Smoking marijuana may not harm lungs
- Thread starter DreamMachine
- Start date
- Status
DreamMachine
Member
I think this part may be helpful
"The findings echo results in some smaller studies that showed while marijuana contains some of the same toxic chemicals as tobacco, it does not carry the same risks for lung disease.
It's not clear why that is so, but it's possible that the main active ingredient in marijuana, a chemical known as THC, makes the difference. THC causes the "high" that users feel. It also helps fight inflammation and may counteract the effects of more irritating chemicals in the drug, said Dr. Donald Tashkin, a marijuana researcher and an emeritus professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. Tashkin was not involved in the new study."
"The findings echo results in some smaller studies that showed while marijuana contains some of the same toxic chemicals as tobacco, it does not carry the same risks for lung disease.
It's not clear why that is so, but it's possible that the main active ingredient in marijuana, a chemical known as THC, makes the difference. THC causes the "high" that users feel. It also helps fight inflammation and may counteract the effects of more irritating chemicals in the drug, said Dr. Donald Tashkin, a marijuana researcher and an emeritus professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. Tashkin was not involved in the new study."
....what the hell? This post makes absolutely no sense. It sounds like you hate the stoner stereotypes so you're lashing out.
I'd like to see a study done where they compare cigarette smoking that's as infrequent as mairjuana use, honestly. They seem to have ZERO CIGARETTES EVER or TWO PACKS A DAY. I'd be curious what the actual impact of occasional cigarette smoke is, both the filthy chemical laden shit they sell in stores, and from maybe non-chemically treated tobacco.
Clearly, marijuana smoke is going to be less harmful to one's lungs than 40 cigarettes a day. I'm curious how it stacks up one to one though.
Clearly, marijuana smoke is going to be less harmful to one's lungs than 40 cigarettes a day. I'm curious how it stacks up one to one though.
FTW
mmhmmm it's the best. I use this when I go to my folks place. Can barely smell it and it's discreet.
Buckethead
Banned
Not at all. What doesn't make any sense?
i miss the good ol' 420 thread
there are other places for that man (unfortunately), SA's Weed Thread has been my home for 3 years now and r/Trees is also one of my favorite places to chill and look at silly shit.
No arguing and just awesome gif's/photos/and a lot of positive attitudes. It's my break from the rest of the internet.
Yeah. It would be awesome if everyone smoked weed at work instead of cigarette breaks. Makes sense to me !!!
What's this?
FTW
Hey, I remember D.A.R.E. too!
I remember leaving my Catholic middle/elementary school as a hardcore D.A.R.E overachiever, and leaving high school as a pro-drug atheist. Fun times!
Magic Flight Box, portable vape. Amazing little device.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I do actually suspect that this would make a huge difference. Namely, I suspect that lung damage would be significantly decreased if you were only smoking cigarettes once or twice a week.
ya I frequent r/trees... Used to have a SA account a friend bought me, but I forgot the password when they forced the switch over to having a more secure password... Fuck having to include uppercase, lowercase, numbers, and a fucking special character
Brofist
Member
At the very least the smell would be better. I'll take the smell of marijuana any day over the walking ashtrays I work with.
Extra Sauce
Member
I'm pro-pot, but come on. You're INHALING SMOKE lol. Of course it's bad for your lungs.
That said I'm willing to accept that smoking weed occasionally won't cause significant lung damage in most people's case. I think the jury is out though. There have been conflicting studies and there will continue to be.
That said I'm willing to accept that smoking weed occasionally won't cause significant lung damage in most people's case. I think the jury is out though. There have been conflicting studies and there will continue to be.
Of course. No matter what, anti-marijuana people will always say it does, and that it's addictive.
Magic flight launch box, really good vaporizer.
Magic flight launch box, really good vaporizer.
English please! Haha
You've got a number of problems here. A casual observer might infer that you have a vendetta against marijuana for one or more personal reasons. I will brush that aside and attempt to address your points concretely as though they were objective... but for the record, I find it incredibly tough to believe they are.
First, the study doesn't purport to be "conclusive." It purports to be (and is) scientific; that is, sound in adherence to the scientific method and experimentally rigorous. It is a solid longitudinal study and its goal is not to prove a point or to be "conclusive" in any sense other than to offer a conclusion- namely, that "occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function." That is all that is being reported and that conclusion was reached honestly in a controlled study.
This is troubling. A large sample size is a very good thing, especially in a longitudinal study like this. It helps to reduce the impact of "outliers," pieces of datum that might skew the curve toward misleading conclusions.
Furthermore, as a longitudinal study, these findings were presented without a hypothesis (that being a testable prediction of results by the experimenters) in favor of an objective: "To analyze associations between marijuana (both current and lifetime exposure) and pulmonary function." That is all the study did.
It is absolutely nothing like that. If you truly believe this and are not attempting to merely stir the pot, I challenge you to clarify. The conclusions reached in this study are the result of 20 years of research and comparative analyses.
Sadly this is the most disturbing bit of all. It's extremely relevant if it's less harmful- because the substance we've concluded it is less harmful than is legal and regulated. These are incredibly valid societal issues to discuss and they will play a role in the ongoing history of the United States. Dismissing this- or any scientific study- as "rationalization" is merely propaganda in the guise of cynicism.
edit: to your very first point, the title of this thread is indeed quite misleading. But that's not the study's fault.
One thought is that the THC in marijuana smoke may selectively kill off old, decrepit lung cells that are the most likely to become cancerous, possibly explaining how some studies show a lower incidence of lung cancer in people who only smoke pot.
SneakyStephan
Banned
I just pray that you don't think beer is cool.
That would make you a hypocrite you see.
