as a former tobacco smoker I cannot smoke it again, even if there were weed in it...
posted by rleamon at 7:56 PM on May 23, 2006
That said, as a former tobacco smoker I cannot smoke it again, even if there were weed in it...
posted by rleamon at 7:56 PM on May 23, 2006
Please understand the difference between Drum, for instance, and the shit they pack in Marlboros or worse.
Drum, or even better - Bali Shag.
Last time I broke open almost any (American) domestic pre-made (tailor made) smoke it appeared to be comprised mostly of re-constituted sheet tobacco - just like the cheap swill they sell as Bugler or Top brand handrolling tobacco.
posted by loquacious at 8:11 PM on May 23, 2006
Drum, or even better - Bali Shag.
Last time I broke open almost any (American) domestic pre-made (tailor made) smoke it appeared to be comprised mostly of re-constituted sheet tobacco - just like the cheap swill they sell as Bugler or Top brand handrolling tobacco.
posted by loquacious at 8:11 PM on May 23, 2006
Well, yeah - that's why I was puzzled. You couldn't really do such a study here, because the majority of people who smoke weed smoke it with tobacco.
Seriously? That sucks, tobacco smells so nasty and stick to your clothes, in a way that weed just dosn't.
posted by delmoi at 8:25 PM on May 23, 2006
Seriously? That sucks, tobacco smells so nasty and stick to your clothes, in a way that weed just dosn't.
posted by delmoi at 8:25 PM on May 23, 2006
Because if it weren't sufficiently legitimate research the poster would've been rejected by this conference?
Not really. It's a poster, not a paper and I can tell you from experience that they will take any old shit you can get to print at the requisite size for poster presentations.
Also as this data is being presented at a conference via poster it a) probably isn't hasn't been fully analyzed yet so these are preliminary findings and b) definitely hasn't been peer reviewed yet so the researcher could have dropped a decimal or something.
Wait until it makes it into a peer-reviewed journal before you rush out there and start toking up.
posted by fshgrl at 9:51 PM on May 23, 2006
Not really. It's a poster, not a paper and I can tell you from experience that they will take any old shit you can get to print at the requisite size for poster presentations.
Also as this data is being presented at a conference via poster it a) probably isn't hasn't been fully analyzed yet so these are preliminary findings and b) definitely hasn't been peer reviewed yet so the researcher could have dropped a decimal or something.
Wait until it makes it into a peer-reviewed journal before you rush out there and start toking up.
posted by fshgrl at 9:51 PM on May 23, 2006
Frankly, I don't believe it... I'll wait to read the paper, but we're talking about inhaling smoke here, whatever kind of smoke it may be. There is damage to your lungs from filling them with something other than air.
Cigarette smoke may contain more carcinogens, but as far as I'm concerned smoke is smoke and when you put it in your lungs somethings gotta die.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 9:55 PM on May 23, 2006
Cigarette smoke may contain more carcinogens, but as far as I'm concerned smoke is smoke and when you put it in your lungs somethings gotta die.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 9:55 PM on May 23, 2006
BlackLeotardFront
I remember reading a study not too long ago about the subject, and while I'm quite terrible at recalling the specifics I'll try to do justice to the general idea.
Basically all smoke has carcinogens in it, but for those carcinogens to actually cause cancer they need to not only corrupt the lung tissue, but also get the lung tissue to stay alive and begin reproducing corrupted cells.
Now lets say hypothetically all smoke regardless of type has a default corruption value of, say, "10" whatever that metric means.
Now the active ingredients of nicotine also effect the behavior of lung tissue, and in fact this behavioral change is quite advantageous to the cancer causing agents, upping tobaccos smoke's value by "20" to a total of "30" cancer points (whatever that means) by speeding up the cells life cycle, and making them more receptive to carcinogens are more likely to stay alive after being corrupted.
