Pot smokers don't puff away lung health: study

[caseymoz]

102. It's only irrelevant to you because you don't want to consider it.

Last edited Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:18 AM - Edit history (1)

No, it's not a straw man because it's the exact reason I have trouble accepting an experiment like until it's peer reviewed and duplicated. I've tried to repeat this in various ways to you. Try this: my parents smoked, my relatives did. I found irritating all through my childhood, and pot smoke only slightly less so. Smoking (tobacco) was not just irritating. Even in childhood, I could see it was doing bad things for them. Finally, it killed my mom, nearly killed my dad, killed two uncles, nearly killed another one, killed my first cousin and childhood best friend. And in the meantime, I felt left out because I didn't take up the family pastime.

My personal experience is absolutely supported by science. (I know, straw man here, I'm talking about tobacco. Stay with me for a second.) I'm not trying to milk sympathy here. I'm just saying it's as accepted to me as gravity that any smoke is mostly combustion waste products, and anything else there is accidental. That's even true of candles and incense. Read the science behind that.

And otherwise, I've read other science articles about the effects of all smoke and soot on the lungs. Smoking is bad for the lungs is as solid a scientific principle to me as gravity. And to make an analogy, (not a straw man) you're saying I shouldn't be skeptical that they discovered a substance that isn't effected by gravity, because of one recent un-reviewed, un-duplicated experiment/study.

You're offended that I even dare doubt that? You call me unscientific for it?

No, it's not a straw man.

It's because of science I know that marijuana has some health benefits. I just have trouble believing that it helps every medical condition in every way. And why not? I also have trouble believing, unlike every consumable substance in the universe, this one thing has no side-effects and is absolutely harmless in every single way.

That's what you're attacking me for. And I hate to say it, that's what I've come to expect from marijuana advocates, or marijuana users, all the way back to grade school. The group pressure hasn't changed.

Marijuana is an industry with dedicated consumers. They're driving for legalization against an opposition that's known to lie. I see them throwing anything they can into this to win legalization. Now, in that noisy environment with propaganda going back and forth, I should be more skeptical, not less.

And what, I didn't say I was pro-legalization in the post you responded to? Go back and look again. Read the edit history from post #86, (the post you responded to):

"I might be for legalization, but when pot advocates can't seem to grasp the obvious fact that smoking anything is bad for the lungs, it shakes whatever trust I have for the rest of their arguments."

"Might" does not mean "could." I didn't say "except" to start the the second clause. It's not even ambiguous. It's not even a possible dialect difference. I could understand it might not be completely clear to you on the first reading, but it sure as hell should be on the second. Yet, instead of saying, hey, I misread that, I should retract, you get insulted. What class! If that's the maturity you have when you consider the science, I can't consider your perception of it accurate. You can't analyze the science if you get rattled by any doubt about your favorite consumer product. If so, your reading it like you watch an infomercial.

And how do you read in the word "wacky" into my statement? That's your Orwellian slang for it not mine. But I'll go with it: I think the pro-legalization camp has lost their minds regarding the science. You're just, like, too close to it, man, and you count on science too much to vindicate and promote your favorite consumer product.

Why do you have to have absolutely scientific approval on every facet, every possible benefit of marijuana to enjoy it? Why? Alcohol users don't do that. Heroin users don't do that. Why do you have to have even bystanders acknowledge its every imaginable benefit and show no doubt?

And don't even say it's to get it legalized; you already have more than enough science behind it to win that. No, this is a purely psychological need. You shouldn't fulfill that by alienating what would otherwise be friendly support by accepting only absolute agreement without even the least skepticism.