Smoking pot not so bad for the lungs afterall

[HempKat]

Well the Journel of the American Medical Association just recently published the results of a long term study that was done on the harm smoking marijuana might do to the lungs. Turns out it's not as bad as everyone thought.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/marijuana-smoking-does-not-harm-lungs-study-finds/

Too bad they couldn't have just taken our collective word for it that it's not so bad and saved all that money.

 

[cody2white]

That's a great article. Thanks for posting it. One step closer for freedom

 

[VonBudí]

now lets read the UK version..............

Smoking cannabis not as harmful to the lungs as cigarettes - but can still trigger psychosis

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...s-lungs--trigger-psychosis.html#ixzz1jAi3hBij

Smoking cannabis is less harmful to users’ lungs than exposure to tobacco, even though the two substances contain many of the same components, according to a new study.
The study led by the University of California San Francisco and University of Alabama at Birmingham, collected data from more than 5,000 U.S adults for more than 20 years.
'We found exactly what we thought we would find in relation to tobacco exposure: a consistent loss of lung function with increasing exposure,' said the paper’s lead author, Dr Mark Pletcher at UCSF.
'We were, however, surprised that we found such a different pattern of association with marijuana exposure.'
Smoking cigarettes can cause significant lung damage, including respiratory symptoms, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer.
It accounts for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly one in every five deaths, each year in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
However, data for the long-term effects of cannabis use on the pulmonary system has been scarce until now.
In a paper published today in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), researchers measured the air flow rate and lung volume of just over 5,000 healthy adults aged 18 to 30.


When smoking cigarettes, study co-author Dr Stefan Kertesz said: 'There’s a straight-line relationship: the more you use, the more you lose.'
However, the same was not true with cannabis users. Air flow rate increased rather than decreased with increased exposure to cannabis up to a certain level.
'An important factor that helps explain the difference in effects from these two substances is the amount of each that is typically smoked,' Dr Pletcher said.
'Tobacco users typically smoke ten to 20 cigarettes/day, and some smoke much more than that. Marijuana users, on average, smoke only two to three times a month, so the typical exposure to marijuana is much lower than for tobacco.'
However, frequent cannabis use has been associated with anxiety, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders and depression. It has also been found to affect learning for weeks after exposure.
'Marijuana is complicated,' Dr Kertesz told LiveScience.com.
'It could be affecting your social life, your work life or even your tendency to get into accidents.'
Cannabis is classed as a sedating and hallucinogenic drug. Some users find it makes them feel relaxed and happy in the short term. However, the drug can cause feelings of anxiety, suspicion, panic and paranoia. It can also increase the risk of developing psychosis.
It is a Class B drug in the UK, which means it is illegal to possess or supply.

 

[Snoopster]

The UK giving us a run for our money in stupid.

 

[delic]

The UK giving us a run for our money in stupid.

That's right we got plenty stupid over here

 

[Funion]

"... two to three times a month" -that's so cute

 

[castout]

and cigarettes are legal!!

 

[HempKat]

"... two to three times a month" -that's so cute

I love it when these stories come out and some expert says something like "The average user only smokes two to three times a month". I mean it's so helpful because it lets me know the person saying it hasn't a clue. The funny thing though is when a lower frequency of smoking helps to dismiss any positive results of studying the effects of marijuana then the average smoker smokes 2 to 3 times a month yet if it makes something about marijuana look bad then the average smoker smokes much more frequently. I wonder though, if the average smoker only smokes 2 to 3 times a month how on earth did they ever come to the conclusion marijuana is addictive and or a gateway drug? It also begs the question that if the average smoker only smokes 2 to 3 times a month why on earth were so many past studies done using amounts that were much higher? I remember one study I read about, they gave lab rats pills of THC supposedly equal to 20 joints per day. I've met a wide variety of smokers including folks who do nothing but sit around and get high all day and the worst of them didn't even smoke half that much on a daily basis. I imagine if you pump any creature full of way too much of something you'll see negative results. Like for example, did you know that certain vitamins actually have a level where they can become toxic and be harmful if you take too many?