As it happens, the effect of marijuana also changes the behavior of lung cells in a manner that is instead quite disadvantages for the potential cancer. It's slows the cells growth, makes them less receptive to the carcinogens and more likely to die off once they are corrupted, unable to spit and reproduce. So in effect lets say marijuana has a corruption value of "-10" making Marijuana smoke a net of "0".
So while you are inhaling carcinogens, you break even more or less, and you would be less likely to develop cancer then if that same smoke was from a non drug, say, a wood burning stove.
I'm not a scientist, and I have a terrible memory for details so I'm 100% sure I got some of the specifics about the process wrong, but I am sure that my explanation gets the gist of the study across sufficiently and could explain why even though you are inhaling smoke, it's not necicarily going to cause cancer like just any regular smoke.
posted by Jezztek at 10:18 PM on May 23, 2006
I remember reading a study not too long ago about the subject, and while I'm quite terrible at recalling the specifics I'll try to do justice to the general idea.
Basically all smoke has carcinogens in it, but for those carcinogens to actually cause cancer they need to not only corrupt the lung tissue, but also get the lung tissue to stay alive and begin reproducing corrupted cells.
Now lets say hypothetically all smoke regardless of type has a default corruption value of, say, "10" whatever that metric means.
Now the active ingredients of nicotine also effect the behavior of lung tissue, and in fact this behavioral change is quite advantageous to the cancer causing agents, upping tobaccos smoke's value by "20" to a total of "30" cancer points (whatever that means) by speeding up the cells life cycle, and making them more receptive to carcinogens are more likely to stay alive after being corrupted.
As it happens, the effect of marijuana also changes the behavior of lung cells in a manner that is instead quite disadvantages for the potential cancer. It's slows the cells growth, makes them less receptive to the carcinogens and more likely to die off once they are corrupted, unable to spit and reproduce. So in effect lets say marijuana has a corruption value of "-10" making Marijuana smoke a net of "0".
So while you are inhaling carcinogens, you break even more or less, and you would be less likely to develop cancer then if that same smoke was from a non drug, say, a wood burning stove.
I'm not a scientist, and I have a terrible memory for details so I'm 100% sure I got some of the specifics about the process wrong, but I am sure that my explanation gets the gist of the study across sufficiently and could explain why even though you are inhaling smoke, it's not necicarily going to cause cancer like just any regular smoke.
posted by Jezztek at 10:18 PM on May 23, 2006
fshgrl: Also as this data is being presented at a conference via poster it a) probably isn't hasn't been fully analyzed yet so these are preliminary findings
The initial abstract (2nd link in my first post) was submitted to ICRS in Mar/Apr of last year.
definitely hasn't been peer reviewed yet so the researcher could have dropped a decimal or something.
Sure, but the researchers expected a causal relationship and were surprised by these results. I think they probably gave it a second look.
BlackLeotardFront: Cigarette smoke may contain more carcinogens, but as far as I'm concerned smoke is smoke and when you put it in your lungs somethings gotta die
We're talking about risk of cancer here. I'm sure I will have killed a few trillion cells if I scrape my skin against a rough surface, but I won't get cancer or heart disease from that (most probably!). Most long-term heavy smokers don't get lung cancer, so the function isn't f(smoke) = cancer, but f(substance smoked, dosage, genetic factors, yada yada) = cancer. As this BMJ editorial says, "This observation is relevant to lung cancer, which, although strongly related to cigarette smoking, typically only occurs after at least 20 years of smoking".
posted by daksya at 10:35 PM on May 23, 2006
The initial abstract (2nd link in my first post) was submitted to ICRS in Mar/Apr of last year.
definitely hasn't been peer reviewed yet so the researcher could have dropped a decimal or something.
Sure, but the researchers expected a causal relationship and were surprised by these results. I think they probably gave it a second look.
