Joints or cigarettes
 

Reading Stevie's thread about her watched smoking, I read several posts about joints or cigarettes.

If we are talking about marihuana and tobacco, what I know is that tobacco has lot of tar, little solid particles that remains in your lungs. And that's very bad for health, blood pressure, etc. Besides, I think it is cancer related.

About joints (marihuana), I always heard it is far safer than tobacco cigarettes. I know some cancer patients smoke marihuana to reduce the pain.

HOWEVER I recently read that latest marihuanas are not so "natural" as in the past (as strandinthewind thought). Current pot is not the same than the one Bob Marley smoked. Today they have more chemical ingredients, maybe for more hallucinogen or stimulating, relaxing, whatever.. effects. But those chemichals are really bad for health.
I have not read about pot being cancer related. But it is not healthy, no doubt.

In my opinion both are bad, but if you want to enjoy them, ok go ahead. But you.. we, are warned.

not if you grow your own weed :lol: :lol:

Seriously, I think both are bad for ya as well!!!!!!!!

I don't touch either. :laugh:

I don't smoke anything, I don't take prescription drugs, I don't drink alcohol, I don't touch caffeine, I avoid sugar, and I don't eat fast food. If I didn't come across as such a brash, brazen, and opinionated individual, you'd all think I was quite the unfettered boob.

The marijuana business grows their dope for maximum effect and profit-just like the tobacco industry. It's become very sophisticated. What's worse is, since very few know the real source of the dope, they have no way of knowing what's in it.

I'm close... I don't smoke anything, I don't take any of the dozens of different prescription drugs they use to treat anxiety/panic disorders (even though I probably really should), and I avoid caffeine whenever possible.
However, I will occasionally drink alcohol (usually only a glass of wine), and I do eat sugar and fast food.

Good for you! Those drugs that they prescribe (as with every other drug on the market) is used to keep you and everyone else sick. Drugs do not help, they make things worse. All natural and homeopathic medicine is the only way to go. And it's loads cheaper.

That's impressive, D. Alas, I am not so clean. I am a casual, on again, off again smoker, and have a fondness for expensive tequila. However, I am junk food free, have a great diet, and either swim in the pool or go to the gym almost daily. It all balances out, I am hoping. I wish I could say the exercise was all health inspired, but to be perfectly honest, it's probably more about that "gay guy gotta look good naked" thing. :p

FOUL :wavey:

Not all synth drugs are bad. I have seen miracles with the thyroid drugs, same with some of the cancer drugs. AND - many of my friends on death's door with AIDS in 1998 are alive and very wel today. Not to mention the polio vaccine, etc. IMO - it is the abuse of prescribing the drugs, esp. the hybrid anti-biotics, that is the evil, not the drugs. :cool:

We'll have to agree to disagree. I choose to live my life free from drugs; they don't enter my body and I won't take them only to get sicker and sicker. You'll call me crazy (as if I don't have a reputation for being a loon :lol: ), but I believe that all of the drugs on the market have been manufactured for the sole purpose of making money by addicting the customer. This includes cancer drugs and AIDs drugs.

I respect your decision not to take them, but you cannot discount the fact that millions are MUCH better and able to have a quality of life as opposed to death because of these drugs. Again, it is not the drug, it is how it is administered. Again, I know many who were very close to death and the AIDS cocktails have made them bettter. How is that making them sicker :shrug: - even if the drug companies make a fortune off of them, which is another issue for another day :laugh: Same for synthyroid. I mean the fact is these drugs have helped millions stay alive as opposed to dying :shrug:

Of course I can. :lol:

AIDS drugs, for example, have some of the most extreme side effects of any drugs on the market. What does this mean? Another drug to combat one of those effects. Then another to combat the effects of that one. You don't see that as making a person sicker? Yeah, their lives are prolonged, but so is their suffering. I've seen it happen to many friends of mine, one of whom passed away last year, and it isn't pleasant. So, yeah, take the drugs, but at what cost? For all we know, they have drugs out there with no side effects to speak of, but they wouldn't release them because that would mean a drop in sales for the other drugs. Cynical? Yeah, but that's life.

