Marijuana doesn't harm lung function?

[Vanoi]

http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-does...210146886.html

CHICAGO (AP) — Smoking a joint once a week or a bit more apparently doesn't harm the lungs, suggests a 20-year study that bolsters evidence that marijuana doesn't do the kind of damage tobacco does.
The results, from one of the largest and longest studies on the health effects of marijuana, are hazier for heavy users — those who smoke two or more joints daily for several years. The data suggest that using marijuana that often might cause a decline in lung function, but there weren't enough heavy users among the 5,000 young adults in the study to draw firm conclusions.
Still, the authors recommended "caution and moderation when marijuana use is considered."
Marijuana is an illegal drug under federal law although some states allow its use for medical purposes.
The study by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham was released Tuesday by the Journal of the American Medical Association.
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.
Study co-author Dr. Stefan Kertesz said there are other aspects of marijuana that may help explain the results.
Unlike cigarette smokers, marijuana users tend to breathe in deeply when they inhale a joint, which some researchers think might strengthen lung tissue. But the common lung function tests used in the study require the same kind of deep breathing that marijuana smokers are used to, so their good test results might partly reflect lots of practice, said Kertesz, a drug abuse researcher and preventive medicine specialist at the Alabama university.
The study authors analyzed data from participants in a 20-year federally funded health study in young adults that began in 1985. Their analysis was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
The study randomly enrolled 5,115 men and women aged 18 through 30 in four cities: Birmingham, Chicago, Oakland, Calif., and Minneapolis. Roughly equal numbers of blacks and whites took part, but no other minorities. Participants were periodically asked about recent marijuana or cigarette use and had several lung function tests during the study.
Overall, about 37 percent reported at least occasional marijuana use, and most users also reported having smoked cigarettes; 17 percent of participants said they'd smoked cigarettes but not marijuana. Those results are similar to national estimates.
On average, cigarette users smoked about 9 cigarettes daily, while average marijuana use was only a joint or two a few times a month — typical for U.S. marijuana users, Kertesz said.
The authors calculated the effects of tobacco and marijuana separately, both in people who used only one or the other, and in people who used both. They also considered other factors that could influence lung function, including air pollution in cities studied.
The analyses showed pot didn't appear to harm lung function, but cigarettes did. Cigarette smokers' test scores worsened steadily during the study. Smoking marijuana as often as one joint daily for seven years, or one joint weekly for 20 years was not linked with worse scores. Very few study participants smoked more often than that.
Like cigarette smokers, marijuana users can develop throat irritation and coughs, but the study didn't focus on those. It also didn't examine lung cancer, but other studies haven't found any definitive link between marijuana use and cancer.

Some of this is ok. Its sounds about right. I however disgaree with things like "inhaling the smoke can strengthen lung tissue" That sounds stupid.

I think we need more studies before we can actually say marijuana does not harm lung function.

[MathiasOfAthens]

But I have heard it does far more damage to Brain cells.

[Vanoi]

But I have heard it does far more damage to Brain cells.

I think that might have to do with the whole way people smoke marijuana. You have to hold the smoke in and not breathe in. I doubt thats good for the brain.

[Knight of Heaven]

But I have heard it does far more damage to Brain cells.

Yeah so does beer

´ think that might have to do with the whole way people smoke marijuana. You have to hold the smoke in and not breathe in. I doubt thats good for the brain.

yes tabacco works the same way.

Whats the difference... holding it in until you let it all out?

You feel good.
Other way arround you are not smoking just breathing smoke... wich is worst. That is why passive smokers are more vulnerable.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Other way arround you are not smoking just breathing smoke... wich is worst. That is why passive smokers are more vulnerable.

You can't hold smoke in and not breath it. It doesn't work like that. If you're holding it in, it's in the alveoli and it's diffusing into the blood. Just like breathing.

[Knight of Heaven]

You can't hold smoke in and not breath it. It doesn't work like that. If you're holding it in, it's in the alveoli and it's diffusing into the blood. Just like breathing.

This

I think he meant holding it in for a while then releasing.

Passive smokers are more vulnerable as they dont have teh ability to expell the smoke they breathe. However a smoker will smoke for years thus being much more harmfull to himself.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Whats the difference... holding it in until you let it all out?

[Azog 150]

I think it seems silly to suggest that inhaling smoke is good for you. However, I can completely believe that it does less harm then tobacco as its the tar and chemicals that do most of the damage in tobacco, and marijuana doesn't have that. I think the biggest danger (physically) from smoking pot is when people mix it with tobacco.

[Outlaw]

I think he meant holding it in for a while then releasing.

