FARK.com: (6870770) "Marijuana smokers performed better on tests of lung function compared to nonsmokers and cigarette smokers" Put that in your pipe and smoke it

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		"Marijuana smokers performed better on tests of lung function compared to nonsmokers and cigarette smokers" Put that in your pipe and smoke it (healthland.time.com)		388
		More: Interesting, marijuana, cigarette smokers, lung function, lung capacity, biostatistics, system testing, lungs, military capability

• • •

8769 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jan 2012 at 12:34 AM | Favorite | share:

more» |

Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends!

shirt it!

Share this link:

URL:

http://fk.cm/go/6870770

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

388 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

Party Boy

2012-01-10 08:58:34 PM

Weaver95

2012-01-10 09:00:53 PM

won't matter - the drug warriors still won't accept scientific evidence as any valid reason to rethink the war on drugs.

Kazan

2012-01-10 09:07:48 PM

Correlation does not imply causation.

now what would make sense to be the cause is i understand that tokers take long draws and try to hold it in their lungs longer, yes?

Weaver95: won't matter - the drug warriors still won't accept scientific evidence as any valid reason to rethink the war on drugs.

i think stoners are the biggest farking losers on the planet - but legally the only problem i have with them is them turning it into an aerosol. any other consumption method and "i don't care" [but i still think you're a loser]

Weaver95

2012-01-10 09:09:58 PM

Kazan: i think stoners are the biggest farking losers on the planet - but legally the only problem i have with them is them turning it into an aerosol. any other consumption method and "i don't care" [but i still think you're a loser]

so you just hate the idea of smoking, cannabis isn't really an issue for you. kind of stupid but it's an acceptable compromise.

A Fark Handle

2012-01-10 09:17:19 PM

no shiat...doesn't seem surprising.

Kazan

2012-01-10 09:18:06 PM

Weaver95: so you just hate the idea of smoking, cannabis isn't really an issue for you. kind of stupid but it's an acceptable compromise.

not stupid at all - because it denies me my right not to smoke. If they want their "right to put [or not] whatever they want in their body, so long as it isn't harming anyone" then i'm going to demand the part after the comma be respected. I demand MY right to not put that item into my body respected.

but any other form of consumption (aka one that doesn't put it into the air), legally? have at it

and before someone brings up the "PROPERTY RIGHTS!!!" argument - that argument fails you - because since you're creating an aerosol you are violating my property rights when it crosses the property line along with my bodily rights

GAT_00

2012-01-10 09:19:31 PM

The improvement wasn't seen in the heaviest users, however.

So the majority of you stoners can still shut up.

Weaver95

2012-01-10 09:20:41 PM

Kazan: Weaver95: so you just hate the idea of smoking, cannabis isn't really an issue for you. kind of stupid but it's an acceptable compromise.

not stupid at all - because it denies me my right not to smoke. If they want their "right to put [or not] whatever they want in their body, so long as it isn't harming anyone" then i'm going to demand the part after the comma be respected. I demand MY right to not put that item into my body respected.

but any other form of consumption (aka one that doesn't put it into the air), legally? have at it

and before someone brings up the "PROPERTY RIGHTS!!!" argument - that argument fails you - because since you're creating an aerosol you are violating my property rights when it crosses the property line along with my bodily rights

or, you know, you can STFU and leave the room.

A Fark Handle

2012-01-10 09:28:03 PM

GAT_00: The improvement wasn't seen in the heaviest users, however.

So the majority of you stoners can still shut up.

from TFA: FEV1 slipped back to levels seen in nonusers...FVC remained high in even the longest term, heaviest users.

fev1 didn't improve, but didn't decline. and i've got a feeling the researchers didn't draw the line for "heaviest users" at the 50th percentile. it's probably just the top 20 or 25%. where's your majority now?

Kazan

2012-01-10 09:28:21 PM

Weaver95: or, you know, you can STFU and leave the room.

