• Pot smoking not so harmful to the lungs, study finds.
    137 replies, posted
[quote]Smoking a joint or a bowl from time to time appears to cause no long-term damage to the lungs, according to a UCSF study that disproves one of the major concerns about marijuana use - that inhaling anything other than air on a regular basis must be harmful. The study, results of which were published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the lung capacity of people who smoked marijuana was not diminished by lighting up, even among those who smoked once or twice a week. Smoking 20 or more joints a month did have a negative impact on the pulmonary system, but that level of marijuana use is unusual. For occasional users, smoking marijuana was actually associated with a small but statistically significant increase in lung capacity - perhaps caused by the deep-breathing pot smokers use to draw the drug into their lungs. Researchers were reluctant to give the all clear to anyone who wants to smoke pot, but the results - and the fact that they were published in a major medical journal - should reassure doctors and patients who are tempted to use marijuana for treatment, primarily to ease pain and nausea, said Dr. Mark Pletcher, a UCSF epidemiologist and lead author of the study. "Moderate levels of exposure to marijuana don't seem to have any adverse effects in terms of pulmonary function," Pletcher said. "That was a little surprising to me, honestly. I thought we were going to find a small decline in pulmonary function, similar to what we'd find with tobacco." Smoking cigarettes has such dramatic, long-term health consequences - including emphysema and lung cancer - that doctors have long assumed that marijuana smoking, too, must be detrimental. The study, which looked at 5,115 men and women over a 20-year period, found that people were just about as likely to smoke marijuana as cigarettes, and many participants smoked both. People who smoked cigarettes, however, were more likely to be heavy users - on average about eight cigarettes a day - than marijuana smokers, who lit up on average two or three times a month. It's likely that the main reason that marijuana smoke doesn't seem to affect lung function the way tobacco does is because people simply don't use the drug as much as they use tobacco. But it's also possible, scientists said, that marijuana smoke just isn't as damaging as tobacco smoke. "No one would ever claim that drinking water has the same effect as drinking vodka, even though they're both liquids and you're ingesting them the same way. But for some reason we have assumed that because we know the negative outcomes with cigarettes, inhaling any plant material is going to have the same outcomes," said Amanda Reiman, a UC Berkeley lecturer and director of research at the Berkeley Patients Group, a medical marijuana dispensary. "This study is challenging the preconceived notions we've had for some time about the dangers of smoking cannabis and the similarities to smoking tobacco," she said. [/quote] [url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2012%2F01%2F10%2FBA6G1MNA0G.DTL]Source[/url]
study weed erryday
In other news the sky is blue. Yeah we've known for a while it isn't as harmful as people say, yes it has risks. But so does smoking cigs and drinking. Most people know it was never banned because of health risks but because of the cotton industry and the threat that hemp posed.
Cannabis is probably the most benign and useful substance known to man, no joke. Not necessarily to be abused as a recreational drug (Though that's really okay, too) but for a whole bunch of medical applications.
now maybe people will chill the fuck out about it lmao, who am i kidding
My dad usually lights up every 2-3 days. However, one of his friends would light up 6-7 times a DAY, and died in Utah from Pneumonia. I don't blame weed at all for his death, he was always scrawny and sickly, it's probably just that this got the better of him and killed him.
That's weird, it doesn't seem like all that smoke and burnt plant matter wouldn't hurt you if you smoked enough.
my dog stepped on a weed needle and died because scoliosis
[QUOTE=Sanius;34155655]my dog stepped on a weed needle and died because scoliosis[/QUOTE] I'm sorry for your loss.
This is good, but it's important to recognize one study is not the end-all be-all of a topic. I can find, after just a few minutes of research on the Internet, a few studies which seem to both support and contradict this one. "Marijuana is not discernably likely to cause cancer": [url]http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/10/1829.short[/url] "Marijuana was not realistically worse for our test group than cigarette usage": [url]http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/3492159[/url] "Marijuana use was overwhelmingly worse for our test group than cigarette usage": [url]http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198802113180603[/url]
[img]http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/11/24/129035493945661025.jpg[/img] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Image macro" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;34155764][img]http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/11/24/129035493945661025.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] prepare to DIE
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;34155764][img]http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/11/24/129035493945661025.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] and our forecast for today is thunderstorms of shit
The link is 404d :[
[quote]were more likely to be heavy users - on average about eight cigarettes a day[/quote] I'm pretty sure quarter and half pack a day smokers aren't considered heavy there guys
Not really anything new.