Sorry, but I don't buy into the belief that drugs are good. First, you need to ask yourself why we need these drugs. We need them because we've lived our lives so badly that we need chemicals to prolong our lives. We've polluted our air, deposited soot in our lungs, and we take drugs to mask it. We waste money on remedies for the things we've done to cause these diseases.

LOL - so we are not really on opposite sides here. You are just being a conspiracy theorist regarding the intent of the evil drug companies :laugh: I buy that to a degree, but stop at the point that the drug companies or the FDA purposefully prolongs illness or perpetuates maliase to make a buck. My reasoning is, quite cynically, people are greedy. If there was a cure or vaccine for cancer (which people have been getting since there have been people and long before pollution) or AIDS, the drug companies would not hesitate to make exponentially more $$$$$$ selling that than all of their other drugs combines. Think about it - it would mean trillions of vaccinations sold and hundreds of millions if not billions more a year for all newborns :shrug: See how cynical I can be :laugh:

I detest cigarettes...smoking makes me so ill...I just won't do it...but oddly, pot never had the sickening horrible effects tobacco cigs do on me (except for the time I mixed really cheap red wine and pot...woo talk about SICK!) Anyway, I no longer smoke anything, as I depend on my voice for my work (though I'm not a singer and many many many radio people smoke) I just don't like it...I'd rather spend my money on other things...like fast food, caffeine or allergy meds lol...

Lol
 

I've never done pot and didn't smoke my first cigarette until I was in my 30's (on a dare from my then boyfriend who was a chain smoker). My dad was a three-pack a day smoker for years. It pretty much "cured" me of ever wanting to smoke. And I rarely drink. But I'm a big believer in better living through chemistry--I was diagnosed with arthritis when I was 29. I don't know what I would do without drugs like Celebrex--it really made a huge difference in my mobility.

My point exactly!!!!!! I mean abuse of these drugs either by the patient or by the prescribing doctor is an awful thing. But, these drugs really help alot of people!!!!!!!

Ah--one of the rare times when Strand and I agree on something! :)

I'd love to be able to NOT take these drugs but it's not an option for me. It literally means the difference between me being able to walk without a limp or to walk at all on some days. I'll admit that some drugs do come with a list of side effects as bad or not worse as some of the ailments they are meant to cure. But Celebrex is just one example of the many drugs that have made a dramatic difference in the lives of so many people--including mine!

Agreed. :nod:

This thread reminded me of Rush Hour with Chris Tucker:

Carter: "...I should take yo ass to jail, you know that?"
Old Man: "For what?"
Carter: "For what?! Look at this!"
Old Man: "That's nothin' but cigarette."
Carter: "This is CIGAWEED!!..."

Now, I'm not a good debate type person... however, I work for one of those "evil drug companies" and yes, every company is out to make a buck. Also, (just to point out my own innocence) I am a pee-on in this company. Having said this, a big reason why prescription drugs are so costly is for R&D. Research and developement is so costly to drug companies... and it literally takes years, I mean like, at least 15 years for a company, once they think they have discovered a compound that is worthwhile to market, to develope it, test it, have it approved, do clinical trials, and all this costs money. LOTS of it. If the drug companies gave away their prescription drugs for little money, they would no longer be around to find cures or treatments for our ailments, because of lack of funds for R&D. So, yes, while I agree that prescription drugs are terribly costly, I also have a pee-on's understanding as to why. That dosen't make up for why our CEO really sucks and he made millions doing absolutely nothing for our stock prices in the last couple years... but that's another rant.

Maria

ITA - AND the liability issues must be factored into the price because even with FDA approval, etc., some jazzy lawyer can win a multi billion dollar suit for an unknown side effect, etc. Note - this is not excusing the overinflation of the prices, but it does go a long way to the higher prices, etc.