BlackLeotardFront: Cigarette smoke may contain more carcinogens, but as far as I'm concerned smoke is smoke and when you put it in your lungs somethings gotta die
We're talking about risk of cancer here. I'm sure I will have killed a few trillion cells if I scrape my skin against a rough surface, but I won't get cancer or heart disease from that (most probably!). Most long-term heavy smokers don't get lung cancer, so the function isn't f(smoke) = cancer, but f(substance smoked, dosage, genetic factors, yada yada) = cancer. As this BMJ editorial says, "This observation is relevant to lung cancer, which, although strongly related to cigarette smoking, typically only occurs after at least 20 years of smoking".
posted by daksya at 10:35 PM on May 23, 2006
that tobacco-mixing-with-weed is some foul-ass shit. my friend who adopted the habit after living in london for a couple years recently contaminated a nice tray of rolling shake with her goddamn tobacco.
thanks a lot, anne.
but hey, i guess it's the "little things" that make the difference -- creamed smoked eels, royalles with cheese, tobacco-in-the-marijuana vs. creamed chipped beef, quarter-pounders, and good old-fashioned regular weed, straight up and unadulterated.
USA! USA!
posted by Hat Maui at 1:02 AM on May 24, 2006
thanks a lot, anne.
but hey, i guess it's the "little things" that make the difference -- creamed smoked eels, royalles with cheese, tobacco-in-the-marijuana vs. creamed chipped beef, quarter-pounders, and good old-fashioned regular weed, straight up and unadulterated.
USA! USA!
posted by Hat Maui at 1:02 AM on May 24, 2006
I guess the different traditions are down to gear being cheaper in the US, and the fact that in the past resin was more readily available than grass over here?
That's it. In Europe I found hash was just as popular, if not more so, than plain-jane weed. Tobacco is added because of the need for a smoking medium with hash (if you smoke it as a joint). I don't know why anyone would do this with bud, however.
as far as I'm concerned smoke is smoke and when you put it in your lungs somethings gotta die.
Lung cancer != emphysema. You're killing air sacs one way or the other, it's just that one way is rife with carcinogens to boot, and the other isn't.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:10 AM on May 24, 2006
That's it. In Europe I found hash was just as popular, if not more so, than plain-jane weed. Tobacco is added because of the need for a smoking medium with hash (if you smoke it as a joint). I don't know why anyone would do this with bud, however.
as far as I'm concerned smoke is smoke and when you put it in your lungs somethings gotta die.
Lung cancer != emphysema. You're killing air sacs one way or the other, it's just that one way is rife with carcinogens to boot, and the other isn't.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:10 AM on May 24, 2006
Cigarette smoke may contain more carcinogens, but as far as I'm concerned smoke is smoke and when you put it in your lungs somethings gotta die.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am), but I remember reading somewhere ages ago that weed is an expectorant, and is therefore pushed out of your lungs almost as soon as it gets in, therefore minimising the amount of time it stays in your body, and doing less damage.
posted by hnnrs at 4:41 AM on May 24, 2006
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am), but I remember reading somewhere ages ago that weed is an expectorant, and is therefore pushed out of your lungs almost as soon as it gets in, therefore minimising the amount of time it stays in your body, and doing less damage.
posted by hnnrs at 4:41 AM on May 24, 2006
But even that's avoidable by using a vaporizer
Damn right!
Man I sure don't like tobacco in my weed. The tobacco fucks me up though.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:29 AM on May 24, 2006
Damn right!
Man I sure don't like tobacco in my weed. The tobacco fucks me up though.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:29 AM on May 24, 2006
As far as I can tell, it is (was?) mostly to do with the relative lack of cannabis buds/preponderance of hashish in the UK.
Now historical. I wouldn't know how to get bog-standard hash any more, just various varieties of skunk, and occasionally the more poncey types of resin. I chuckled last time I bought hash, in fact - it was such a nostalgic treat, and yet when I started smoking weed about 15 or 16 years ago, even half-decent grass was a cause for celebration.
Oh, and I've always put cheap shitty cigarette tobacco in joints. But then the taste of Benson & Hedges is indistiguishable from air as far as I'm concerned.
posted by jack_mo at 5:53 AM on May 24, 2006
Now historical. I wouldn't know how to get bog-standard hash any more, just various varieties of skunk, and occasionally the more poncey types of resin. I chuckled last time I bought hash, in fact - it was such a nostalgic treat, and yet when I started smoking weed about 15 or 16 years ago, even half-decent grass was a cause for celebration.
