Last week there was a story on the Yahoo home page about a study by the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand shows that smoking cannabis greatly increases the risk of lung cancer.  However, there was a study from UCLA that could find no link.  UCLA even said it might INHIBIT the growth of tumors.  What's the deal?

Here's the deal.  The New Zealand study was based on tracking 79 people over a 10 year period.  The UCLA study was based on tracking over 2,000 people over a 30 year period.  But it gets better.  The website for the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand says it is an "independent medical research organisation." (sic)  But the truth lies on the "acknowledgments" page.  On that page they "gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance of...

AstraZeneca
Novartis
GlaxoSmithKline
Aventis

These are the huge, multi-national PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATIONS who stand to lose billions and billions of dollars if cannabis (which is sustainable, organic, and inexpensive to grow at home)  were legalized because it is of greater therapeutic value for a multitude of physical, medical, and psychiatric issues than the expensive drugs that they make out of chemicals in a laboratory.

In fact, smoking marijuana is 75x more carcinogenic than cigarettes and any dr. will tell you that if you have cancer, smoking ANYTHING is not a good idea.

Katie

I suspect many more men and women have lost their lives in Irag than have lost their lives due to this study.

who would rather sell their drugs, and suppress  anything natural, they cannot patent, and make money from.
Of course there can be side effects from smoking pot, but look at the side effects from the drug companies pills and potions.
The New Zealand study was bought and paid for.

instead of on P&R where it belongs?

It’s all about the money.

“It is difficult for a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on his not understanding it”
(Upton Sinclair)

I knew there was a reason TER let me hang out here

are their only hope. Darn Pharma companies just want you dependent on taking their pills for the rest of your life.

Not having read the UCLA study, I can't comment on its specifics.

However, marijuana, when inhaled bears the same carcinogens known to be in tobacco. To say that these carcinogens are linked to lung cancer when present in tobacco, but magically have no link to lung cancer when present in mariujuana is beyond disingenuous. It is downright moronic, and NUMEROUS studies have established this fact.

There have been numerous studies over the years that demonstrate unequivocally the harmful effects of regular marijuana use. I would be delighted to take a look at this study from UCLA though, to see what it has to say. If you have a link to it, please do feel free to post it.

PS. What lies about Iraq?? I sure did get a kick out of HIllary finding herself in a position to have to defend President Bush in the debate the other night when she attempted to explain - AGAIN - her vote in favor of the war. I couldn't help but wonder if she felt like throwing up while she defended his claims that Iraq had WMD's. Poetic justice at its finest

Really?? Then how in the hell did I manage to come up with about a dozen or more studies - from peer reviewed journals mind you - demonstrating marijuana's harmful effects when I submitted my final paper to complete my honors project way back when I was in college the first time? If almost all of what is publushed in peer reviewed journals tend to be hemp friendly then I must be awfully damned lucky. I didn't find many peer reviewed articles demonstrating that marijuana is harmless, but I sure found a hell of alot of studies that demonstrated clear and measurable pahtophysiological alterations directly linked to marijuana usage.

stoners left over from the 60s!

because we peed on the electrical outlet on the wall, and weren't wearing a rubber.

You gave new meaning to shizzle my nizzle (or however that phrase goes)!

Well, try looking at it this way ... your typical smoker puffs through at least a pack of cigarettes a day.  Most people who get stoned regularly blow a joint or two or three a day ... maybe the equivalent of the same number of cigarettes.  Which is better?  Never mind the fact that the joints make you feel a whole lot better ...

almost all commercial cigarettes have nicotine, which causes a physical addiction.

Marijuana has no such physically addictive agent, so even if you smoke it every day (which is be far the minority of pot smokers), you will likely be smoking a lot less than if you smoke cigs...and you DEFINITELY will be smoking less if you are a recreational user.

How many people do you hear of dying from cancer caused by smoking cannabis?  Admittedly, there likely haven't been many specific studies of this, but if there was a huge tendency towards this, I think it would have been found out by now.

Was that back when "science" said there was no link between cigarettes and cancer?  I'll show you recent studies published in every major journal that debunks all the myths.  Even the Chief Administrative Judge of the DEA ruled that cannabis be reclassified as a Schedule II medication because the benefits  far outweigh the risks.  The Shaffer Commission, which was impaneled by President Richard M Nixon made the same conclusions.  The U.S. Dept of Transportation stated "the driving impairment caused by marijuana is minimal."  Studies have found it can make you a better driver.  The International Olympic Committee tests snowboarders for cannabis because it's banned as a performance enhancing drug.
Now it's your turn to cite some of your "studies."