[Armatus]

Unlike cigarette smokers, marijuana users tend to breathe in deeply when they inhale a joint, which some researchers think might strengthen lung tissue.

RofL...

But the common lung function tests used in the study require the same kind of deep breathing that marijuana smokers are used to, so their good test results might partly reflect lots of practice, said Kertesz, a drug abuse researcher and preventive medicine specialist at the Alabama university.

lol

[xcorps]

Where's Elfdude?

[Elfdude]

Where's Elfdude?

Hey I already believed this to be the case just from my experience at OHSU. I have never seen the lung disease associated with tobacco with marijuana nor have I ever seen marijuana result in anything other than hilarious paranoia in a hospital setting. Maybe it's because oregon is isolated and the mixing of drugs doesn't have a real market (marijuana users do not associate with most hard drug users) but I've never even seen it laced or improperly harvested.

The only reason I've ever entertained these ideas was because people like to pretend that smoke = smoke. Despite the fact that there's some 800 + chemicals released in the pyrolosis of marijuana or cigarette smoke most of which are unique to the plant itself. Chemically the differences result in physiological differences in the tar and how the lungs handle it. Marijauna tar further does not absorb into the surrounding tissues like cigarette tar does.

I could go on and on, but I do legitimately consider Marijuana one of the most harmless substances in the world, (more harmless than most foods) and one of the most potentially beneficial products we know of.

[Gone 2 the Celts]

already knew that

[xcorps]

You misunderstand. I wasn't calling you out, I was calling for you to post. You are on top of this subject.

[Armatus]

The OP topics of study are really a laughable, I'm sorry.

I don't understand why I keep hearing about tar having to be absorbed in tissue to inhibit lung function and promote disease? sounds magical doesn't it? probably because it seems so wonderful, smoke and "be cured of your aliments" we know from our cultural history we're always embracing the things which dazzle us regardless if we really know something about it or not, hell we used to prescribe cigarettes lol... studies like these are a joke relying entirely on the unknown variables i.e. who, what, where, when etc.

I recently watched documentary with Robin Williams as the narrator (lol) well, it was slightly biased against drugs, however they did some testing on several subject by having them perform various stressful feats while under the influence of their drug of choice, each drug was stacked up against each other on it's performance, the pot-head was told his lungs were functioning at 85%

[Elfdude]

Armatus that is based off of the baseline compared to when the pothead had recently become high. Pot temporarily inhibits the proper function of cilia in your throat causing mucous to build up for up to 2 hours after smoking. Pot heads when compared to themselves do have less lung function immediately after smoking. When compared to healthy individuals however they usually have better lung capacities and improved transfer of oxygen, they also usually have much stronger muscles for coughing and expel a greater amount of mucous from their lungs with every cough.

Tar is not a magical substance that affects people based on it's presence. The tar in your lungs from cigarettes is very different than the tar we use on our roofs. All tars do have commonalities but their composition is much different. Roofing tar for example requires specific ratios of tars in order to provide a long lasting tar surface that does not dry too brittle, does not remain too moist but still retains the self sealing properties of a liquid. Tar must interact with something to cause damage and not all tar has the capacity to do this. Sometimes it's simply because of the shape and properties of the substance. We can easily clear hairs from our lungs but asbestos particles are so much finer that rather than gripping the cilia they slice it apart. Tobacco tar is particularly dangerous because it tends to be extremely dry and deposit extraordinarily fine particles which pass into the cellular membranes with little difficulty. Cigarette tar exposure causes cellular mutation in this way exposing the vulnerable inner parts of your cells to the exotic chemicals contained in the tar.

Marijuana tar on the other hand is much more moist. Marijuana is not typically dried to the extent of tobacco in harvesting. Whereas tobacco may be slowly heated by artificial dryers to become bone dry this is the opposite of what you want when harvesting marijuana. Marijuana dried to this point disintegrates and cannot hold it's structure. This makes it an ideal candidate for pyrolosis because it contains far fewer dangerous chemicals. I.E. the Marijuana is safer because the tar it produces is more water soluable than the tar tobacco smoke produces.

Marijuana tar further has beneficial properties embedded in it. These chemicals have a huge variety of properties. Marijuana is the most medically active substance known to man which is to say the cocktail of chemicals in it have complex interactions to say the least. What is understood is marijuana uses a natural survival strategy of encouraging animals (and people) to consume it and therefore propegate it. You could say it's achieved a mutualistic existence with animal life. By consuming the plant the indigestible seeds are deposited in fertile lands near where animals congregate continuing the process. Animals have extraordinarily sensitive minds when it comes to foods making them ill. As such marijuana had a very strong evolutionary pressure to actually become LESS toxic than even your every day blade of grass. This was partnered with Marijuana driving human evolution as a main food source for thousands of years. Tobacco evolved nicotine as a poison to kill insects. Nicotine is a deadly poison which also just happens to trigger a adrenaline rush and endorphins as the body fights it off.