Oh, and I've always put cheap shitty cigarette tobacco in joints. But then the taste of Benson & Hedges is indistiguishable from air as far as I'm concerned.
posted by jack_mo at 5:53 AM on May 24, 2006
Yeah, I was going to say, hash seemed much more common in Madrid, but London certainly doesn't suffer from lack of weed (and it's cheap from an American perspective, too).
posted by ludwig_van at 6:16 AM on May 24, 2006
posted by ludwig_van at 6:16 AM on May 24, 2006
A possible hypothesis for the difference in cancer trates between weed and tobacco could be the radioactive components of tobacco. I'm not sure what the concentration of Polonium-210 is in marijuana, if any, but I've long thought that much of the increased cancer risk with tobacco comes from the fact that smoking it deposits radioactive waste in your lungs.
posted by nTeleKy at 7:18 AM on May 24, 2006
posted by nTeleKy at 7:18 AM on May 24, 2006
jack_mo: Thanks for that spontaneous pneumothorax tip, I just finished reading about it and I've had small ones before (that freaked me out). Occasionally I would get a sharp chest pain that increased when I breathed in and seemed to be related to some sort of obstruction, but I dismissed that thought as I couldn't imagine how such a thing would happen. I've mentioned it to doctors before, but they never seemed too interested. I'm also in my 20s, tall and skinny, and smoke, though I'm thinking between this and the chronic bronchitis I've had for the last year or so it might be time to quit.
I also found another article on radiation in tobacco.
posted by nTeleKy at 7:39 AM on May 24, 2006
I also found another article on radiation in tobacco.
posted by nTeleKy at 7:39 AM on May 24, 2006
Yeah, good to see a couple people finally hitting on why there would be a discrepancy: pot isn't mass-produced and f'ed up with 600 additional chemicals. That's what makes this something of a lie:
We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD.
We know that how? Where's that study? How did they determine the exact number and potency of carinogens in "cigarettes," when different companies' products vary in composition and to this day have some components guarded as trade secrets? If there is such a peer-reviewed study backing up this "fact," I'd love to see it.
posted by soyjoy at 9:30 AM on May 24, 2006
We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD.
We know that how? Where's that study? How did they determine the exact number and potency of carinogens in "cigarettes," when different companies' products vary in composition and to this day have some components guarded as trade secrets? If there is such a peer-reviewed study backing up this "fact," I'd love to see it.
posted by soyjoy at 9:30 AM on May 24, 2006
UK smokers seem intent upon ruining any good smoke with tobacco. While in Britain ten years ago, I was amazed at the lack of decent weed and the preponderance of really crap "hash". This wasn't the delightful, dreamy Morrocan treasure that I grew up with, rather a foul concoction that reeked of additives. I have heard that it may be cut with dung, motor oil, plastics and all other types of impurities. I refused to smoke it, and searched in vain for real weed, as I was there for eight months. Tobacco only improves a substance this vile!
On my last visit, it seemed that access to real marijuana has improved with the use of hydroponics becoming more common. Still, this foul hashlike substance is sold throughout the UK to this day. My brother, who lives there, refuses to smoke it, citing the aformentioned impurities. He also is against the mixing of pot and tobacco. Perhaps it's the years he spent in Canada, enjoying BC bud. However, most of his friends just add tobacco as a matter of course, no matter how good the weed. A travesty!
To all UK smokers, do avoid the "soap hash". Studies have shown that it may contain animal feces, ketamine, dirt, glue, vinyl, benzene, bitumen, etc. My brother tells me it is enjoying somewhat of a resurgence of popularity, and price has plummeted, making it very attractive to young people and students. DON'T SMOKE IT!!!
posted by alltomorrowsparties at 11:43 AM on May 24, 2006
On my last visit, it seemed that access to real marijuana has improved with the use of hydroponics becoming more common. Still, this foul hashlike substance is sold throughout the UK to this day. My brother, who lives there, refuses to smoke it, citing the aformentioned impurities. He also is against the mixing of pot and tobacco. Perhaps it's the years he spent in Canada, enjoying BC bud. However, most of his friends just add tobacco as a matter of course, no matter how good the weed. A travesty!