-- Modified on 2/3/2008 12:35:20 AM

I think in the interest of being kind, I will leave it at this- I will agree to disagree with you.


The research is easy to find, though, and as someone who had to study this in class last semester (yet another damn teacher interested in reading the variety of papers on the topic,) I can tell you that you have to be skeptical of these studies because you really could find something to prove nearly any claim, but the SCIENCE is there to prove that it really is a lot more harmful than the limited benefits that are usually claimed by smokers.

By the way, according to crackheads, crack helps you look years younger and live longer. I swear it's true! lol.


Katie

Sorry to burst your bubble.  But the only healthy thing to inhale is clean fresh air.  But look at any used marijuana pipe.  That residue is going into your lungs.  
Don't believe the pot heads. " Wishing it was so", does not make it true!

If I'm not mistaken, NO ONE has ever died from smoking pot. If you suggest otherwise, please show me sources.

And as MSD pointed out, even if pot was more dangerous than smoking cigarettes, guess what? Pot smokers simply do not consume as much marijuana as cigarette smokers consume all that crap in cigarettes, not even heavy pot smokers.

-- Modified on 2/3/2008 6:31:03 AM

Taking ANY sort of medication is "not healthy" in some way. Have you ever read the potential side effects that come with anything you take? There is a risk to everything, and taking any medication is a matter of weighing the risks over the benefits.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the best thing to fill your lungs with is fresh air (haha, like there's any of that anywhere.... at least not in cities). MJ is not the best thing to put in your lungs, but then if you've got a health problem, many prescription medications are not the best things to put in your body- putting nothing in there but good, healthy food/vitamins/sustenance is best. In an ideal world, we would only put good, healthy things in our bodies. But when you have a problem and need to take something that will help fix it, (depending on the problem) pot is probably one of the safest drugs you can take, especially when you compare it to prescription drugs.

as is the anecdotal evidence. Smoking pot isn't very bad for you. The carcinogens and fats in the Oreos and Doritos are probably worse for you than the pot. To avoid any lung damage, mmmmm delicious brownies and cookies!

There is some new evidence that pot may be physically addictive as it increases dopamine levels and dopamine is a key factor in addiction. However the dopamine levels increase only slightly, less than with 3 or more cups of coffee a day, so the physical addiction (if it even exists) is very, very mild.

Pot use does significantly elevate the risk of accidents, especially in combination with alcohol. So, kids, be safe! Don't use power tools if you've been toking!

As a musician, I've known many, many heavy pot users for many years. The worst thing that's happened to any of them is they can't remember where they left their munchies.

Abso-effing-lutely. Y'all might think from reading my posts in this discussion that I'm a big ol' stoner, but I can't stand the stuff. Gives me anxiety attacks, big time. But I am absolutely for the legalization of it. Topbossman, I completely agree that it is because of Big Pharma that marijuana is not legal. Marijuana has a lot of uses medically, but if BP can't patent it, package it up in a little pill, and have exclusive rights to sell it, it's going to stay illegal. Why? Because Big Pharma members are intricately tied to Congress and Senate and no laws are going to get passed that do not benefit the pharmaceutical industry.

Uh no, how old do you think I am?!?!

"Way back" was back in 1999.

I"m sorry, but I had to laugh out loud at your assertion that the reason IOC tests for cannabis is because it is considered a "performance enhancing" drug. They test for it because it is an illegal drug. It in no way enhances your performance, unless you happen to be a contestant in one of those eating contests.

Actually, pot is in fact addictive. This fact is also well documented, as well as documented symptoms of withdrawl that include sleeplessness, irritability, nausea, headache, and mood swings.

However, withdrawal from marijuana is extremely mild in comparison to other drugs such as alcohol and heroin, and does not require medical management.

Regarding its health effects, yes Marijuana use is linked to the same cancers and other diseases associated with smoking. When people say that no one ever died from Marijuana use, they are partly correct. No LD50 has ever been established for Marijuana. LD50 is the level at which a given substance becomes a fatal overdose. Nearly every drug known has an LD50 at which point a person can overdose on it. None has ever been established for marijuana, and the conclusion is that it is impossible to overdose on marijuana.