*facepalm*

or you can actually stop being an idiot and understand that "room" is not involved here. "wafting from your property onto mine" is. and before you say "but but it's not enough to do harm" - the actually science says otherwise.

and remember the fundamentals of the theory of rights - if i have to change my actions to avoid you violating my rights, then you are still violating my rights.

Weaver95

2012-01-10 09:31:52 PM

Kazan: Weaver95: or, you know, you can STFU and leave the room.

*facepalm*

or you can actually stop being an idiot and understand that "room" is not involved here. "wafting from your property onto mine" is. and before you say "but but it's not enough to do harm" - the actually science says otherwise.

and remember the fundamentals of the theory of rights - if i have to change my actions to avoid you violating my rights, then you are still violating my rights.

stop shoving your nose under the door then. yeesh.

thismomentinblackhistory

2012-01-10 09:33:03 PM

Weaver95: stop shoving your nose under the door then. yeesh.

Kazan is a time traveler from the future where marijuana is openly smoked in public places and an annoyance to others.

GAT_00

2012-01-10 09:34:41 PM

A Fark Handle: GAT_00: The improvement wasn't seen in the heaviest users, however.

So the majority of you stoners can still shut up.

from TFA: FEV1 slipped back to levels seen in nonusers...FVC remained high in even the longest term, heaviest users.

fev1 didn't improve, but didn't decline. and i've got a feeling the researchers didn't draw the line for "heaviest users" at the 50th percentile. it's probably just the top 20 or 25%. where's your majority now?

Stoners have good deep breathing habits, since you have to hold in the smoke. That really shouldn't be surprising. But keep trying to find excuses for your drug.

A Fark Handle

2012-01-10 09:37:49 PM

GAT_00: A Fark Handle: GAT_00: The improvement wasn't seen in the heaviest users, however.

So the majority of you stoners can still shut up.

from TFA: FEV1 slipped back to levels seen in nonusers...FVC remained high in even the longest term, heaviest users.

fev1 didn't improve, but didn't decline. and i've got a feeling the researchers didn't draw the line for "heaviest users" at the 50th percentile. it's probably just the top 20 or 25%. where's your majority now?

Stoners have good deep breathing habits, since you have to hold in the smoke. That really shouldn't be surprising. But keep trying to find excuses for your drug.

not a stoner. just a fan of correctly interpreting medical research. also, i dislike the war on weed. some other drugs are dangerous. weed is probably less harmful than tylenol or aspirin.

/lung cancer results for weed would be interesting.

shanrick

2012-01-10 09:43:45 PM

cretinbob

2012-01-10 09:47:32 PM

That's why it's good for asthma

Aarontology

2012-01-10 09:51:48 PM

The best thing about the war on drugs is that it has a little something for everyone.

The cops get another way to put poor black folks in prison, and break into your home if they "think they hear evidence being destroyed" with no consequence
Conservatives get to control more of your life and give money to private contractors
Liberals get to tax people more in order to pay for enforcement and hold your hand through life
Businesses get to use it as a method of control over their employees and as leverage in hiring and benefits practices,
Cartels get an unbelievably lucrative revenue source and insane amounts of power
Racists get to see more Mexicans dead and intimidated by the cartels which leads to more illegal immigration

And so on.

Jamdug!

2012-01-10 10:03:02 PM

They have more practice breathing deeply?

/DNRTA

GAT_00

2012-01-10 10:03:15 PM

A Fark Handle: not a stoner. just a fan of correctly interpreting medical research. also, i dislike the war on weed. some other drugs are dangerous. weed is probably less harmful than tylenol or aspirin.

/lung cancer results for weed would be interesting.

