#11264 Jul 24, 2012
Still stuck on S T U P I D and no stop sign in sight.
#11265 Jul 24, 2012
BEHAVIORAL CAUSES OF DEATH (ANNUALLY)
Tobacco 400 Thousand
Diet/activity patterns 300 Thousand
Alcohol 100 Thousand
Microbial agents 90 Thousand
Toxic agents 60 Thousand
Firearms 35 Thousand
Sexual behavior 30 Thousand
Motor Vehicles 25 Thousand
Illicit use of drugs 20 Thousand
#11266 Jul 24, 2012
Stand and deliver.
#11267 Jul 24, 2012
Chemicals in Cigarettes: Carcinogens
A carcinogen is defined as any substance that can cause or aggravate cancer. Approximately 60 of the chemicals in cigarettes are known to cause cancer.
Tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines (TSNAs) are known to be some of the most potent carcinogens present in smokeless tobacco, snuff and tobacco smoke.
Benzene can be found in pesticides and gasoline. It is present in high levels in cigarette smoke and accounts for half of all human exposure to this hazardous chemical.
Pesticides are used on our lawns and gardens, and inhaled into our lungs via cigarette smoke.
Formaldehyde is a chemical used to preserve dead bodies, and is responsible for some of the nose, throat and eye irritation smokers experience when breathing in cigarette smoke.
Chemicals in Cigarettes: Toxic Metals
Toxic / heavy metals are metals and metal compounds that have the potential to harm our health when absorbed or inhaled. In very small amounts, some of these metals support life, but when taken in large amounts, can become toxic.
Commonly used in rat poison, arsenic finds its way into cigarette smoke through some of the pesticides that are used in tobacco farming.
Cadmium is a toxic heavy metal that is used in batteries. Smokers typically have twice as much cadmium in their bodies as nonsmokers.
Chemicals in Cigarettes: Radioactive Toxic Metals
There are a couple of toxic metals in cigarette smoke that carry an extra punch of danger for anyone breathing it in: they are radioactive.
Radioactive Cigarette Smoke
Lead-210 (Pb-210) and polonium-210 (Po-210) are poisonous, radioactive heavy metals that research has shown to be present in cigarette smoke.
Chemicals in Cigarettes: Poisons
Poison is defined as any substance that, when introduced to a living organism, causes severe physical distress or death. Science has discovered approximately 200 poisonous gases in cigarette smoke.
Ammonia compounds are commonly used in cleaning products and fertilizers. Ammonia is also used to boost the impact of nicotine in manufactured cigarettes.
Carbon monoxide is present in car exhaust and is lethal in very large amounts. Cigarette smoke can contain high levels of carbon monoxide.
Hydrogen cyanide was used to kill people in the gas chambers in Nazi Germany during World War II. It can be found in cigarette smoke.
Nicotine is a poison used in pesticides and is the addictive element in cigarettes.
A Word About Secondhand Smoke
Also known as environmental tobacco smoke, secondhand smoke is a term used to describe cigarette smoke that comes from two sources: Smoke that is exhaled by the smoker (mainstream smoke) and smoke produced by a smouldering cigarette (sidestream smoke). Secondhand smoke is known to contain at least 250 toxic chemicals, including 50 cancer-causing chemicals. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. That means if you can smell cigarette smoke in the air, it could be harming your health.
It is never too late to quit smoking tobacco!
#11268 Jul 24, 2012
Then again, hitting to the warning track can bring in a double.
#11269 Jul 25, 2012
Despite some of the negative attitudes towards herbs just know that they are here to stay for life. People fear what they don't understand so relax and enjoy. 420 anyone...
#11270 Jul 25, 2012
Sow's ear, and another empty purse.