Despite that, studies have demonstrated the long term negative effects of exposure of the brain to THC, as well as long term consequences of inhaling carcinogens found in marijuana smoke.

So, can you overdose on marijuana? No. Is it addictive? Yes. Will you experience withdrawal symptoms if you stop using marijuana after having used it regularly for a long perdiod of time? Yes. Can you develop cancer, COPD, or emphysema, if you smoke marijuana for a long period of time? The research says yes.

Should we legalize pot? Yes we should.

The use of a vaporizer will also drastically cut down on the damage to the lungs in that there is no flame, no carbonization of material.
THC, the active ingredient in marijuana,is water soluble, and when pot is vaporized, the THC attaches to water molecules and is inhaled.
The effect is much the same as eating brownies or cookies, but without the calories or the deleterious after effects of existing allergies.
And if you drink large quantities of water or other non-alcoholic beverage, it will also ameliorate the munchies.

You are saying that it is physically addictive? If so, I don't buy that. Those withdrawal things you mentioned are the same things I go through if I don't have my computer for awhile! (LOL) I may be psychologically addicted to my baby (hugs computer) but that doesn't mean I am physically addicted.

I can agree that it is theoretically possible to get lung cancer from smoking pot- however, I think that it's going to be extremely rare. Most people don't smoke pot like smokers smoke cigarettes. I think chances are, a person could get lung cancer being a cig smoker combined with pot smoker. For your typical recreational pothead, the risk is going to be pretty low.

You are partly correct on both points.

Regarding addiction, yes the addiction to pot is in fact very mild, milder than addiction to nicotine, heroin, caffeine, or cocaine. But it is actually both physically and mentally addictive. The withdrawal symptoms of irritability and sleeplessness are largely attributable to the mental withdrawal process, but symptoms of nausea, headaches, and non-specific pains that some users experienced are related to the physical addiction of pot. Again though, we are talking about very mild withdrawal symptoms.

Regarding its harmful potential, again you are partly correct. The saving grace of pot smoking is that a typical smoker will smoke only a few joints each day, if that, while cigarette smokers tend to smoke a pack a day or more. So the exposure of the lungs to carcinogens from tobacco smoke is essentially continuous day after day, giving the lungs no opportunity to clear away harmful substances absorbed from tobacco smoke. Additionally, cigarettes contain higher levels of tar than marijuana does, which impedes the lung's ability to clear away contaminants by coating the cilia lining the bronchioles and rendering them ineffective.

However, the manner in which marijuana is typically smoked has its own set of problems. Cigarette smokers tend to inhale and then immediately exhale cigarette smoke. The cigarette smoke rarely intrudes beyond the upper bronchioles, and is immediately exhaled, which limits the lungs exposure to carcinogens. Marijuana smokers on the other hand, tend to inhale deeply, pulling the smoke all the way into the lungs, then holding the smoke there to maximize absorption of THC. While maximizing absorption of THC though, they are also maximizing the lungs exposure to carcinogens, and allowing both the upper lobes of the lungs, as well as the bronchioles to become suffused with the carcinogens and tar present in the smoke.

So in other words, smoke in any form is harmful to the lungs, cigarette smoke more so due to the frequency with which smokers indulge.

The challenge in distinguishing the two is that while there are many cigarette smokers who do not also smoke pot, many pot smokers are also cigarette smokers. So how does one separate causality in a patient who develops lung cancer if they were both a cigarette and a pot smoker?

By the way, it is also worth noting that only about 10% of all cigarette smokers will develop lung cancer, and only about 50% of all lung cancer cases are in patients who are smokers. We know that smoking can lead to cancer, but no one has ever been able to establish that smoking CAUSES cancer, a critical distinction, but one the anti-smoking nazis conveniently ignore.

The bottom line is - do as you will. Its your body. The simple act of waking up in the morning can be deadly, so if you want to smoke cigarettes (I do) or smoke pot, light up and enjoy. You've only got one shot on this planet, so you might as well enjoy it. If you are educated about the effects of cigarettes and pot, know the risks, and choose to indulge anyways, that is your choice. Pot shouldn't be illegal because its "bad" for your health. So is red meat and sky diving and lots of other things.