To all UK smokers, do avoid the "soap hash". Studies have shown that it may contain animal feces, ketamine, dirt, glue, vinyl, benzene, bitumen, etc. My brother tells me it is enjoying somewhat of a resurgence of popularity, and price has plummeted, making it very attractive to young people and students. DON'T SMOKE IT!!!
posted by alltomorrowsparties at 11:43 AM on May 24, 2006
Haha, I've never seen that shit man, but thanks for the heads up.
posted by ludwig_van at 11:48 AM on May 24, 2006
posted by ludwig_van at 11:48 AM on May 24, 2006
Oh I was saying that I was rather convinced that drug policies were and are based on racist policies (look at the number of minorities in jail for non-violent offenses). Added to the fact that marijuana and cocaine were made legal out of racial fears -- then we must assume reasonably that lacking other evidence it must be racist policies that keep them in place.
"Drugs are bad" are so indoctrinated in everyone's mind it seems to excuse the fact that the real harm from drugs are the policing actions that follow. Sorry for the rant.
posted by geoff. at 12:21 PM on May 24, 2006
"Drugs are bad" are so indoctrinated in everyone's mind it seems to excuse the fact that the real harm from drugs are the policing actions that follow. Sorry for the rant.
posted by geoff. at 12:21 PM on May 24, 2006
Yeah, they put ketamine in shit hash just like they put heroin in 50p ecstasy ;-)
Otherwise, alltomorrowsparties is dead right - my 13 year old self just about recalls that that stuff a) gives you the most painful headaches imaginable and b) doesn't get you high. It is only sold by unscrupulous dealers to children and the very stupid, so almost all MetaFilter users should be safe.
Whatever, the purpose of weed is to get you high - if folk choose to make it taste worse (in your view) with tobacco and it still gets them high, who gives a fuck? Weed purists: you're acting like people who prefer one dealer over another because he stamps his wraps of coke with a 'groovy' logo.
posted by jack_mo at 3:09 PM on May 24, 2006
Otherwise, alltomorrowsparties is dead right - my 13 year old self just about recalls that that stuff a) gives you the most painful headaches imaginable and b) doesn't get you high. It is only sold by unscrupulous dealers to children and the very stupid, so almost all MetaFilter users should be safe.
Whatever, the purpose of weed is to get you high - if folk choose to make it taste worse (in your view) with tobacco and it still gets them high, who gives a fuck? Weed purists: you're acting like people who prefer one dealer over another because he stamps his wraps of coke with a 'groovy' logo.
posted by jack_mo at 3:09 PM on May 24, 2006
Well, dunno about your preferences, but yeah, I guess I'm a bit of a "weed snob". I have had open access to some of the best weed in the world for more than two decades now and I would hate to taint it with commercial tobacco. The stone is so much cleaner and more intense, as you can draw in only so much smoke in a pull and all of the smoke (except for the paper) in a 100% pot joint is pot smoke.
As for the ketamine thing, a close relative with a lot of experience in the chemical arena has told me of their "special k-like" experiences with crappy UK hash. Ketamine itself is not that expensive if purchased in bulk and a little goes a long way. Purchased as a street drug, however it is quite expensive.
My brother is in college in the south of England, and has told me many of his peers have taken up the crappy hash again, as it is so inexpensive. I hear prices are half of what they were ten years ago. So, my advice stands DON'T SMOKE IT!
posted by alltomorrowsparties at 3:30 PM on May 24, 2006
As for the ketamine thing, a close relative with a lot of experience in the chemical arena has told me of their "special k-like" experiences with crappy UK hash. Ketamine itself is not that expensive if purchased in bulk and a little goes a long way. Purchased as a street drug, however it is quite expensive.