 

[Classy@Home]

I saw several mainstream media try to report this (on the tv), and their "experts" could barely NOT mumble the whole time any positive mj message was discussed, and they were all tripping over themselves to discuss the evil "but could happens".

WTF is up with the "but could happens"???

Discussing water - we all KNOW it is essential for life, good for cleaning, natural in rain, found in huge quantities all over the world - those idiots would spend 1/2 hour on "but you can hold someones head under it and drown them"...

And then go home, have too many drinks and beat the shit outta their wife and kids - because they LIKE to...

 

[vta]

Cool...

Many had enhanced lung capacity, which one researcher involved in the study speculated might come from the common practice of holding one's breath after inhaling cannabis smoke to maximize its intoxicating effects.

 

[HempKat]

I saw several mainstream media try to report this (on the tv), and their "experts" could barely NOT mumble the whole time any positive mj message was discussed, and they were all tripping over themselves to discuss the evil "but could happens".

WTF is up with the "but could happens"???

Discussing water - we all KNOW it is essential for life, good for cleaning, natural in rain, found in huge quantities all over the world - those idiots would spend 1/2 hour on "but you can hold someones head under it and drown them"...

And then go home, have too many drinks and beat the shit outta their wife and kids - because they LIKE to...

What really kills me about these so called experts is that many of them are of the age and background that they probably smoked a fair share of pot when they were young and so they know in their heart of hearts that the evils they claim are simply not true. The problem though is it's not profitable to point out that marijuana is a fairly benign drug as far as drugs go. There's not enough big money out there trying to get marijuana legalized and loads of big money trying to keep it where it's at.

Given the high percentages of people who use and/or are in favor of legalizing marijuana it's just a matter of time though and if the idiots trying to keep marijuana where it's at would just use a little common sense and logic and follow their greedy natures they would see the wisdom of getting their share of the profits out there should marijuana ever become legalized. If they keep doing as they're doing now, when it does become legalized they'll likely miss the boat.

 

[el bee]

Where's all the good science at?

 

[KonradZuse]

bad articles are bad. Smoking is bad period. Cannabis can counteract all the cancer cells(if you believe it does) and shit, but if you're adding more cancer causing shit, there is only so mch you can destroy...

 

[HempKat]

You know, it occurs to me even among our community there are those who would favor such studies not being done or that would like to dismiss or discredit the findings. I mean think of all the people that manufacture and use vaporizers for example. Their whole reasoning is that smoking is bad for you period and therefore the only safe way to use marijuana is with one of their vaporizers. Something like this coming along at best makes them seem a bit foolish.

 

[budbasket]

First, how many people actually have actually waited until they are 25, the studies average age of beginning use, to start smoking bud? The beginning of this article begins by stating 1 in 15 high school students smoke on a daily basis.

Next how many people smoke more than 1 joint a day? Also along with this question, how large are the joints?

Whats the overall cannabinoid profile (ie how strong is your shit)? They tested Oakland, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Birmingham, everyone in those cities smokes only top quality "medical marijuana" grown by trusted and honest growers who used no fungicides or pesticides late in flower?

Finally why is it okay to have 7 "joint years" of use but when you get to 10 "joint years" your lung function starts to decline. We can start smoking at 25 but only until 35?

Also later in the article it says that they found smoking up to 3 joints a day, totaling 60 joint years over the 20 year study, based on their ratio of 365 joints or pipe:1 joint year(this correlation doesn't make sense at all either) had no effect on overall lung function.

So you can smoke 3 joints a day, and it does no damage to your lungs, but when you smoke 1 joint a day for 10 years it beings to continually degrade your lungs? See where I am going with these questions?

Chewbacca defense. Plain and simple. Why would a wookie covered in hair live on the jungle planet of Endor? It doesn't make sense.

Any smoking is bad for your lungs. It fucks the cilia and lung tissue. Even THC has been proven to paralyze the cilia lining the lung walls. Sure it doesn't kill it but it stops em from working.

 

[HempKat]

First, how many people actually have actually waited until they are 25, the studies average age of beginning use, to start smoking bud? The beginning of this article begins by stating 1 in 15 high school students smoke on a daily basis.