Hawkian, it's Buckethead. I can assure you he knows absolutely nothing about the validity of this (or any other) study and all his commentary is derived from a borderline deranged hatred of drug abuse of any kind.
It's not based on rational thought. But it does make for hilarious posts. "The sample size is far too large" lol
It's not based on rational thought. But it does make for hilarious posts. "The sample size is far too large" lol
A very interesting correlation of course, but there's nothing close to an indication of this being true based on this particular study.
Oh. This was my first encounter with him.
hell even Caffeine/Chocolate, especially since a kid is far more likely to try those before marijuana, and they're known to be more addictive.
so ya... fuck you chocolate, now I'm gonna be a drug addict
edit: in all honesty, marijuana could be considered a gateway drug because some dealers who sell it, can introduce them to the other shit. so blame the laws.
cuevas. PhD.
Member
Probably less damage than is done to my liver by alcohol.
Yeah, i've read and participated in drug debates before with him. No matter what evidence you bring to him, his apparent stance is "if it even causes one cell in your body to die, it is horrible and you must stop pretending otherwise!"
Then mix that in with some grumbling about the stoner culture and anecdotal stories about his experience with drugs and why it's SO BAD and DEFINITELY CORRUPTING our culture, and that's Buckethead.
But really the "the sample size is far too large" is where it should be obvious in this topic that he's being disingenuous.
Smokeless, practically no smell. All it does it use a battery to heat up the stuff, and you inhale the hot air, voila! I actually quite like the taste from vapes, tastes like tea leaves.
I prefer people that do there jobs instead of doing nothing and taking twice as long lunches to get high and shit.
Lol are you living in the 90's?
Somewhere in there is the implication that you're okay with people taking extra-long lunches to get hammered on Jager?
Oh come on.
Just to clarify, using a vaporizer means you aren't smoking at all. You are heating the substance to the temperature at which the active compounds vaporize- become gaseous- and then inhaling them.
No smoke is produced, no tar is inhaled- it's both healthier and more efficient, and highly recommended.
Tom Penny's in this topic too I see
now all we need is one of those awesome Devastatin' Dave music videos about your zippadippawhippa cocaine habit and a group of D.A.R.E. representatives and we can get all our druggie stereotypes out of the way and return to the 80s again! War on drugs, woo! It will surely be successful!
now all we need is one of those awesome Devastatin' Dave music videos about your zippadippawhippa cocaine habit and a group of D.A.R.E. representatives and we can get all our druggie stereotypes out of the way and return to the 80s again! War on drugs, woo! It will surely be successful!
NO_Quarter25
Member
I know what r/Tree is, but what is SA???
ConradCervantes
Banned
I shall tell my friends this Saturday night! This will surely put their mind at ease as we light up. Hopefully though they won't crave heroin or coke as a result of partaking in our marijuana, as gateway drugs are wont to do.
anything terrible
i don't really care either way if marijuana is legal or not, but its kind of messed up that cigarettes are legal. Whatever makes the money i guess.
But that's the bigger issue then petty "waah why can't i smoke a joint without getting harassed by the cops". Something actually worth protesting.
But that's the bigger issue then petty "waah why can't i smoke a joint without getting harassed by the cops". Something actually worth protesting.
Poimandres
Member
What? That doesn't make any sense. Drinking is legal, and you don't see (many) people going and getting plastered on their lunch breaks. Why? Because it's not conducive to being productive at work. If marijuana was legal, it would be more akin to drinking than smoking tobacco.
As for the whole "gateway drug" thing, I'd argue the most common gateway drug is alcohol. That's where people get the idea that you can alter your state of mind, and might find it enjoyable.
Just something I read a while ago on the topic. Sorry if it's horribly unsupported or out of date, I really should have done a bit more fact-checking.
It's neither; it's just nothing more than an interesting correlation at this point. There's nowhere near enough research to support that hypothesis yet.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
If you smoke marijuana, you will use cocaine. If you use cocaine, you will become a drug addict. Therefore, if you smoke marijuana you will become a drug addict.
way more
Member
Yep, typical propaganda from those potheads at the Journal of the American Medical Association.
FTW
Get out of here, Scientologist!
It has to at least cause some harm. I mean, inhaling smoke of any kind isn't really good.
I don't really smoke enough to worry about any health problems though. When I'm home for breaks I smoke with my friends about every other day, but while I'm at school it's maybe once every 2 weeks, if that. Still, if it was legal and I had money, I'm guessing I would probably end up smoking pot 2-3 times a week. I don't really enjoy it unless I have friends around.
I don't really smoke enough to worry about any health problems though. When I'm home for breaks I smoke with my friends about every other day, but while I'm at school it's maybe once every 2 weeks, if that. Still, if it was legal and I had money, I'm guessing I would probably end up smoking pot 2-3 times a week. I don't really enjoy it unless I have friends around.
you're giving buckethead a bad name...
cheststrongwell
my cake, fuck off
It just makes you slow and stupid.
I still don't get why these people even care if it IS harmful or not to some people. I mean, marijuana clearly is harmful in some sense, however minor. But who cares? Seriously, if I want to give myself lung cancer, fuck it. Let me die of lung cancer. It's none of their concern.
As long as I'm not operating heavy machinery or driving or being publicly intoxicated, or putting any one else in danger, it's only of concern to me. And of course any time someone does do one of those things, we'd simply prosecute them like we do alcohol. Making it illegal doesn't actually change whether these people do those things, and it's certainly not a deterrent - the opposite is true.
It takes 2 minutes to get high smoking a joint, bowl or blunt. It's not very common to find another person that wants to funnel beers and do shots in a half hour lunch. There is no correlation.
- Status