Joint decision

[Amaterasu]

Also...

From:  http://www.acsa2000.net/HealthAlert/lungcancer.html

Ever wonder why the Cancer Rate among Smokers was so much higher than the threat posed by Carcinogens in Cigarettes? According to Robert Martin (his article is below) the Polonium 210, a highly bioactive, radiogenic agent, is being steadily deposited in minute quantities in your lungs as you smoke.  The Polonium 210 deposited in the average "pack a day" smoker, which has a half life of 158+ days (that means half of it's mass is converted into lead, and the radioactive emissions are delivered directly to your lungs), delivers enough radiation as it decays; to be equal to the amount of radiation you'd get if you had between 300 and 8000 Chest X-Rays per year. 
According to Mr. Martin and other experts:

The Polonium decays gradually (1/2 of its mass per 158 days) into Lead (which is also a poisonous toxin and carcinogen). The Polonium comes from the Calcium Phosphate based fertilizer, Tobacco plants love it (because Polonium is metabolized like Calcium by the Plants, the confuses it for one of the nutrients the needs). That amount of Polonium 210 is enough to cause your Lungs to become riddled with Tumors over 2 to 6 decades, depending upon your susceptibility to the mutations in your tissues all the radioactivity being delivered to your Lungs will ultimately lead to.  And it effects almost 90% of all smokers, at least those who by their mid life to elder years, have not already succumbed to heart disease, stroke, mouth and gum cancers, emphysema and other Tobacco related diseases. 

150,000 American's die each year of Lung Cancer (Tobacco linked illnesses are the #1 killer in our country, by the way).  Globally, between 700 and 800,000 people die annually of Lung Cancer. Smoking is considered its #1 cause.  And yet, Tobacco could be grown in ammonium-phosphate based or Organic fertilizers, ELIMINATING most of the toxic radioactive substance (Polonium 210) which is generally not found in such fertilizer.  It has been estimated that such could reduce Cancers among Tobacco Smokers by as much as nearly 85-95% !! That is because for Cancer to occur, changes that lead to it need to take place in the biophysiology of an otherwise healthy person, so that the normal immunities to cancer development are defeated.   Like "elevating the noise" in a noisy room, Polonium 210 radiation exposure appears to elevate the amount of toxic-factors in the cells of the Lungs at the molecular level, causing changes and damage that could lead to very severe Cancers, changes that allow other carcinogenic effects of smoking and lifestyle to take root, leading to vastly higher probability of all out Lung Cancer in the Smoker.

So, why aren't the Tobacco Growing and Brokering Companies quickly moving to remedy this problem?  It has been suggested that this is because, once you eliminated the vast number of cancers made possible by the constant exposure in Smoker's Lungs to radioactive Polonium 210, deposited in minute quantities over the decades in all active and passive smokers' lungs, then the Cigarette Companies would resultantly be responsible for the remaining thousands upon thousands of lung cancer cases that were caused just by Tobacco smoke's own potentially health hazardous, carcinogenic elements!  Can you imagine the audacity of the Tobacco Brokers who, knowing this, hide their own responsibility for some of the Cancer by ignoring the methods of their Tobacco Growers who use calcium phosphate based fertilizer, in order to avoid legal culpability by skewing the statistical correlation?  One set of responsibility hidden behind equal degrees of negligence, leading to such murderous consequences? Astonishing and frightening, isn't it?