I dislike the whole thing in general because lots of people who trumpet research like this don't really give a fark one way or another. They're just looking for excuses to try to get their drug legalized. There is probably groups of cocaine addicts trying to do the same thing.

adamgreeney

2012-01-10 10:05:32 PM

Aarontology

2012-01-10 10:23:18 PM

GAT_00: I dislike the whole thing in general because lots of people who trumpet research like this don't really give a fark one way or another. They're just looking for excuses to try to get their drug legalized. There is probably groups of cocaine addicts trying to do the same thing.

Downplaying and ignoring scientific research in favor of ideology. It's not just for Republicans!

AbbeySomeone

2012-01-10 10:27:03 PM

cretinbob: That's why it's good for asthma

It was prescribed for asthma many years ago.

JanusofZeal

2012-01-10 10:27:40 PM

Aarontology: GAT_00: I dislike the whole thing in general because lots of people who trumpet research like this don't really give a fark one way or another. They're just looking for excuses to try to get their drug legalized. There is probably groups of cocaine addicts trying to do the same thing.

Downplaying and ignoring scientific research in favor of ideology. It's not just for Republicans!

The dude has claimed that there's no difference between taking an aspirin and being an alcoholic in terms of destroying your liver. He's a troll. Shouldn't everyone know that by now?

I'm also enjoying the argument about how if a molecule of smoked weed wafts into Kazan's yard it's a tragedy. Pretty sure he put more pollutants into the air on his last drive for a burger than a chronic smoker does in a year. I'd love to see the "actually science" that says its doing him any harm.

A Fark Handle

2012-01-10 10:36:28 PM

JanusofZeal: I'm also enjoying the argument about how if a molecule of smoked weed wafts into Kazan's yard it's a tragedy. Pretty sure he put more pollutants into the air on his last drive for a burger than a chronic smoker does in a year. I'd love to see the "actually science" that says its doing him any harm.

i would be willing to bet a lot that the attributable risk is really farking close to zero even if you lived next door to the university of santa cruz on 4/20 and it was 4/20 everyday for 50 years...

Kazan

2012-01-10 10:40:38 PM

Weaver95: stop shoving your nose under the door then. yeesh.

stop being a farking idiot - I, sitting in my own motherfarking house, should be free from bronchial irritation and toxin exposure because farkwad is smoking in his house next door.

don't think it happens? i'll show you SEVERAL houses that it does.

A Fark Handle: i would be willing to bet a lot that the attributable risk is really farking close to zero even if you lived next door to the university of santa cruz on 4/20 and it was 4/20 everyday for 50 years

you would lose that bet.

adamgreeney: How the hell does it ever cross you property and come into your house?? Thats so stupid i cant even think of a response.

so your house is air tight and you never open the windows? how don't you die of CO2 toxicity every night?

GAT_00

2012-01-10 10:41:43 PM

Weaver95

2012-01-10 10:42:24 PM

Kazan: Weaver95: stop shoving your nose under the door then. yeesh.

stop being a farking idiot - I, sitting in my own motherfarking house, should be free from bronchial irritation and toxin exposure because farkwad is smoking in his house next door.

don't think it happens? i'll show you SEVERAL houses that it does.

you seem upset. I wonder what you could take that would mellow you out...

Weaver95

2012-01-10 10:43:07 PM

GAT_00: Did I say there was no proof in the research? I said it's used as an excuse by stoners who want their drug legalized.

so you just hate cannabis?

GAT_00

2012-01-10 10:43:16 PM

JanusofZeal: The dude has claimed that there's no difference between taking an aspirin and being an alcoholic in terms of destroying your liver.

Cite me biatch. I think I recall the conversation, but I don't recall saying there's no difference. I said they both destroy it, which a little research would show that they do.

GAT_00

2012-01-10 10:44:39 PM

Weaver95: GAT_00: Did I say there was no proof in the research? I said it's used as an excuse by stoners who want their drug legalized.

so you just hate cannabis?

I hate drug users who think their drug should be acceptable because they say it is. Stoners use research to prove their points, not the other way around.

GAT_00

2012-01-10 10:46:00 PM

GAT_00: Stoners use research to prove their points, not the other way around.