Next how many people smoke more than 1 joint a day? Also along with this question, how large are the joints?

Whats the overall cannabinoid profile (ie how strong is your shit)? They tested Oakland, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Birmingham, everyone in those cities smokes only top quality "medical marijuana" grown by trusted and honest growers who used no fungicides or pesticides late in flower?

Finally why is it okay to have 7 "joint years" of use but when you get to 10 "joint years" your lung function starts to decline. We can start smoking at 25 but only until 35?

Also later in the article it says that they found smoking up to 3 joints a day, totaling 60 joint years over the 20 year study, based on their ratio of 365 joints or pipe:1 joint year(this correlation doesn't make sense at all either) had no effect on overall lung function.

So you can smoke 3 joints a day, and it does no damage to your lungs, but when you smoke 1 joint a day for 10 years it beings to continually degrade your lungs? See where I am going with these questions?

Chewbacca defense. Plain and simple. Why would a wookie covered in hair live on the jungle planet of Endor? It doesn't make sense.

Any smoking is bad for your lungs. It fucks the cilia and lung tissue. Even THC has been proven to paralyze the cilia lining the lung walls. Sure it doesn't kill it but it stops em from working.

You're not reading things properly or you're reading it with a pre-concieved notion of what they're trying to say. First off the study never claimed that smoking pot had no harmful effects at all but rather that it's not as harmful as cigarettes/tobacco. At one time it was believed that smoking marijuana was way more harmful. What the study is actually saying is smoking marijuana doesn't diminish lung capacity and in some cases actually improves lung capacity.

As for the age thing. No it is not saying you can't smoke before 25 it's saying that was the average age of the test subjects when they began this study 20 years ago. Nowhere did anything say these 25 year old test subjects were drug free prior to the study.

As for the issue of frequency yeah, sure one joint per day seems rather low when you think of the people who post here that brag about smoking much more or you think of some of your buddies you may know that smoke more but not everyone is that way, nor does everyone smoke every single day for years. I myself started smoking at age 11 and now I'm in my early 50's so that's 40+ years of smoking and I do not have COPD or any other lung disease. Now over those 40+ years there were periods where I smoked daily but never did I smoke daily for one entire year let alone 7 or 10 years. However, to address your question near the end of the story it did state that the doctors also found no decrease in lung function in people smoking 3 joints a day.

As for the question of the cannabinoid profile I don't really see where that's particularly relevent, the test cities were far enough apart and the number of test subjects great enough that it's fairly safe to say very few if any were smoking the exact same weed as the next. Yet they all had the same test results. Now if you were seeing wide variations in results or it was known that everyone was smoking the exact same weed then a look at the cannabinoid profile might be more relevent.

As to the question of 7 years vs 10 years. Again it never said that smoking marijuana had no impact on the lungs just considerably less impact then cigarettes. You also need to keep in mind that the subjects were free to smoke as much or as little, for as often as they wanted. What I'm getting from their findings is if you smoke daily for up to 7 years you'll avoid any measurable decrease in lung function but if you smoke daily for 10 or more years then you will see a decrease but it's still going to be less then smoking tobacco daily for the same period of time and if you do both you'll see the same level of damage (in other words smoking weed won't reverse or prevent the harm of smoking tobacco).

As to the question of 3 joints a day vs 1 joint a day you're taking two seperate conclusions and mashing them together in a way that misinterprets the findings. One joint a day or three joints a day for 7 years, no decline in lung function. One joint a day or 3 joints a day for 10 or more years, some decline in lung function. Conclusion it's not the daily amount that matters but the duration of daily usage.

I'm wondering though what's the benefit for you in trying to convince everyone the studies results are bogus? Do you make and sell vaporizers and edibles and depend on the propaganda that smoking weed is as harmful as smoking tobacco or is it just that you've believed it's harmful for so long and so feircely that it makes you feel foolish if you accept that your beliefs have been proven wrong? Or have they been proven wrong? Again the study itself does not say that smoking marijuana is harmless just not as harmful as previously thought. It's only the title of the article reporting the results of the studies making that claim.

 

[budbasket]

I have never stated cannabis is just as harmful as smoking tobacco. My main point was that smoking is damaging. You literally just said it yourself.

