[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

But that's the thing - both are smoked.  It's not the nicotine that makes smoking give you cancer - it's the fact it is burned and inhaled.  So in that sense they do have the same effect.

didn't tobacco chewing gave cancer too? tongue/throat cancer?

[Barrister]

But that's the thing - both are smoked.  It's not the nicotine that makes smoking give you cancer - it's the fact it is burned and inhaled.  So in that sense they do have the same effect.

didn't tobacco chewing gave cancer too? tongue/throat cancer?

Good point - it does.

Huh I wonder why that is, because even googled to confirm that nicotine itself is not a known carcinogen (heart disease is a whole other story).

[viper37]

Well, tobacco is not only nicotine.  Maybe there's something else in the leaves, or it's the drying process that cause cancer? 

[Malthus]

But that's the thing - both are smoked.  It's not the nicotine that makes smoking give you cancer - it's the fact it is burned and inhaled.  So in that sense they do have the same effect.

Three points:

(1) tobacco isn't necessarily smoked, but still gives you cancer - chewing tobacco, snuff, etc.

(2) Pot also isn't necessarily smoked. It is often eaten (as in brownies) or taken as tea. I never heard that pot brownies caused any cancer.

(3) People who smoke pot, smoke a lot less of it than people who smoke cigarettes, and do so considerably less frequently. look at the average size of a cigarette versus the average size of a joint. Joints are tiny by comparison; and people normally do not smoke them every couple of hours, all day. 

It also seems odd to see you try to disconnect tobacco and pot.  Didn't you tell us the story that smoking pot was actually your "gateway drug" into getting hooked on cigarettes?

That wasn't "pot". That was hashish. Hash doesn't burn well on its own (unlike pot), so it is often mixed with something that does - typically, tobacco - to make joints. It was this mixing that "hooked" me on tobacco - as it turned out I could quit smoking hash whenever I wanted to, but tobacco proved horribly addictive. If I had stuck to pot, that never would have happened.

Please just take it from me - impaired driving by marijuana is incredibly difficult to prosecute.  Not impossible, no, but probably an order of magnitude harder than proving alcohol.

Again, this doesn't strike me as a good reason to make the stuff illegal. I bet it is tough to prosecute impairment based on a wide variety of prescription drugs, too.

[garbon]

But that's the thing - both are smoked.  It's not the nicotine that makes smoking give you cancer - it's the fact it is burned and inhaled.  So in that sense they do have the same effect.

didn't tobacco chewing gave cancer too? tongue/throat cancer?

Good point - it does.

Huh I wonder why that is, because even googled to confirm that nicotine itself is not a known carcinogen (heart disease is a whole other story).

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/smokeless-fact-sheet#q3

Are there harmful chemicals in smokeless tobacco?


Yes. There is no safe form of tobacco. At least 28 chemicals in smokeless tobacco have been found to cause cancer (1). The most harmful chemicals in smokeless tobacco are tobacco-specific nitrosamines, which are formed during the growing, curing, fermenting, and aging of tobacco. The level of tobacco-specific nitrosamines varies by product. Scientists have found that the nitrosamine level is directly related to the risk of cancer.

In addition to a variety of nitrosamines, other cancer-causing substances in smokeless tobacco include polonium–210 (a radioactive element found in tobacco fertilizer) and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (also known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco-specific_nitrosamines

These nitrosamine carcinogens are formed from nicotine and related compounds by a nitrosation reaction that occurs during the curing and processing of tobacco. They are called tobacco-specific nitrosamines because they are found only in tobacco products, and possibly in some other nicotine-containing products. The tobacco-specific nitrosamines are present in cigarette smoke and to a lesser degree in "smokeless" tobacco products such as dipping tobacco and chewing tobacco. They are present in trace amounts in snus, a Swedish style snuff that is not fermented (a type of curing) and is pasteurized. They are among the most important carcinogens in cigarette smoke, along with combustion products and other carcinogens.

[dps]

But that's the thing - both are smoked.  It's not the nicotine that makes smoking give you cancer - it's the fact it is burned and inhaled.  So in that sense they do have the same effect.

didn't tobacco chewing gave cancer too? tongue/throat cancer?

Good point - it does.

Huh I wonder why that is, because even googled to confirm that nicotine itself is not a known carcinogen (heart disease is a whole other story).

The nicotine is what makes tobacco addictive.  It's other stuff in the tobacco that makes it cancer-causing, as per Garbon's post.

[PRC]

In addition to a variety of nitrosamines, other cancer-causing substances in smokeless tobacco include polonium–210 (a radioactive element found in tobacco fertilizer)

Polonium-210 is what was used to kill that Russian expat Litivenko.

[The Minsky Moment]

I never heard that pot brownies caused any cancer.

Diabetes. 

[Jacob]

Petition to rename Stephen Harper to "Calgary International Airport": https://www.change.org/p/rename-stephen-harper-to-calgary-international-airport?recruiter=416415018&utm_source=share_for_starters&utm_medium=copyLink

[Barrister]

Petition to rename Stephen Harper to "Calgary International Airport": https://www.change.org/p/rename-stephen-harper-to-calgary-international-airport?recruiter=416415018&utm_source=share_for_starters&utm_medium=copyLink

You know the idea of re-naming Calgary's airport to the Stephen Harper Airport actually has a lot of merit.  Just not, you know, right now.

Give it 10-20 years or so.

[Malthus]

Petition to rename Stephen Harper to "Calgary International Airport": https://www.change.org/p/rename-stephen-harper-to-calgary-international-airport?recruiter=416415018&utm_source=share_for_starters&utm_medium=copyLink

You know the idea of re-naming Calgary's airport to the Stephen Harper Airport actually has a lot of merit.  Just not, you know, right now.

Give it 10-20 years or so.

The petition's a gag - it's to rename the person as an airport. Not very classy or funny, but whateveah.

As for naming an airport after a person - isn't the usual convention to wait until the person in question is dead? Not sure about that, but that was my impression.

[Valmy]

As for naming an airport after a person - isn't the usual convention to wait until the person in question is dead? Not sure about that, but that was my impression.

Didn't stop Houston from naming their airport after Kennebunkport's most famous tourist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bush_Intercontinental_Airport

[Barrister]

Petition to rename Stephen Harper to "Calgary International Airport": https://www.change.org/p/rename-stephen-harper-to-calgary-international-airport?recruiter=416415018&utm_source=share_for_starters&utm_medium=copyLink

You know the idea of re-naming Calgary's airport to the Stephen Harper Airport actually has a lot of merit.  Just not, you know, right now.

Give it 10-20 years or so.

The petition's a gag - it's to rename the person as an airport. Not very classy or funny, but whateveah.

As for naming an airport after a person - isn't the usual convention to wait until the person in question is dead? Not sure about that, but that was my impression.

I knew that - it was a reaction to another petition suggesting the more conventional approach.  I was just commenting on the original idea.

I don't know if it's convention, but yes - I think all the examples I can think of (Pearson, Trudeau, Diefenbaker, and Neilsen in Whitehorse) were named posthumously.

[Malthus]

As for naming an airport after a person - isn't the usual convention to wait until the person in question is dead? Not sure about that, but that was my impression.

Didn't stop Houston from naming their airport after Kennebunkport's most famous tourist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bush_Intercontinental_Airport

For some reason it always struck me as tactless to name infrastructure after someone when they are still alive.

[Valmy]

For some reason it always struck me as tactless to name infrastructure after someone when they are still alive.

Don't you want to fly out of Atwood airport before you die?