Could it be that the Tobacco Brokering Companies and the Cigarette Manufacturers, through negligence or premeditated conspiracy with the Tobacco Growers, thereby ultimately responsible for the small doses of Radiation delivered to their customers in every breath they take in when smoking their products?  Are they thereby knowingly responsible for the murder of millions of people every decade, all in order to attempt to reduce their own direct legal liability for the lung and throat cancers Cigarette Smoking has been allegedly more directly causing thousands from the tar and ash?  They've known since 1963, according to Mr. Martin, that the use of cheap calcium phosphate based fertilizers by the Tobacco growers in the past 50 years has changed Tobacco into a progressive radiation delivery vehicle that may be the single most overwhelming contributor to Lung Cancer over the course of the life of a Smoker by virtue of "across the threshold" mutation of Lung tissue into a fertile bed for massive tumorous growths (as evidenced by the unusually degenerated state of the Lungs when removed post mortem from a Lung Cancer sufferer, go to any medical library and take a look at smoker's cancer ridden Lungs, if you don't believe this!)  But the Tobacco Industry has done nothing at all to change that.  Why? 

We even asked the world's largest Tobacco products producer, and ended up being funneled off to a technology company to answer our question, by their Customer Service Department, which technology company had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with tobacco in any way.

That company, Phillip Morris, was singled out in Israel for a lawsuit by one of the leading Legal experts in that tiny country, by the son of the prosecutor  who brought many Nazi's to justice in Nurenburg, Germany, after the end of WWII.  Amos Hausner sued Phillip Morris in June 2000 for "poisoning Israelis with radioactive Tobacco" citing memos that Phillip Morris knew about the Polonium contamination due to calcium phosphate fertilizer, but did not convince any of the Tobacco Growers who supplied it, to switch to Polonium 210 free fertilizer, thereby leading to 10,000 deaths among Israelis every year.  An article in the Middle East Times conveys the gravity of this situation more clearly: click here.

In the USA, with almost 20 times the death rate, it has been estimated that Lung Cancer kills about 500 people every day of the week 365 days per year, on the average.  Recently, on 9/11/2002, in the horrific World Trade Center disaster, some 3000 people were reported killed when Al Qaeda / Osamma Bin Laden Terrorists, flew four jet liners into the Trade Centers and the Pentagon, killing many, many innocent people, firemen, policemen, Ems workers and government officials. 

While the comparisons are between entirely different circumstances, and no one is attempting to minimize either of them, just for the sake of magnitude, were one to compare the losses in that National Tragedy to the losses to Lung Cancer each year, one would have to fly 200 Jetliners into 50 Trade Centers, and the Pentagon, every year indefinitely, just to have the same number of deaths as Lung Cancer is causing.  The notion is staggering.

Any expert in Radiation and its consequences, can tell you that the constant exposure to decaying Polonium 210 and Radon gasses found in Cigarette Smoke is ultimately going to be fatal in 90% of the cases of long term exposure that a lifetime of smoking brings about.  We asked the United States Nuclear Regulatory Agency's top scientists who not only confirmed that the radioactivity and the Polonium 210 was found in Tobacco.  And our interviews with experts in cancer have brought us to conclude that this factor has to be responsible for the vast, vast majority of the Lung Cancer among lifelong Smokers?  What could possibly justify the position of the Tobacco Industry to allow this situation to continue?

From:  http://www.hempworld.com/HempPharm/articles/why_cigs_kill.html

Tobacco crops grown in the United States are fertilized by law with phosphates rich in radium 226. In addition, many soils have a natural radium 226 content. Radium 226 breaks down into two long lived 'daughter' elements -- lead 210 and polonium 210. These radioactive particles become airborne, and attach themselves to the fine hairs on tobacco leaves.

Still looking for the law.

[Pimander]

Amy, everyone who smokes weed knows that a newbie can't handle as much as a hard-core smoker.  The reason is you develop tolerance to something you imbibe regularly.

Are you saying you have not observed that?   

[Somamech]

Although i have no idea what this thread is about and only saw the last post about comparing a newbie and an oldie regarding a toke.

I might suggest people refrain from caffein for ONE week... You will be suprised how much that Does effect you :O

[Anthra]

I'd suggest smoking weed is more useful if you want to write music than it is useful for reducing hypertension. 


It should be up to the individual whether they smoke weed.  What I object to is pretending that one particular drug is harmless when smoking DOES CAUSE CANCER.