"Again the study itself does not say that smoking marijuana is harmless just not as harmful as previously thought."

I have absolutely nothing to gain from either vaporizers or edible production. I approach this from a medical stand point. Giving people dried leaves/flowers/plant material, setting it on fire, and inhaling, is not and cannot be considered medicine. I am simply stating SMOKING is bad. That's it. Again you've said it yourself.

I think that the large majority of the population will smoke for more than 10 years, which again the study states, has found to be detrimental to lung function.

You keep commenting on the evils of vaporizers and in the above post edibles, do you have something to gain from the sale of glass pipes, bongs, papers, screens? Do you own or work for a smoke shop? It's a ridiculous question just like asking if I have something to gain from the sale of vapes or edibles. I never once stated the results are bogus, I simply pointed out flaws in theory. Like running a medical test with little to no controls on the subjects or substances used.

I think its wrong to assume everyone will use less than a joint a day, and take breaks, as you yourself have. As to your comment about mashing conclusions, I simply read the article and used the exact correlations they used. If the people who wrote the article related two different studies to prove a point, can I not ask about discrepancy's in comparing such data.

Joint years work exactly like degree days with insect populations. 1 joint a day, 365 days for a year= 1 joint year. 3 joints a day, 365 days for a year= 3 joint years, even though it was only a year in actual time.

The average use, according to the study, was 2-3 times a month. That's an extremely low frequency. So in the 20 year study, the average joint year use was 1.97, we'll round to 2 joint years total. That's really not a lot. As more states move to legalize, more product is available and more will be used. Whats the harm in trying to find a safe way to partake, especially longer than 10 years.

Yes smoking extremely lightly will have little to no affect on overall lung function. But for those that smoke more, maybe a vaporizer and eating edibles would be/is a good investment. I don't understand what you have against people simply stating smoking, anything, is bad for your lungs, because its true. I think stating that its not as bad as smoking ciggs really isn't that great of point to be making. It's still bad, it just takes longer to show the damage.

I am not trying to undermine the results of the study, I was simply asking questions. When ever a scientific study or journal article is published it is standard to have scholarly reviews. People rip your articles apart trying to every single possible flaw. The internet is making this much easier rather than sending books to friends overseas. I am simply participating in the scientific approach and asking, what I think, are quite reasonable questions.

I don't have anything to gain from vaporizer sales or medibles. I do have something to gain studying the effects of this plant and trying to deliver the safest, fastest, and most reliable product possible.

 

[Snoopster]

bad articles are bad. Smoking is bad period. Cannabis can counteract all the cancer cells(if you believe it does) and shit, but if you're adding more cancer causing shit, there is only so mch you can destroy...

There are numerous studies that have failed to show any link between marijuana smoking and cancer. Tashkin set out to prove a link and failed. There have been studies that show that marijuana smokers tend to be healthier and have lower incidences of cancer. I read a study that suggests that people that smoke marijuana and cigarettes have lower incidences of lung cancer that people that smoke cigarettes only.

You would think that with all the pot smokers in this country we would be hearing about problems associated with marijuana smoking.


This was a 20 year study published in JAMA.
I don't get why people are trying to impugn the results.

If you don't like smoking, great for you, don't smoke then.


Common sense gets its ass kicked by science all the time.

 

[HempKat]

I have never stated cannabis is just as harmful as smoking tobacco. My main point was that smoking is damaging. You literally just said it yourself.

"Again the study itself does not say that smoking marijuana is harmless just not as harmful as previously thought."

I have absolutely nothing to gain from either vaporizers or edible production. I approach this from a medical stand point. Giving people dried leaves/flowers/plant material, setting it on fire, and inhaling, is not and cannot be considered medicine. I am simply stating SMOKING is bad. That's it. Again you've said it yourself.

I think that the large majority of the population will smoke for more than 10 years, which again the study states, has found to be detrimental to lung function.

You keep commenting on the evils of vaporizers and in the above post edibles, do you have something to gain from the sale of glass pipes, bongs, papers, screens? Do you own or work for a smoke shop? It's a ridiculous question just like asking if I have something to gain from the sale of vapes or edibles. I never once stated the results are bogus, I simply pointed out flaws in theory. Like running a medical test with little to no controls on the subjects or substances used.