My brother is in college in the south of England, and has told me many of his peers have taken up the crappy hash again, as it is so inexpensive. I hear prices are half of what they were ten years ago. So, my advice stands DON'T SMOKE IT!
posted by alltomorrowsparties at 3:30 PM on May 24, 2006
you're acting like people who prefer one dealer over another because he stamps his wraps of coke with a 'groovy' logo.
i think a better analogy is that we avoid the dealer that mixes his cocaine with snuff.
posted by Hat Maui at 3:42 PM on May 24, 2006
i think a better analogy is that we avoid the dealer that mixes his cocaine with snuff.
posted by Hat Maui at 3:42 PM on May 24, 2006
I have had open access to some of the best weed in the world for more than two decades now
Next MeFi meetup will be at alltomorrowsparties' house.
posted by ook at 3:56 PM on May 24, 2006
Next MeFi meetup will be at alltomorrowsparties' house.
posted by ook at 3:56 PM on May 24, 2006
To all UK smokers, do avoid the "soap hash". Studies have shown that it may contain animal feces, ketamine, dirt, glue, vinyl, benzene, bitumen, etc
You fuckin' knows it, clart!
Burned a new hole in my tracksuit today,
Smoking Soap Bar without an ashtray,
Red-hot nylon dripping on my skin,
I ripped the fucker off, and threw it in the bin,
Soap Bar’s cheap, and so’s my clothes,
They’ve got to be cause of all the fucking holes,
It tastes like shit and it makes you cough,
And it’s the fucking rubber in it that gets you off.
Yeah, I smoke Soap Bar with lots of bits of plastic,
I leaves mine in it cause it tastes fantastic,
Skunk costs too much, I can’t see the appeal,
Of smoking Port Rocky, Soap Bar or Gold Seal,
Smoke Rocky in a bong, bucket or hot-knives,
Bake it in a cake for your Mam as a surprise,
I smokes Green, and it’s gone in an instant,
But Soap Bar lasts, cause it’s fucking consistent.
Smoking on up, Soap Bar in the sky,
I’ll smoke Soap Bar ‘till I fucking die,
Before I die and they lay me to rest,
I will always smoke Soap Bar, that’s the best.
Last night I went out driving in my car,
I sparked up a fat spliff of fucking Soap Bar,
A Blim-burn burned right down to my dick,
And while I was distracted, I fucking crashed into a
Brick wall, the car was fucking battered,
The bonnet flipped up and the windscreen shattered,
You’re better off smoking The Green instead,
Cause it don’t Blim-Burn and it’s better for your head.
Soap Bar! Sitting in a deep sweat,
Thinking! I’ve got to get some Rocky for the,
Weekend! The sight of Draw excites me,
Stick it in a bong, light it up and chug a fucking,
Whitey! Burning holes in my tracky,
This shit always happens when I’m smoking fucking Rocky,
You’ve heard it on the news; you’ve seen it on the telly,
Add up for moving Soap Bar down fucking Liz Werry
“I do it like a little cause light the fucking thing as always”
I used to smoke Skunky but it was far too smelly, man!
Smoking on up, Soap Bar in the sky,
I’ll smoke Soap Bar ‘till I fucking die,
Before I die and they lay me to rest,
I will always smoke Soap Bar, that’s the best.
Most Soap Bar comes from fucking Holland,
They make it out of oil, and tires and pollen,
Diesel, Miramar, Flat-Press too;
These are types of Soap Bar available to you,
These little bits of plastic you find inside;
You can use those as a quality guide,
Of the standard of Soap Bar that you are smoking,
The more bits of plastic means the better the toking.
Eat a Hash-cake but wait a while,
It’ll take about an hour ain’t Draw versatile,
You can burn it, eat it, or smoke it in a spliff,
Space shakes, Draw gateau’s, you knows it Delia Smith,
Lying in your bed dropping blimps on your pubes,
Selling Draw to your mates but it’s really Oxo cubes,
When you’re cooking up draw, be quick don’t lick it,
Cause it’s really fucking hot and it’ll burn your fingers.