When you put all of the information together processed sugar is a much more worrisome agent than marijuana is.

[Armatus]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Armatus that is based off of the baseline compared to when the pothead had recently become high. Pot temporarily inhibits the proper function of cilia in your throat causing mucous to build up for up to 2 hours after smoking. Pot heads when compared to themselves do have less lung function immediately after smoking. When compared to healthy individuals however they usually have better lung capacities and improved transfer of oxygen, they also usually have much stronger muscles for coughing and expel a greater amount of mucous from their lungs with every cough.

Tar is not a magical substance that affects people based on it's presence. The tar in your lungs from cigarettes is very different than the tar we use on our roofs. All tars do have commonalities but their composition is much different. Roofing tar for example requires specific ratios of tars in order to provide a long lasting tar surface that does not dry too brittle, does not remain too moist but still retains the self sealing properties of a liquid. Tar must interact with something to cause damage and not all tar has the capacity to do this. Sometimes it's simply because of the shape and properties of the substance. We can easily clear hairs from our lungs but asbestos particles are so much finer that rather than gripping the cilia they slice it apart. Tobacco tar is particularly dangerous because it tends to be extremely dry and deposit extraordinarily fine particles which pass into the cellular membranes with little difficulty. Cigarette tar exposure causes cellular mutation in this way exposing the vulnerable inner parts of your cells to the exotic chemicals contained in the tar.

Marijuana tar on the other hand is much more moist. Marijuana is not typically dried to the extent of tobacco in harvesting. Whereas tobacco may be slowly heated by artificial dryers to become bone dry this is the opposite of what you want when harvesting marijuana. Marijuana dried to this point disintegrates and cannot hold it's structure. This makes it an ideal candidate for pyrolosis because it contains far fewer dangerous chemicals. I.E. the Marijuana is safer because the tar it produces is more water soluable than the tar tobacco smoke produces.

Marijuana tar further has beneficial properties embedded in it. These chemicals have a huge variety of properties. Marijuana is the most medically active substance known to man which is to say the cocktail of chemicals in it have complex interactions to say the least. What is understood is marijuana uses a natural survival strategy of encouraging animals (and people) to consume it and therefore propegate it. You could say it's achieved a mutualistic existence with animal life. By consuming the plant the indigestible seeds are deposited in fertile lands near where animals congregate continuing the process. Animals have extraordinarily sensitive minds when it comes to foods making them ill. As such marijuana had a very strong evolutionary pressure to actually become LESS toxic than even your every day blade of grass. This was partnered with Marijuana driving human evolution as a main food source for thousands of years. Tobacco evolved nicotine as a poison to kill insects. Nicotine is a deadly poison which also just happens to trigger a adrenaline rush and endorphins as the body fights it off.

When you put all of the information together processed sugar is a much more worrisome agent than marijuana is.

I'll look at it more closely, my whole issue is these studies appear to be the kind that focus on changing opinion rather than reality, I think it's a bit premature, more study of a greater cross section of individuals and over longer periods of time is needed.

I mean who's going to come up with the idea that a weekend warrior is going to have better lung capability because they take a few deep drags?

What part of the study actually hinted at strengthened lungs? None, it was an assumption right? Now if they said this was the case with heavy use I'd take it into consideration, but they're talking 1 joint?

An analogy however poor might be this, "a person who drinks a six pack on the weekends has a stronger liver than those who don't because of the elevated liver function (which is actually bad).

But how did it even register if only the person was only consuming three to six drinks a week?

The other thing I'll double check is how these people were consuming, I think ideally I think the best subjects are people smoking from resinated pipes, who as I've done many a time burn their lungs and throat. The street smoker not the ideally controlled test subject.

But I'll leave the whole esophageal concerns out of this since we're talking lung function. I'm mostly popping off the mouth after reading the article which is probably much more light on facts than the study.

[The Useless Member]

I was shocked when I heard this, but I don't believe that it doesn't harm lung tissue.

[Icewolf]

Smoke? Vaporizer.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I wont admit it on this forum because the CIA might come to my door in an unnamed location in Europe but I may or may not have tried MJ before, also in Europe, and I didnt feel anything. And it didnt taste like anything either.