• Pot smoking not so harmful to the lungs, study finds.
    137 replies, posted
I hope the researchers (or weedsearchers, lol) smoked weed errday
[QUOTE=Icedshot;34159034]This article is saying that for less than one spliff per day, on average, there are no harmful side effects. Above that, there are[/QUOTE] And that goes beyond just lungs. Even if the article doesn't mention it.
[QUOTE=archangel125;34155558]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.[/QUOTE] Nope, you're ignoring the point of the study - They're saying that it's only "benign" because useage of it is not as heavy as it is with cigarettes. You don't smoke 20 joints a day, but if you do, the effects on the pulmonary system are similar to that of tobacco useage. And whilst it has medecinal benefits, it also has associated risks. There is a wealth of literature out there about it causing or bringing out mental disorders in those with a family history of them (genetic predisposition in other words) but whom had not previously exhibited said disorders.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34158497]Most notably cigarettes, and the ganja, they fuck up your endorphin and other chemical levels in your brain. And that's not good in the long run. It's noticeable when you have a hard time understanding what a druggie has to say, or when a stoner appears to be more "dumber" after years of pot-smoking.[/QUOTE] "More dumber" Are you serious
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;34160425]"More dumber" Are you serious[/QUOTE] One way to put it.. And obviously it depends on people like stormcharger proved.
I don't get why people give a shit whether it's healthy or not. Has anybody ever smoked a joint in the name of good health?
[QUOTE=Chrille;34160499]I don't get why people give a shit whether it's healthy or not. Has anybody ever smoked a joint in the name of good health?[/QUOTE] That makes no sense. If no one cared about the health effects of anything not done 'in the name of good health' then I reckon we'd all die pretty quickly.
[QUOTE=ThisGuy0;34161803]That makes no sense. If no one cared about the health effects of anything not done 'in the name of good health' then I reckon we'd all die pretty quickly.[/QUOTE] Meant in the same sense that you don't smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol because of health benefits, duh
From time to time, yea. But I just see it as any smoke going into you isn't good either way, some are more harmful then others, but it's still not good. Legalizing it won't mean your nice little dealer down the street will be allowed to sell it, it means a company will be selling you it and it could end up like tobacco in cigarettes with added chemicals to get you coming back and even then, they refer to smoking once in a while, like once a week or such. You sell them like cigarettes, you will see lung problems at the fact how easily available and the quantities are a lot larger and easily accesible. Along with trying to reduce the potency of the drug compound within the weed to increase usage. Like they said, a joint once a day for 20 days is harmful, imagine if a company had control of it.
Vaporisation ftw :P
Please forgive my essay styled post, but I feel that it gets the point accross clearly and cites sources so you can tell i'm not just making up my own theories. Smoke is an irritant. Different irritants cause varing amounts of damage to lungs and throat when inhaled reguarly. The damage caused to the lungs by cannabis smoke alone is negligible (assuming it is not smoked with other harmful substrates such as tobacco which are carcinogenic and much more irritant). How is this news? We've known for a long time that pure weed smokers (no tobacco) experience levels of emphysema, lung cancer and other diseases only negligibly higher than non-smokers. According to one paper I read, smoking weed and tobacco together does cause an increase in the level of carbon monoxide in the blood to a higher level than smoking the components individually would do. I'll dig around and try if I can find it later. Even the anti-drug campaigners have stopped using the whole "causes lung cancer and emphysema" argument. Many studies are now suggesting that it may even have a positive effect on lung function / capacity and some doctors even prescribe a spray containing synthetically produced THC to treat acute asthma attacks due to its strong bronchodilatory effects[1] (The Lancet, 1975). Obviously this is a bit off topic due to the fact that the article refers to smoked cannabis, but my main point here is that most of the arguments used in an attempt to vilify cannabis simply do not stand up to rigorous scientific analysis. And even the arguments that do stand up (all smoke does irritate the lungs) can be solved pretty easily. Don't want to damage your lungs? Oral consumption and vaporization are both viable alternatives and have been proven to cause no direct damage to the respiratory system when performed properly [2] (Ethan Russo MD, 2004). I'm not going to go into all the other arguments to do with mental health as that is a completely different ball game. There may or may not be a link between cannabis and schizophrenia, but there is no conslusive evidence to suggest that cannabis alone can cause an individual to "contract" schizophrenia per se. Some individuals are genetically predisposed to schizophrenia and smoking marijuana may cause otherwise unnoticed symptoms to precipitate (eg extreme paranoia) or worsen[3] (Mikkel Arendt et al, 2008). [1] - Therapeutic possibilities in cannabinoids, Editorial, The Lancet, pp. 667-669, March 22, 1975 [2] - Therapeutics in HIV / AIDS, Ethan Russo, pp. 350-355, January 11 2004 [3] - Arch Gen Psychiatry. 65(11):pp . 1269-1274, October 14 2008 Got any other common myths that need dispelling?
using multiple styles for citations crazy The carbon monoxide one was published in 1984 iirc, but don't quote me on that
This just in, in increase on weed usage has surfaced.
[QUOTE=Chrille;34162019]Meant in the same sense that you don't smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol because of health benefits, duh[/QUOTE] Actually some people do drink alcohol for the health benefits.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34167213]Actually some people do drink alcohol for the health benefits.[/QUOTE] Beer was key to survival all throughout history because it's essentially liquid bread. You got all of the nutrients you needed in one drink. It was essential in the Medieval times when water quality was shit (literally) because the process of making beer killed off most harmful bacteria. Of course that doesn't hold up much today for most people because clean water and nutrients are cheap and readily available. Also the ABV was much lower, maybe like 2% for most beer.
[QUOTE=Sanius;34167430]Beer was key to survival all throughout history because it's essentially liquid bread. You got all of the nutrients you needed in one drink. It was essential in the Medieval times when water quality was shit (literally) because the process of making beer killed off most harmful bacteria.[/QUOTE] It also thins the blood making blood clots less likely. I used to drink it for health benefits but ended up doing something a bit stupid one night so I decided to lay off it for a while.
[QUOTE=Sanius;34167430]Beer was key to survival all throughout history because it's essentially liquid bread. [b]You got all of the nutrients you needed in one drink.[/b] It was essential in the Medieval times when water quality was shit (literally) because the process of making beer killed off most harmful bacteria. [/QUOTE] you most certainly do not get all of the nutrients you need in beer
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34167532]you most certainly do not get all of the nutrients you need in beer[/QUOTE] Yeah no shit. [editline]1[/editline] The quality of water also wasn't "literally" shit. If you want to pick that apart as well you're more than welcome to.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.