"But Rachel also has another hobby, one that makes her a bit different from the other moms in her Texas suburb—not that she talks about it with them. Once a month or so, after she and her husband put the kids to bed, Rachel texts her in-laws—who live just down the street—to make sure they’re home and available in the event of an emergency.
“And then, Rachel takes a generous dose of magic mushrooms, or sometimes MDMA, and—there’s really no other way to say this— spends the next several hours tripping balls.”
What statistics? Because I’ve looked and I can’t find any.
I don’t know why either your or the other person are just assuming this is true based on nothing at all.
I’m guessing the claims of cannabis potentially giving some people cancer, come from the estimated population of cannabis smokers, which is probably going to be lower than the current population of tobacco smokers, and then finding out how many people died from smoking(ignition based delivery systems that are basically what’s to blame for cancer), and then just extrapolating from those two points that there’s probably gonna be some extremely regular smokers of cannabis who’ve gotten cancer. Of course cannabis being WAY less addictive than nicotine means that the average cannabis smoker in general is still unlikely to develop cancer when compared to the average tobacco smoker, but the very exposure to smoke just increases your chance of developinng cancer anyways when compared to somebody who doesn’t smoke anything.
Like I think it’s just common sense. The other guy may have made a more specific point that is wrong though, idk, I just skimmed the convo
That the thing. You’re guessing.
This is not supposed to be about guessing.
They do not reveal the source of their numbers and any searching I do goes back to David Nutt, who does not explain where he got the data.
You both need to be more skeptical about this sort of thing. Even if cannabis can lead to lung cancer that doesn’t mean this data is anywhere near accurate.
What do you mean even if?
Smoke from burning that plant isn’t somehow magic and different to all other smoke.
Inhaling smoke can lead to cancer.
Now you’re just evading the point.
I’m not evading anything. Your entire argument throughout this submission has ultimately whittled down to a disbelief that inhaling smoke can have adverse health effects and, yes, cause cancer.
Why say “if”? It’s not “if” - it is a well-established fact of biology.
You may as well be saying “if the world really is a sphere”, or “if climate change is real”.
Nope. My entire argument has been that their source for mortality figures is highly suspect.
Stop the sealioning.
Firstly, there’s nothing suggest they’re suspect.
And secondly, back to what I’m actually talking about, you’re clearly trying to cast doubt on whether breathing in smoke is bad for you. There is no “if”. Smoking does cause cancer.
And it may shock you to find out that cancer does indeed cause death (it’s true, cancer really does cause death. I can give you sources on that if you like).
Apart from the fact that, as I said, they come from David Nutt, who won’t say where he got the numbers from. Why that isn’t an issue to you, I don’t know.
I am doing no such thing. If you’re going to lie about what I am saying directly to me, this conversation is over.