[QUOTE=Hiurst;34155763]This is good, but it's important to recognize one study is not the end-all be-all of a topic. I can find, after just a few minutes of research on the Internet, a few studies which seem to both support and contradict this one.[/QUOTE] That's true. The sample size wasn't large enough to catch the rather small amount of cancer that would develop and the experiment wasn't run long enough. Smoking cannabis occasionally likely wouldn't cause very much cancer among most people in 20 years, not that they were even specifically testing for cancer. Hell, most smokers don't even end up with lung cancer after 20 years. Inhaling pyrolysed organic matter is cancerous. [quote]No one would ever claim that drinking water has the same effect as drinking vodka, even though they're both liquids and you're ingesting them the same way. [/quote] Statements like this are just absolutely fucking stupid, and I hope they're misquoting her. Honestly just say "smoking isn't a good method of ingestion" and sell cheap vaporizers
[QUOTE=MR-X;34155551]In other news the sky is blue. Yeah we've known for a while it isn't as harmful as people say, yes it has risks. But so does smoking cigs and drinking. Most people know it was never banned because of health risks but because of the cotton industry and the threat that hemp posed.[/QUOTE] It wasn't banned due to it posing a threat to cotton or paper industries or the such, because hemp had already been in heavy decline since the late 18th century after the industrial revolution made cotton much cheaper than hemp to mass produce. Hemp was mainly used in the pre-industrial era by people who had no easy access to a wide market of fibres they could use for various purposes. Older fabrics like Hemp or Cotton did the job, but they were supplanted over time by superior fabrics. By the time Marijuana was banned, the industry had already ceased to be of any importance.
This entire thread is like de ja vu.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;34156099]It wasn't banned due to it posing a threat to cotton or paper industries or the such, because hemp had already been in heavy decline since the late 18th century after the industrial revolution made cotton much cheaper than hemp to mass produce. Hemp was mainly used in the pre-industrial era by people who had no easy access to a wide market of fibres they could use for various purposes. Older fabrics like Hemp or Cotton did the job, but they were supplanted over time by superior fabrics. By the time Marijuana was banned, the industry had already ceased to be of any importance.[/QUOTE]Welcome back to another marijuana thread, Sobotnik. Here to spread your bullshit propaganda like you do in the others?
That's nice. Still won't touch the stuff.
Cool. Now can people please stop trying to arrest me for toking up every once in a while? [editline]10th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;34156099]It wasn't banned due to it posing a threat to cotton or paper industries or the such, because hemp had already been in heavy decline since the late 18th century after the industrial revolution made cotton much cheaper than hemp to mass produce. Hemp was mainly used in the pre-industrial era by people who had no easy access to a wide market of fibres they could use for various purposes. Older fabrics like Hemp or Cotton did the job, but they were supplanted over time by superior fabrics. By the time Marijuana was banned, the industry had already ceased to be of any importance.[/QUOTE] Time Magazine had just named hemp the cash crop of the year right before it was banned. I don't see much reason in doing that if the hemp industry was "on the decline".
I was smoking when I read this. But seriously, it's good to read this but we've known this for a while. The effects of smoking weed are vastly different than that of cigarettes and there is little for comparison in damage and long term effects. This isn't to say it's without risk, but it's to say that the risk is lesser. This particular aspect of the marijuana argument STILL being an issue after many studies coming back and finding this or similar findings isn't a surprise to me, but it's still stupid.
[QUOTE=Clovernoodle;34156135]That's nice. Still won't touch the stuff.[/QUOTE] BUT IF YOU DONT YOUR JUST LICKING THE DIRT OFF THE GOVERNMENTS BOOTS 4/20 4 LYFE
[QUOTE=Contag;34155996]That's true. The sample size wasn't large enough to catch the rather small amount of cancer that would develop and the experiment wasn't run long enough. Smoking cannabis occasionally likely wouldn't cause very much cancer among most people in 20 years, not that they were even specifically testing for cancer. Hell, most smokers don't even end up with lung cancer after 20 years. Inhaling pyrolysed organic matter is cancerous.[/QUOTE] There have been numerous studies on Marijuana smoke that have indicated time and time again that no matter how much you smoke the plant, nor how regularly, you will never see an increased chance for lung cancer.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;34156170]I was smoking when I read this. But seriously, it's good to read this but we've known this for a while. The effects of smoking weed are vastly different than that of cigarettes and there is little for comparison in damage and long term effects. [b]This isn't to say it's without risk, but it's to say that the risk is lesser.[/b] This particular aspect of the marijuana argument STILL being an issue after many studies coming back and finding this or similar findings isn't a surprise to me, but it's still stupid.[/QUOTE] There's not enough confidence in the research available to say this IMO
See, this is a thread about weed on Facepunch, so we will debate it's harmful effects and soon everyone will bandwagon and whine about it's illegality.
[QUOTE=TehWhale;34156129]Welcome back to another marijuana thread, Sobotnik. Here to spread your bullshit propaganda like you do in the others?[/QUOTE] I have no real problem with what he says, but if what he says is true, why is there still a global interest in hemp? Why are there still various people out there who work with it and find it to be a much superior fibre? If it is SO bad that almost everything we had then was better, what has changed since then? Have we developed new strains of more impressive hemp? Have we figured out new processes to bind it together? Have we developed anything at all?
Can I be a "heavy use" guinea pig to see if heavy pot smoking causes issues? For science, of course.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;34156201]There have been numerous studies on Marijuana smoke that have indicated time and time again that no matter how much you smoke the plant, nor how regularly, you will never see an increased chance for lung cancer.[/QUOTE] Lung cancer is not the only form of lung damage
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.