This bloke said to me; “You haven’t got a clue,
About the damage that Soap Bar can do to you”,
I tried to see things from his point of view,
But I couldn’t fit my head up his asshole too,
The bloke was wrong, I knows my stuff,
I knows if I smoke it, I’m gonna feel rough,
My lungs are fucked and my throat is raw,
Cause the thing about Soap Bar; it’s fucking hardcore.
Smoking on up, Soap Bar in the sky,
I’ll smoke Soap Bar ‘till I fucking die,
Before I die and they lay me to rest,
I will always smoke Soap Bar, that’s the best.
Well anyway I think it’s better myself to lean forwards,
When smoking Soap Bar, because you are less likely to Blim-Burn,
You know what I mean?
Innit, check it out man! I got some quality fucking Gold-Seal for you, innit?
Shape up all those little bits of plastic what you find inside, right,
And then fucking stick them in a teapot,
Makes a lovely cup of tea, that does.
What I do, stick a fag in the microwave, right,
You toke it up, you sticks the Draw on top,
And you rams it in a bong and you rams the bong in your fucking head.
Yeah that’s like my fucking lungs feel like,
They’re fucking collapsing sometimes from the Soap Bar like,
You know?
Soap Bar,
Goldie Looking Chain
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:45 PM on May 24, 2006
You fuckin' knows it, clart!
Burned a new hole in my tracksuit today,
Smoking Soap Bar without an ashtray,
Red-hot nylon dripping on my skin,
I ripped the fucker off, and threw it in the bin,
Soap Bar’s cheap, and so’s my clothes,
They’ve got to be cause of all the fucking holes,
It tastes like shit and it makes you cough,
And it’s the fucking rubber in it that gets you off.
Yeah, I smoke Soap Bar with lots of bits of plastic,
I leaves mine in it cause it tastes fantastic,
Skunk costs too much, I can’t see the appeal,
Of smoking Port Rocky, Soap Bar or Gold Seal,
Smoke Rocky in a bong, bucket or hot-knives,
Bake it in a cake for your Mam as a surprise,
I smokes Green, and it’s gone in an instant,
But Soap Bar lasts, cause it’s fucking consistent.
Smoking on up, Soap Bar in the sky,
I’ll smoke Soap Bar ‘till I fucking die,
Before I die and they lay me to rest,
I will always smoke Soap Bar, that’s the best.
Last night I went out driving in my car,
I sparked up a fat spliff of fucking Soap Bar,
A Blim-burn burned right down to my dick,
And while I was distracted, I fucking crashed into a
Brick wall, the car was fucking battered,
The bonnet flipped up and the windscreen shattered,
You’re better off smoking The Green instead,
Cause it don’t Blim-Burn and it’s better for your head.
Soap Bar! Sitting in a deep sweat,
Thinking! I’ve got to get some Rocky for the,
Weekend! The sight of Draw excites me,
Stick it in a bong, light it up and chug a fucking,
Whitey! Burning holes in my tracky,
This shit always happens when I’m smoking fucking Rocky,
You’ve heard it on the news; you’ve seen it on the telly,
Add up for moving Soap Bar down fucking Liz Werry
“I do it like a little cause light the fucking thing as always”
I used to smoke Skunky but it was far too smelly, man!
Smoking on up, Soap Bar in the sky,
I’ll smoke Soap Bar ‘till I fucking die,
Before I die and they lay me to rest,
I will always smoke Soap Bar, that’s the best.
Most Soap Bar comes from fucking Holland,
They make it out of oil, and tires and pollen,
Diesel, Miramar, Flat-Press too;
These are types of Soap Bar available to you,
These little bits of plastic you find inside;
You can use those as a quality guide,
Of the standard of Soap Bar that you are smoking,
The more bits of plastic means the better the toking.