I would suggest that writing music while stoned is far more effective, especially over the short term, than any drug. The high and the music will provide a far more natural way to reduce tension than any drug does by altering the way your heart beats (as mine does).

No argument on whether smoking is harmful or not; it is. Inhaling any kind of smoke is harmful on a rather basic level. But, it is currently the preferred method. Eating it takes longer to get high, and provides less immediate control over the intensity.

I've been thinking that doing a thing like they have done with nicotine might be better. Retain immediate control, reduce risk.

[Amaterasu]

Amy, everyone who smokes weed knows that a newbie can't handle as much as a hard-core smoker.  The reason is you develop tolerance to something you imbibe regularly.

Are you saying you have not observed that?   

Yes, there is an adjustment period (do not drive until You know how this medicine affects You).  Beyond that, though, there is no further "degradation" of experience.  Unlike things like oxycontin and other such substances, which DO degrade in experience, and there is no point at which that degradation stops, the cannabis experience reaches a point at which a given amount will do the same as it did yesterday or a week or a month ago.

[Amaterasu]

I might suggest people refrain from caffein for ONE week... You will be suprised how much that Does effect you :O

I did that once.  By the end of the week, the withdrawal headache was so severe that I literally walked into walls thinking I was headed through a door.  I was MISERABLE!

Finally had one cup of coffee - the headache went away and I felt fine.  OK, I thought, maintenance level.

I drink vastly less coffee now than I did before THAT experience...but I doubt I will willingly give it up.  (Besides, My morning cup is the only treat I allow Myself.  It is My special elixir of life.)

[Pimander]

I've been thinking that doing a thing like they have done with nicotine might be better. Retain immediate control, reduce risk.

Tempting.  You can even use the leaves and stems to get oil which many smokers throw out here (just smoke buds).

They would come down heavily on me though with my training.

[Amaterasu]

Do you have any stats on the deaths caused by pharmacy drugs every year vs. pot deaths? Pharmacy would need to include all doctor given prescriptions. The direct pot deaths from "Pot Cancer" can not include people who also smoked cigarettes.

From:  http://archive.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/

Many people die from alcohol use. Nobody dies from marijuana use. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 37,000 annual U.S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado, are attributed to alcohol use alone (i.e. this figure does not include accidental deaths). On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana.

    People die from alcohol overdoses. There has never been a fatal marijuana overdose. The official publication of the Scientific Research Society, American Scientist, reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect could lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This "thousands of times" is actually theoretical, since there has never been a case of an individual dying from a marijuana overdose. Meanwhile, according to the CDC, hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur the United States each year.

    The health-related costs associated with alcohol use far exceed those for marijuana use. Health-related costs for alcohol consumers are eight times greater than those for marijuana consumers, according to an assessment recently published in the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal. More specifically, the annual cost of alcohol consumption is $165 per user, compared to just $20 per user for marijuana. This should not come as a surprise given the vast amount of research that shows alcohol poses far more – and more significant – health problems than marijuana.

    Alcohol use damages the brain. Marijuana use does not. Despite the myths we've heard throughout our lives about marijuana killing brain cells, it turns out that a growing number of studies seem to indicate that marijuana actually has neuroprotective properties. This means that it works to protect brain cells from harm. For example, one recent study found that teens who used marijuana as well as alcohol suffered significantly less damage to the white matter in their brains. Of course, what is beyond question is that alcohol damages brain cells.

    Alcohol use is linked to cancer. Marijuana use is not. Alcohol use is associated with a wide variety of cancers, including cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, lungs, pancreas, liver and prostate. Marijuana use has not been conclusively associated with any form of cancer. In fact, one study recently contradicted the long-time government claim that marijuana use is associated with head and neck cancers. It found that marijuana use actually reduced the likelihood of head and neck cancers. If you are concerned about marijuana being associated with lung cancer, you may be interested in the results of the largest case-controlled study ever conducted to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking and cigarette smoking. Released in 2006, the study, conducted by Dr. Donald Tashkin at the University of California at Los Angeles, found that marijuana smoking was not associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer. Surprisingly, the researchers found that people who smoked marijuana actually had lower incidences of cancer compared to non-users of the drug.

    Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana. Addiction researchers have consistently reported that marijuana is far less addictive than alcohol based on a number of factors. In particular, alcohol use can result in significant and potentially fatal physical withdrawal, whereas marijuana has not been found to produce any symptoms of physical withdrawal. Those who use alcohol are also much more likely to develop dependence and build tolerance.

    Alcohol use increases the risk of injury to the consumer. Marijuana use does not. Many people who have consumed alcohol or know others who have consumed alcohol would not be surprised to hear that it greatly increases the risk of serious injury. Research published this year in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, found that 36 percent of hospitalized assaults and 21 percent of all injuries are attributable to alcohol use by the injured person. Meanwhile, the American Journal of Emergency Medicine reported that lifetime use of marijuana is rarely associated with emergency room visits. According to the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, this is because: "Cannabis differs from alcohol ... in one major respect. It does not seem to increase risk-taking behavior. This means that cannabis rarely contributes to violence either to others or to oneself, whereas alcohol use is a major factor in deliberate self-harm, domestic accidents and violence." Interestingly enough, some research has even shown that marijuana use has been associated with a decreased risk of injury.

Point is:  NO ONE has dies from cannabis.  Period.

From:  http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#sthash.v3bc9OEm.dpbs  (Sorry this is so diff. to read.  It is in a table there & I don't have the patience to format here.)

(Annual Causes of Death, By Cause)
Cause of death (Data from 2010 unless otherwise noted)    Number
   
All Causes    2,468,435
   
Diseases of Heart    780,213
Malignant Neoplasms [Cancer]    574,743
Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases    138,080
Cerebrovascular Diseases    129,476
Accidents (Unintentional Injuries) [Total]    120,859
   Motor Vehicle Accidents [subset of Total Accidents]       35,332
Alzheimer's Disease    83,494
Diabetes Mellitus    69,071
Nephritis, Nephrotic Syndrome and Nephrosis    50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia    50,097
Drug-Induced Deaths1    40,393
Intentional Self-Harm (Suicide)    38,364
Septicemia    34,812
Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis    31,903
Firearm Injuries    31,672
Essential Hypertension and Hypertensive Renal Disease    26,634
Alcohol-Induced Deaths    25,692
Parkinson's Disease    22,032
Pneumonitis Due to Solids and Liquids    17,011
Homicide    16,259
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)    8,369
Viral hepatitis    7,564
All Illicit Drugs Combined (2000)2    17,0002
Cannabis (Marijuana)3    0

2010 Drug Overdose Mortality Data In Detail as Reported By Paulozzi et al.4
Drug Overdose Total    38,329
Pharmaceutical Drugs    22,134
Pharmaceutical Opioid Analgesics    16,651
- See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#sthash.v3bc9OEm.dpuf

[ArMaP]

From:  http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/radioactive-tobacco.2012-07-15

I suppose you noticed that, although that link points to a University of California, Berkeley, the text is a post from an anonymous poster to a forum on that Berkeley site, and, apparently, based on information from a site from the same of your next post.

[Amaterasu]

Why, thank You, ArMaP.  So it does; so You're right.  [smile]

[ArMaP]

Does anyone know of any case of death by tobacco overdose?

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

I might suggest people refrain from caffein for ONE week... You will be suprised how much that Does effect you :O

It would kill me....

[ArMaP]

I might suggest people refrain from caffein for ONE week... You will be suprised how much that Does effect you :O

I don't drink coffee.

[robomont]

Gave you gold amy for that levine article.he has been on the pot scene for a long time and i never saw that article before.good job.

[Sinny]

It would kill me....

Ditto.