It is important though, to be honest about the risks of regular marijuana use so that people can make an intelligent and informed decision about the risks they choose to take.

Because Big Pharma profits! Haha..

Really though, y'all don't get me started on the pharmaceutical companies...

-- Modified on 2/3/2008 11:14:42 AM

No, I'm not talking about cocaine, heroin or meth.

I'm referring to cigarettes. I was addicted to cigarettes for 8 years. I never would have started (100% sure) if I hadn't first started smoking dope.

and such an idiotic statement, it doesn't deserve a response.

Sins, you are obviously a very intelligent lady.  There is no questioning that.  I know you came into this discussion because Scriptfixer was comparing academic studies, so your points are right with that.  However, Amanda and I are coming from a simpler place, one that is like what you are closing with...simply waking up in the morning *CAN BE* dangerous.

First off, I smoked marijuana for quite a while about ten years ago. I didn't do it daily...but I was regular with it.  At NO point in that time did I EVER feel a physical addiction.  I feel WAY more physical addiction from caffeine in the morning than I EVER did with MJ. Additionally, I hung out with other people who did the same, and NONE of them felt addiction...and almost all of us have stopped using it since, and we didn't feel withdrawal when we stopped using it.  It simply was a phase we all went through.

While I am sure that there are MILDLY addictive agents in MJ, you can't even begin comparing it to nicotine, as you noted.  What is addictive about MJ is being HIGH.  People smoke weed daily because they can't deal with life as it comes to them (and, in many ways, given our current society, I can't blame them).

I'm sure there are dangers from smoking pot in the quantity or even close to the quantity people smoke cigs.  However, almost no pot smokers do that because, again, as you noted, the beauty of MJ is that you don't need to do it in heavy quantities, so it is really a non-discussion.  This is why the issue of people dying from smoking MJ is a non-issue.  Yes, it is possible...but most MJ smokers will never consume enough to get to the point where "research" shows it will be the primary factor in killing someone.

Now, I am sure you are right, some MJ smokers are cig smokers, and yes, I'm sure exacerbates the issue.  However, if I smoke MJ and then regularly operate heavy machinery while I am wasted, I would think people would die then, also.

The thing that concerns me about your Scully-like slavery to data and facts is when you say something like "only 50% of all lung cancer cases are in patients who are smokers. We know that smoking can lead to cancer, but no one has ever been able to establish that smoking CAUSES cancer, a critical distinction, but one the anti-smoking nazis conveniently ignore."

Given the number of people with lung cancer, if 50% of them are smokers, that is a FUCKING LOT OF PEOPLE.  We're talking about thousands (or millions) of lives...and, given the addictive nature of nicotine, I don't blame them one damn bit if people need to be Nazis about it to combat the mega-million dollars in advertising the tobacco companies do, or how disgusting it is if you are a non-smoker and have to be even remotely exposed to someone smoking.  If I am in my apartment, and someone right next to me is a regular smoker and they smoke in their bedroom, I can fucking smell that shit through the walls to the point where I can't sleep.  So, yes, while there isn't *ABSOLUTE PROOF OF CORRELATION* with smoking and lung cancer, I will be out there chanting "Go Nazis" at the top of my marijuana infested lungs.

Peace to you, girl...you are one smart lady.


-- Modified on 2/3/2008 1:02:14 PM

First, I wouldn't put this study on near the same level as Iraq, but that belongs on the Politics board. Like any drug, or most foods, in fact, there's a trade off between benefit and harm. Tests are going to come up ambiguous due to slightly different methodology; and this will be true even if drug companies weren't involved. It's going to take some time for the science to measure benefit vs. harm.

If marijuana isn't decriminalized now, it's only because of it being associated with the counter-culture in the '60s, and the fact that parents in the 70s had concerns that it was being marketed to young teens. That's what killed the legalization movement: which till then had succeeded in 11 states.

The early studies on cigarette smoking showed that over a 10-year period, there was a 27-fold increase in cancer over the control group who did not smoke at all. Now that's the definition of "greatly increases." I doubt that smoking pot came close.

There is no way to smoke, and nothing you could smoke that does not damage your lungs and circulatory system. (The latter is from by-product chemicals crossing into the blood stream and irritating arteries and veins).

I have also heard (from the Loveline radio program, aimed at a young audience) that use of cannibas over a long time will ultimately cause anxiety attacks.

