so what is the question...this sounds more like a moral judgement than a serious question...don't take me wrong, but grass' disadvantages are much more to the psychological addiction and lead to better stuff than a physical issue....
2007-04-12 16:47:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by dwm1034 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm a non-pot smoker and a non-cigarette smoker. I'm not sure what your question is. I believe the correct term is carbon dioxide (not monoxide). And yes, going out with bad lungs that are taking your life is a very horrible way to go.
I watched that happen last year to someone I loved. Are you asking if that person with the CHF should know better?
You can't push people to 'not smoke'. You can only say that some day it may kill you...and not in a quick or pleasant way.
A lot of people that smoke don't think it will cause them any problems or if it does it would be way, way in the future.
You've got the right idea though....smoking anything can only cause you harm.
2007-04-12 20:36:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
This question seems a bit "off-the-mark", to be polite. Sorry for violating your discriminatory restriction for answering this question, but I feel my insight a little too important to be ignored solely for the fact that I break the law or man at least 4x a day.
Indeed, substituting the O2 in your lungs with Carbonmonoxide can kill you!! This is the reason for carbon detectors in homes, because these POISONOUS chemicals can be released from the chemical reactions that take place in your home, keeping you warm or cooking your food. Although this is true, and inhaling CO or CO2 can be deadly (although CO2 is actually what we breathe out, the end result of our respiratory functions), marijuana, the plant, has no suspect role in killing individuals through this poison.
Although marijuana is HIGHLY "taboo" because of religion and politics, there are, in fact, countries, faiths, and entire movements dedicated to the understanding and acceptance of the benefits of marijuana. Do you think, with these false claims, were they true, that state governments would allow the LEGAL prescription of this plant to patients? Sure, one may claim state governments are out of line with federal law, but the laws are in fact where the jurisdictions clash. Both federal and state laws regulate trade or possession of this herb, with mixed results. Just like the gray areas surrounding Indian Reservations and jurisdiction thereof exists, marijuana seems to fall right smacK in the middle of greyness as well. Despite laws passed by progressive states, federal agencies like the DEA have taken it upon themselves to get these laws back in line with the foolish legislation of the federalis.
Not to get off topic and go into a political tirade, but marijuana use, to use the tool of so many industrial and corporate truth-stretchers, is completely lacking in PROOF of negative effects. Of course, smoking, like breathing, may produce these harmful chemicals from the reaction, but these will NOT kill you unless you do absolutely nothing else (including sleep, eat, and drink).
IT IS TIME FOR THE MISTRUTHS TO BE ADRESSED, AND POSTS GROWING FROM THE IGNORANCE PROMOTED BY FEDERAL AND CORPORATE GREED MUST BE FOUGHT AGAINST. Say what you may about how marijuana "intoxicates" one like alcohol or poisons humans like moonshine, but until an individual wakes up with the will to open their eyes to new things, the truth will NEVER be made available to you..
So what do you choose questioneer? The illegal truth or the encouraged acceptance of these "white" lies?
2007-04-14 03:30:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by Michael R 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
if that is true I think people should heed your advice . although in the world some of us live in there is really not so much concern to offset the inevitable goal of life ......death; but even to those who have little reason to want to prolong there lives a more comfortable means of death should be considered .
2007-04-12 16:49:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by dogpatch USA 7
·
0⤊
0⤋