Ok, that made less sense than I thought. Let's try again.

Stoners reached the conclusion they wanted to reach - that it isn't bad for you. They then reach for anything they can find as proof instead of openly accepting any evidence in a scientific method.

It reminds me an awful lot of climate change deniers.

Weaver95

2012-01-10 10:46:50 PM

GAT_00: I hate drug users who think their drug should be acceptable because they say it is. Stoners use research to prove their points, not the other way around.

But the research proves that cannabis is less harmful than beer or hard liquor. Not to mention it has several valid agriclultural and industrial uses on top of a couple really good medical purposes.

I don't get it man. this is weirdly protestest of you.

Weaver95

2012-01-10 10:51:12 PM

GAT_00: GAT_00: Stoners use research to prove their points, not the other way around.

Ok, that made less sense than I thought. Let's try again.

Stoners reached the conclusion they wanted to reach - that it isn't bad for you. They then reach for anything they can find as proof instead of openly accepting any evidence in a scientific method.

It reminds me an awful lot of climate change deniers.

you're using a vague standard there yourself. research proves that cannabis is LESS harmful than beer or liquor. it's LESS harmful than asprin. is it completely harmless? well no. nothing in life is ever completely harmless all the time and in all ways. even water will kill you if you drink too much of it. But in practical terms cannabis is less of a danger than a lot of currently legal substances.

so the 'cannabis is dangerous' argument is scientifically invalid.

Aarontology

2012-01-10 10:52:11 PM

JanusofZeal: The dude has claimed that there's no difference between taking an aspirin and being an alcoholic in terms of destroying your liver. He's a troll. Shouldn't everyone know that by now?

Nah. He just wants to tell you how to live your life because of his own morality.

Again, like a Republican.

ravenssettle

2012-01-10 10:55:05 PM

thismomentinblackhistory: Weaver95: stop shoving your nose under the door then. yeesh.

Kazan is a time traveler from the future where marijuana is openly smoked in public places and an annoyance to others.

I know this is a weed thread, but my girl is allergic to cigarette smoke and it's annoying as all fark when we're walking the town or even in bed with the window open and someone walks by smoking and she falls into a fit of coughing and gasping while searching for an inhaler. I don't give a fark if you smoke anything, shiat I think it should all be legal (look at Portugal), but at least try to keep it from going into peoples faces/places.

GAT_00

2012-01-10 10:58:04 PM

Weaver95: so the 'cannabis is dangerous' argument is scientifically invalid.

The argument that it is not dangerous was made in absence of evidence previously, and that pisses me off. Recent research just happens to prove it, but it was treated as fact before. You don't get to do that, and you won't convince me of anything if you luck into research proving you right.

Aarontology

2012-01-10 11:00:38 PM

A Fark Handle

2012-01-10 11:00:53 PM

GAT_00: Stoners reached the conclusion they wanted to reach - that it isn't bad for you. They then reach for anything they can find as proof instead of openly accepting any evidence in a scientific method.

yes, but where's the research that says weed is more dangerous than alcohol, tobacco, tylenol, etc? we know it's not that addictive, other wise the 60s/70s would have lead to a bunch of reefer addicts sucking dick for marijuana. we know there few if any crimes committed under the influence. well some crimes against art, culture, music, food, etc but those aren't crime crime. and the standard methods of uses do not lead to public health problems. and this research wasn't conducted by high times, this was part of large longitudinal study and authored by epi/biostat prof at ucsf. so why are we spending billions and locking up tens of thousands?

it's a waste of money to fight it. never mind if someone gets around to splicing thc genes into corn/wheat/other common agricultural items (or maybe this has already happened?). then it will be just impossible to enforce without an enforcement budget that resembles the dod. i've got better things to spend my tax dollars on...