#11271 Jul 25, 2012
Your thesis "seems" to have the ring of legitimacy until one factors in the fact that those making such "studies" are the primary beneficiaries of nationalized Big Tobacco money. There has never been any legitimate study made by any reputable source that proves tobacco use is in any way harmful to the user. In fact, tobacco use is beneficial. Not only does tobacco use increase mental acuity among the "morally straight" users of tobacco, but, even though most tobacco smokers only live just as long as non-smokers - and longer than great numbers of them - the world's longest lived people are cigar smokers. Contrast that with pot use. Not only does pot destroy the mind's ability to function at a socially acceptable level, but automobile driving under the influence of pot is a KNOWN cause of death by automobile. It is not unusual to hear of pot smokers who have been convicted of lewd conduct in public restrooms zonking out and crashing their automobiles into buildings.
#11272 Jul 25, 2012
I would probably vote for marijuana's legalization. First of all, I don't smoke marijuana myself and never have, but I have friends that do and some of them are very successful, professional people who use quite frequently and work in highly-skilled technical professions. So therefore, I don't really think marijuana is as harmful and many who argue against it claim that it is. I certainly don't think it is any more harmful than alcohol over the long term, and probably not as harmful. Also, I certainly believe the government spends entirely too much money and resources trying to erradicate marijuana. The federal government spends billions of dollars a year on marijuana eradication throughout the country, with the biggest chunk of that money spent in California, Kentucky and North Carolina. It reminds me of what the government was doing in the days of prohibition, until they finally legalized the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages. I do think this is a repeat of prohibition and should come to an end. My only question about legalizaion in California is this. If California legalizes marijuana, which I understand they already have for medicinal purposes, what are we going to do about federal law? Even though a person may not be violatig state law by the sale, distribution and use of marijuana; they will still be in violation of federal law. Of course, it is up to federal prosecutors to take that matter up, but nevertheless they will be violating federal law. If California law is changed, will there then be an effort to change federal law?
#11273 Jul 25, 2012
Bong the gong and get it on.
#11274 Jul 25, 2012
Yes. Your understanding is amiss. California never "legalized" any aspect of illegal Marijuana, not is sale, its possession or its use. Federal drug and tobacco law trumps State law. A State's law with regard to dangerous drugs - such as Marijuana - is only legal if it does not conflict with Federal drug law. Under Federal law, the sale, possession, and the use of mind rotting pot is illegal.
Since: Nov 08
#11275 Jul 25, 2012
ANNUAL AMERICAN DEATHS CAUSED BY DRUGS
TOBACCO .......... 400,000
ALCOHOL .......... 100,000
ALL LEGAL DRUGS ..........20,000
ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS ..........15,000
MARIJUANA .......... 0
Source: United States government...
National Institute on Drug Abuse,
Bureau of Mortality Statistics
#11276 Jul 25, 2012
I totally understand that federal law trumps state law. That is exactly why I was asking what would be done about federal law if a state law was passed. However, and I may not be understanding it correctly, but I thought California had already passed a medicinal marijuana law. I could be wrong, but I believe that is the case. I'm quite sure they did because after doing so, people were opening up clinics to sell medicinal marijuana to those who had a doctor's prescription. So I don't think my understanding it amiss. Maybe it is, but I don't think so. Has or has not California already passed a medicinal marijuana law? If they have, it would still be illegal under federal law.
Since: Nov 08
#11277 Jul 25, 2012
California was one of the first states to legalize Medical Marijuana. In 1996, voters passed Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use.
Proposition 215 permits seriously ill Californians to use marijuana, provided they first obtain a doctor's recommendation.
Proposition 215 also gives doctors a legal defense against professional or legal sanctions for recommending marijuana use.
Ronald is evidently a drug dealer who is upset that he may lose his source of income if pot is made legal. He claimed that marijuana has no medical use and I showed him differently and that mj has been used for medicinal purposes for 10,000 years but he ignores the facts so I ignore him.
#11278 Jul 25, 2012
More of the same is always the worst step, sure seems like a good sign on name, i'll use it too!
#11279 Jul 25, 2012
Thank you for your response. I didn't think I was wrong about that and I didn't think I said anything in my post that would lead anyone to believe I thought state law trumped federal law. As a matter of fact, that was the exact point I was trying to make, was that it was still against federal law to use, sell or distribute marijuana, even if California passed a law. I was simply asking if there would be a push to change federal law. Evidently Ronald's understanding of my post was amiss. Thanks again for your response.