It also might not be exactly safe to eat it with brownies-- apparently, reaction with the stomach acids changes some of the cannibinoids and can cause paranoia.

I would suggest some kind of inhaler.

Short of that, smoking it is probably best to deliver it directly to the brain.

there is nowhere for you to go except back to the prozac or thorazine.

is that almost no one I know (myself included) had MJ be a "gateway drug" to ANYTHING...cigs or anything else...so people who use that angle are either BS'ers with an agenda (anti-MJ) or were likely headed for those drugs anyway, and MJ was just the FIRST thing they did, not the CAUSE of why they went to the second one.

Almost EVERY person I have known who has smoked cigs and has smoked MJ smoked cigs first. (I actually don't know anyone who was the other way around, but I didn't get a written history from all of my friends...OY!)

Gateway drugs...that's like saying I smoked MJ because I saw someone light up a match once.

Seriously, though, caffeine becomes ineffective after extended use, and I could see somebody wanting a stronger drug than that.

However, for crossover, it seems to me that if a person is open to using one drug, they are going to be open to using another, especially if they are willing to smoke one, they will be open to smoking another. If shooting some drug is in their behavior, they are open to shooting something else.

I have no agenda, for or against (unlike you). You extrapolate incorrectly that I have an agenda because it would seem opposed to your agenda, rather than simply taking what I said for what it is. I merely expressed a 100% truth that was clearly stated as my experience only. Although, now that you mention it and I think back, I do know several people that started cigarettes AFTER they started pot. But then, I’m pretty sure my experience was at a different time than YOUR personal experience. You see, this all happened almost 40 years ago. A time when cigarette smoking was totally acceptable and the quality of pot was (most usually) much lower than today.

-- Modified on 2/3/2008 1:16:29 PM

Since both my parents were smokers, I'd always pledged to myself to never start. But, I think that is exactly what happened to me. It was a different time (30 some years ago) and cigarettes were well acepted and very easy for teens to aquire. I'd been used to getting high on pot, someone handed me a cigarette, I took a toke, got an immedite rush from the vasel constriction I think and I was ready to repeat.

Since that story conflicts with MrSD's agenda, he'll apparently do anything to discredit what happened.

And yet once again Zin, you and I agree on something.

-- Modified on 2/3/2008 1:25:26 PM

First, you make a post bringing up the "crossover drug" theory" and stating that you never would have started smoking cigs and gotten addicted to them if you hadn't tried MJ (100% sure) in a conversation about the risk of lung cancer from smoking MJ...but, of course, you have no agenda (like the one *I* have)...because you obviously are "fair and balanced".

Then, you put me down for "solely" using personal experience, when your first post was based on YOUR personal experience (which you state above) and when you refer to people YOU have known in the post above, as well...when that is exactly what I did, based on my experience AND on quite a few people I have known.

Yes, I have an agenda...it's called "freedom of choice", and the fact that our government is so vehemently opposed to legalizing MJ, when cigarettes are legal and cause the damage they do is an injustice I am happy to rail against.

I will not rail with you anymore, though, because as I know all too well from the P&R board, some people enjoy the sport of arguing more than anything.  You got all honey tongued on this post, appearing so much like the injured party, but your first post here interjected a different angle into this thread that was bound to sidebar, and I am not going to sidebar with you, because it can go on forever.  The thought that MJ is a "crossover" drug to smoking cigs is laughable.  That may be the chronology of the people you know, but neither I nor anyone I have known who didn't already smoke  has smoked MJ and thought "Wow, I really want to smoke a cig now!".  The whole issue with crossover drugs is that you build UP...like MJ to coke or meth or smack or something.  If anything, cigs being so acceptable back then would have made your scenario that much LESS likely, I would think, because why NOT smoke?

I grew up feeling MJ was okay because in the late 60's and early 70's when I was growing up (gee, that's 40 years ago, isn't it!), hippies and naturalists smoked weed because it made you high on life, but didn't smoke cigs because they were unhealthy and part of the "establishment".

Anyway...regardless...I'm done with you.  You can say what you want in response, but I'm done with this thread.

Why didn't you start there instead your first choice of calling me an idiot and my statement laughable? I started out stating a simple truth that was applicable to only myself. That was all. You are the one that took the "side bar" to a dark place. I then merely called you on it. What's "unbearable" to you are people that don't share your ideas or agree with you.