I think its wrong to assume everyone will use less than a joint a day, and take breaks, as you yourself have. As to your comment about mashing conclusions, I simply read the article and used the exact correlations they used. If the people who wrote the article related two different studies to prove a point, can I not ask about discrepancy's in comparing such data.

Joint years work exactly like degree days with insect populations. 1 joint a day, 365 days for a year= 1 joint year. 3 joints a day, 365 days for a year= 3 joint years, even though it was only a year in actual time.

The average use, according to the study, was 2-3 times a month. That's an extremely low frequency. So in the 20 year study, the average joint year use was 1.97, we'll round to 2 joint years total. That's really not a lot. As more states move to legalize, more product is available and more will be used. Whats the harm in trying to find a safe way to partake, especially longer than 10 years.

Yes smoking extremely lightly will have little to no affect on overall lung function. But for those that smoke more, maybe a vaporizer and eating edibles would be/is a good investment. I don't understand what you have against people simply stating smoking, anything, is bad for your lungs, because its true. I think stating that its not as bad as smoking ciggs really isn't that great of point to be making. It's still bad, it just takes longer to show the damage.

I am not trying to undermine the results of the study, I was simply asking questions. When ever a scientific study or journal article is published it is standard to have scholarly reviews. People rip your articles apart trying to every single possible flaw. The internet is making this much easier rather than sending books to friends overseas. I am simply participating in the scientific approach and asking, what I think, are quite reasonable questions.

I don't have anything to gain from vaporizer sales or medibles. I do have something to gain studying the effects of this plant and trying to deliver the safest, fastest, and most reliable product possible.

Okay well I guess your observation skills are off. The average use according to the study was not 1-3 times a month. That was an observation a doctor not involved in the study made with regards to the results of the study. Oh and just for clarification ripping apart a study via the internet is not a scientific approach.

You also seem to have trouble understanding things judging by questions like this. "Whats the harm in trying to find a safe way to partake, especially longer than 10 years". You make it sound like after 10 years you're going to have severe health problems and/or be knocking on deaths door. When in fact what the study is saying is that after 10 years of daily use you'll just begin to see the first subtle signs of damage to the lungs.

I have no problem at all with someone saying smoking anything is bad because that's true. What I do have a problem with is people who say or imply smoking one thing is as bad as anything else when there is proof that it's not as bad. I also have a problem with people that twist words or put words in people's mouths. I never said there were any evils to vaporizers or edibles I simply referenced them twice as being non smoking alternatives. Personally I'd saying eating cannabis is the way to go and would be the way God/nature intended it to be used as a medicine. Alas the stupid laws we've allowed to be passed against it make it such that eating it is cost prohibitive for most people.

Again on the point of mashing conclusions together to make what seems to be a contradiction. Nowhere in the study did it say smoking 3 joints a day is okay but if you smoke one joint a day for 10 years it's bad. It said as one point (not word for word) that smoking one joint a day for 10 years will begin to produce decline in lung function and then it said as a seperate point (also not word for word) that smoking 3 joints a day was no more harmful then one joint per day. Yet you were trying to suggest that they were saying 3 joints a day is okay and would not lead to any lung damage but one joint a day would as a way of trying to suggest the conclusions were false. You also tried to suggest that the test subjects were drug free up until age 25 when they started the test and therefore if anyone wanted similar results they'd have to wait until they were 25 to start smoking.

The bottomline is this, yes breathing in the smoke and fumes of materials in a state of combustion are bad for you to some degree but not all things in a state of combustion are equal. We know for a fact that cigarette smoke is harmful and can have lethal affects within a lifetime. The results of this study shows that smoking marijuana while still harmful is significantly less harmful then cigarettes and as such, one is less likely to die from it in a normal life span.

 

[Snoopster]

Caution, anecdotal bs follows:

I am on the old side of 40. I have been smoking daily for over 20 years.
My lung function is excellent, better than when I was in my late 20s and smoked cigs.

Want good lung function?

Exercise