#11280 Jul 25, 2012
Got to get some grits first, ya know!
#11281 Jul 25, 2012
Kids, adults, seniors, etc. will continue to consume the drug regardless if a law is in place. As for driving under the influence, we face the same problem now. This depends not on law but on morals my friend. You speak as if laws keep people at bay from consuming whatever it is they want. For anyone to think that as soon as this law passes droves of people who never did it to begin with will somehow start.
#11282 Jul 25, 2012
I totally agree with Get A Clue on this. People who are going to use marijuana are going to use it regardless of what the law is. If you don't believe this, take a look back into our history and see how prohibition worked. It didn't, plain and simple! I think history has shown the more the government tries to restrict our freedom on certain things, the more people seem to want to do them. I also agree that driving under the influence of marijuana is just as prevailant as driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages. Legalizing marijuana isn't going to change that. Just because marijuana use is legalized doesn't mean it is going to cause an increase in those who drive under the influence. I have never smoked marijuana in my life, as I stated in a previous post. If marijuana use was legalized tomorrow, I would still have no desire to smoke marijuana or use it in any form. I simply have no interest in it. I also do not believe anyone else who has no interest in it is suddenly going to develop one because it is legalized. Just as prohibition of the manufacture, use, sell and distribution of alcohol never worked, neither has the war on drugs worked. Our government has waged a war on drugs that has been going on for years. The government has spent countless billions of dollars on this war. What good has it done? The drug problem has progressively gotten worse and continues to do so. I am not a fan of drug use in any form. However, what the government has been doing to stop it is clearly not working. So those who say legalization is the answer; well, maybe they are right. I guess adult individuals should be able to introduce whatever they want to into their own bodies, as long as they don't engage in behavior that affects others, like driving under the influence.
#11284 Jul 25, 2012
Well, you claim prohibition "did not work". When you make such an outlandish claim, you should say what you mean by "worked". If the purpose of the Volstead Act was to reduce alcohol consumption among those of the American worker class, it was an astounding success. Not only did the consumption of alcoholic beverage plunge among the American working class, but per capita consumption of alcohol among Americans in general never regained its level of pre-prohibition times.
If you mean, when you say prohibition "did not work", that the binds of the social order were loosened and the result was increased criminal activity, think again. The encyclopedias still regard the St Valentine's Day massacre as the epitome of prohibition era gangland criminal activity. Yet, only 7 persons were killed in that instance, and all of them were well known gangsters and associates. Contrast that with today when random killings of "the public" are made "just for the Hell of it".
Take, for example, Chicago. More persons are murdered in Chicago in one year than the number of targeted gangsters and bystanders who were killed during the entire prohibition era. It makes little difference that most of those murders were committed by "Blacks" because they are heavily represented among today's windy city. Just as the media portrayed a tiny minority of the American public were flappers who demanded to be admitted to speakeasys', so too do Hollywood myth makers dwell on the relatively rare - when compared with today - prohibition era gangland murders.
Just the other day a Government subsidized pot smoking college student entered a theater and shot 70 innocent members of "the public", including murdering 12 of them. The failed Baby Boomer generation *(now in power)* worships authority. As a result, their children have never been socialized to view Government law as anything other than the voice of God here on earth. Once mind rotting pot becomes "legal", you can bet your bottom $Dollar that those children will view pot as "God approved". After all, didn't their failed parent generation say "if it feels good, do it".
Add your comments below
|CA Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10)||5 min||dave||200,621|
|Latinos Running Blacks Straight Outta Compton (Jan '13)||46 min||Onenthesame||118|
|Garage Door Repair Cypress||1 hr||HelenJDowling||1|
|The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10)||2 hr||Buck Rohde||18,891|
|people in military bases in France in the sixties (Mar '07)||2 hr||Joel||3,088|
|Albertsons out (Jul '08)||2 hr||ddt||34|
|Federal study on lesbian obesity costs $3 million||3 hr||Jane||1|
Find what you want!
Search Los Alamitos Forum Now