Eat a Hash-cake but wait a while,
It’ll take about an hour ain’t Draw versatile,
You can burn it, eat it, or smoke it in a spliff,
Space shakes, Draw gateau’s, you knows it Delia Smith,
Lying in your bed dropping blimps on your pubes,
Selling Draw to your mates but it’s really Oxo cubes,
When you’re cooking up draw, be quick don’t lick it,
Cause it’s really fucking hot and it’ll burn your fingers.
This bloke said to me; “You haven’t got a clue,
About the damage that Soap Bar can do to you”,
I tried to see things from his point of view,
But I couldn’t fit my head up his asshole too,
The bloke was wrong, I knows my stuff,
I knows if I smoke it, I’m gonna feel rough,
My lungs are fucked and my throat is raw,
Cause the thing about Soap Bar; it’s fucking hardcore.
Smoking on up, Soap Bar in the sky,
I’ll smoke Soap Bar ‘till I fucking die,
Before I die and they lay me to rest,
I will always smoke Soap Bar, that’s the best.
Well anyway I think it’s better myself to lean forwards,
When smoking Soap Bar, because you are less likely to Blim-Burn,
You know what I mean?
Innit, check it out man! I got some quality fucking Gold-Seal for you, innit?
Shape up all those little bits of plastic what you find inside, right,
And then fucking stick them in a teapot,
Makes a lovely cup of tea, that does.
What I do, stick a fag in the microwave, right,
You toke it up, you sticks the Draw on top,
And you rams it in a bong and you rams the bong in your fucking head.
Yeah that’s like my fucking lungs feel like,
They’re fucking collapsing sometimes from the Soap Bar like,
You know?
Soap Bar,
Goldie Looking Chain
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:45 PM on May 24, 2006
Just say fuckit and have a bucket.....
posted by alltomorrowsparties at 5:17 PM on May 24, 2006
posted by alltomorrowsparties at 5:17 PM on May 24, 2006
Next MeFi meetup will be at alltomorrowsparties' house.
Hee, totally. And I only smoke every few months nowadays.
The stone is so much cleaner and more intense
I've never found there to be a difference, even with the fancy named varieties, and just find it much easier to smoke a joint with tobacco in it, and that it improves the flavour of the more raspy types (probably only applies if you're a heavy tobacco smoker).
Hey ho, each to their own, and sorry for the weed snob jibe - I think I've just spent too much of my life sitting around being bored by pot-heads who seem to enjoy discussing the subtle nuances of different types of weed and various arcane smoking procedures more than they do getting battered the bloody stuff!
posted by jack_mo at 5:36 PM on May 24, 2006
Hee, totally. And I only smoke every few months nowadays.
The stone is so much cleaner and more intense
I've never found there to be a difference, even with the fancy named varieties, and just find it much easier to smoke a joint with tobacco in it, and that it improves the flavour of the more raspy types (probably only applies if you're a heavy tobacco smoker).
Hey ho, each to their own, and sorry for the weed snob jibe - I think I've just spent too much of my life sitting around being bored by pot-heads who seem to enjoy discussing the subtle nuances of different types of weed and various arcane smoking procedures more than they do getting battered the bloody stuff!
posted by jack_mo at 5:36 PM on May 24, 2006
I'm not a weed snob, I'm a connoisseur.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:36 PM on May 24, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by ludwig_van at 5:36 PM on May 24, 2006 [1 favorite]
Because I buy my bling-bling at Elizabeth Arden rather than Jacob The Jeweller, that doesn't make me a chav!
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:24 AM on May 25, 2006
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:24 AM on May 25, 2006
Oh and btw, I'm English, and though I smoke very rarely these days (the occasional trip to Amsterdam, etc.) I only smoke grass, and never with tobacco.
Weed ruins a good cigarette.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:27 AM on May 25, 2006
Weed ruins a good cigarette.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:27 AM on May 25, 2006
« Older So, I nearly got killed today... | Tips from behind the counter Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by zenzizi at 3:12 PM on May 23, 2006