-- Modified on 2/3/2008 3:01:25 PM

I never, ever, EVER would consider smoking cigs, but I have smoked weed. I grew up with hippies who smoked weed but thought cigs were unhealthy and part of the "establishment".  

I also would never consider stronger drugs, as weed is something manageable and *mostly* (for SOTF non-addictive, as opposed to harder drugs like smack or meth or whatever.

I think that weed can be a crossover drug to cigs *CHRONOLOGICALLY*, but not because it makes you want to smoke them.  People know enough about the evils of cigs now that those who start smoking them do so because they want to in spite of the data against it.  It isn't something that gives you a bigger high than smoking weed, and that is what a crossover/gateway/ladder drug is about...looking for the bigger high.  Some weed smokers may be OPEN to smoking cigs (although I would think the vast majority would try cigs first), but there will be no IMPULSE to try them.

And I just love how someone I won't mention is playing us against each other.

Zin says the same thing I did, yet you have no remarks that HE is an idiot? You are actually now nearly agreeing with a nuance of the point we made.

Playing you against Zin? LOL Zin and I are AGREEING with one another. By your own admission and Post Title, you DISAGREE with Zin. How could I possibly be trying to SEPARATE two people that already disagree? The underlying issue here is that since both you and Zin are liberals, you believe that the Lib connection or camaraderie overrides any point I might make.

Just look at how differently you treated the two of us.

Admit it. It not the idea that you're arguing over, it’s the person.

-- Modified on 2/3/2008 4:44:11 PM

Zin and I are friends, and we have been attacked on the P/R board for agreeing with each other so often.  You know this, but are just stirring the pot.

You, I never agree with...but I don't agree with the idea, either...which I have stated clearly.

Please stop responding to my posts.

That marijuana is a gateway to cigarette smoking is a new one to me. The whole "MJ is a gateway to drugs" thing is a misconception anyway. Just because a person goes on to doing different drugs after first smoking pot does not mean that pot "led" them to trying different drugs. It is much more likely that a person was prone to become a drug user/experimenter anyway, and that pot was simply the first drug that they had access to.

-- Modified on 2/3/2008 8:38:00 PM

I haven't really seen much evidence that pot is physically addictive. Good point on the inhalation differences between a pot smoker and a cigarette smoker. Hey, that's what they make pot brownies for!

I agree though. You only get to live once- enjoy it however you like. (Yeah, an occasional cigarette from time to time is my guilty pleasure too... okay, ONE of my guilty pleasures. )

You're kidding right? You have one great power to prevent me from posting in response to yours. . . DON’T post yourself. This is simply more arrogance indicating that you believe that only your concepts of anything are worthy of consideration. I need no attention, but I do thrive on keeping you guys honest. I get no enjoyment pondering about how lurkers view my thoughts, but do tell me what does it feel like?

My contention stands that instead of arguing about ideas, you’d rather attempt to ridicule people you don’t like or disagree with. You never did respond to that and you won’t.

BTW, were you actually judging my remarks based on what you THOUGHT I understood about your personal relationship with Zin? How deep is that? I let my words stand on their own. They have no deeper meaning based on what’s in YOUR heart. GEEESH.

I couldn't tell which came first, but generally, those comfortable with one were comfortable with the other. The Gateway Theory itself isn't far-fetched at all and isn't restricted to drugs.  I mean, I have talked to providers who started their careers in the adult business as strippers. How many world class champion 1st person shooter gamers didn't start with Mario Brothers 4?  

But-- the inference that you can prevent a very harmful drug from being used by stopping the use of a harmless one IS far fetched. A person with an addictive personality will seek ways of getting high from the very beginning. I'm talking about people who at age 10 are drinking robitussin. This drive to get high, however, comes in varying degrees and extremes. The people with addictive personalities will go from the drugs that are easiest to get and go to the ones more difficult.

It won't help to keep them away from pot, because then they'll start with cough syrup, or circuit duster, or alcohol, or prescriptions, or something else at hand.

The solution is not to restrict drugs that cause little danger, the solution is to treat addiction as a medical problem.

I never considered smoking cigarettes, period, until I started pot. After smoking a joint the thought of smoking something else seemed much less egregious. After one cigarette I was psychologically hooked, then the nicotine soon took over.

I'm sure this type of crossover isn't widespread, but I can personally attest that it exists.