The_Sponge

2012-01-10 11:01:57 PM

Kazan: and before someone brings up the "PROPERTY RIGHTS!!!" argument - that argument fails you - because since you're creating an aerosol you are violating my property rights when it crosses the property line along with my bodily rights

Not this shiat again.

The_Sponge

2012-01-10 11:02:48 PM

What about cigar smokers? Huh?! Answer me!!!

Ryan2065

2012-01-10 11:03:28 PM

Weaver95

2012-01-10 11:03:56 PM

GAT_00: Weaver95: so the 'cannabis is dangerous' argument is scientifically invalid.

The argument that it is not dangerous was made in absence of evidence previously, and that pisses me off. Recent research just happens to prove it, but it was treated as fact before. You don't get to do that, and you won't convince me of anything if you luck into research proving you right.

just how 'recent' are you talking about? there have been several very good studies about cannabis being essentially harmless going back to the thirties. Anslinger (and later Nixon) suppressed those studies for political reasons tho, and in a couple cases - mostly at Nixon's urging - falsified studies were submitted in place of valid scientific data.

we've known for a looooong time that cannabis should be legal but nobody in power is going to admit it.

The_Sponge

2012-01-10 11:04:30 PM

Weaver95: so the 'cannabis is dangerous' argument is scientifically invalid.

Dangerous if you're driving a car or operating heavy machinery, though.

/Not a reason to ban it, though.

Sleeping Monkey

2012-01-10 11:05:25 PM

Kazan: i think stoners are the biggest farking losers on the planet

I think you sound like an angry little person who could probably do well by having a few tokes.

Weaver95

2012-01-10 11:05:55 PM

The_Sponge: Weaver95: so the 'cannabis is dangerous' argument is scientifically invalid.

Dangerous if you're driving a car or operating heavy machinery, though.

/Not a reason to ban it, though.

well yes, there are limits (as with all things in life). cough meds will f*ck you up too, but we don't put you in jail for 25 years because you got on a bus and knocked back a shot of dayquil.

GAT_00

2012-01-10 11:06:09 PM

Ryan2065: So if the hypothesis is proven correct through research, the hypothesis is wrong?

What I'm saying is it wasn't treated as a hypothesis, it was treated as proven fact, by people who didn't care if it had medical properties or if it was harmful or not, but just wanted to be high and liked the excuse.

Fark 'em. I have no respect for people like that.

Weaver95

2012-01-10 11:07:54 PM

GAT_00: Ryan2065: So if the hypothesis is proven correct through research, the hypothesis is wrong?

What I'm saying is it wasn't treated as a hypothesis, it was treated as proven fact, by people who didn't care if it had medical properties or if it was harmful or not, but just wanted to be high and liked the excuse.

Fark 'em. I have no respect for people like that.

this has to be one of the strangest comments I've ever seen you make.

The_Sponge

2012-01-10 11:10:40 PM

Weaver95: The_Sponge: Weaver95: so the 'cannabis is dangerous' argument is scientifically invalid.

Dangerous if you're driving a car or operating heavy machinery, though.

/Not a reason to ban it, though.

well yes, there are limits (as with all things in life). cough meds will f*ck you up too, but we don't put you in jail for 25 years because you got on a bus and knocked back a shot of dayquil.

One tough thing is that it's tough to do a field sobriety test for pot.....there needs to be some way to catch people who drive while high, I'm just not sure how.

Weaver95

2012-01-10 11:11:53 PM

The_Sponge: One tough thing is that it's tough to do a field sobriety test for pot.....there needs to be some way to catch people who drive while high, I'm just not sure how.

i'm sure that's not an insurmountable technical problem tho.

Kazan

2012-01-10 11:12:27 PM

The_Sponge: Kazan: and before someone brings up the "PROPERTY RIGHTS!!!" argument - that argument fails you - because since you're creating an aerosol you are violating my property rights when it crosses the property line along with my bodily rights

Not this shiat again.

yes, this "shiat" again. want your rights respected? respect mine.

Displayed 50 of 388 comments