Posted on 10/19/2009 10:48:08 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3
A new study finds that the development of bullous lung disease occurs in marijuana smokers approximately 20 years earlier than tobacco smokers.
A condition often caused by exposure to toxic chemicals or long-term exposure to tobacco smoke, bullous lung disease (also known as bullae) is a condition where air trapped in the lungs causes obstruction to breathing and eventual destruction of the lungs.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
A government induced problem. If it were cheaper, you could make tea or brownies without worrying about efficiency.
Patients who smoke marijuana inhale more and hold their breath four times longer than cigarette smokers. It is the breathing manoeuvres of marijuana smokers that serve to increase the concentration and pulmonary deposition of inhaled particulate matter – resulting in greater and more rapid lung destruction.
This paper is published in the January 2008 issue of Respirology.
If it kills people faster, then there will be less people to insure....
This can’t be true. All the FReeper potheads have told be that pot is good for you.
If it was legalized cheaper, users would not be so apt to "hold it in" in order to get more bang for your buck.
Good thing Barry isn`t going to enforce drug laws anymore/sarc off
http://s399.photobucket.com/albums/pp77/coiledspring/?action=view¤t=obama_youth_04.jpg
I got the muchies now.....and cotton mouth, WTF?
So it’s intrusive to tax fast food because too many folks are fat but it is OK to condemn folks for using MJ because it destroys their lungs?
Yes, and if it were cheaper and legal I bet less people would us it!
Dope smoke, unlike cigarettes, is generally not filtered.
It might explain the shortage of older people at the Libertarian Party conventions.
It also has to do with growing up.
I see lawsuits....Where the gov made it legal without informing folks of the risk....
The most popular word amongst potheads is....
‘ere
A government study to be sure. The last thing I read concerning pot and cancer was from a medical journal that stated there were no confirmed cases of cancer caused by pot alone in the U.S. That was about 2 years ago. Pot smokers who also smoke tobacco are another story though.
The assumptions that the smoke is held in the lungs up to 4 times longer is from data in the 60’s and 70’s when pot was much less stong than it is today. Most pot smokers don’t hold it in their lungs that long anymore since pot is a lot stronger, no need to hold it in that long.
Yes, I know quite a bit about it, a dear friend who has M.S. smokes it all the time, and I did enough of it in my heyday.
Posted on 04/18/2007 4:20:10 PM EDT by Teflonic
The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.
They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.
THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.
"The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer," said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine.
Acting through cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, endocannabinoids (as well as THC) are thought to play a role in variety of biological functions, including pain and anxiety control, and inflammation. Although a medical derivative of THC, known as Marinol, has been approved for use as an appetite stimulant for cancer patients, and a small number of U.S. states allow use of medical marijuana to treat the same side effect, few studies have shown that THC might have anti-tumor activity, Preet says. The only clinical trial testing THC as a treatment against cancer growth was a recently completed British pilot study in human glioblastoma.
In the present study, the researchers first demonstrated that two different lung cancer cell lines as well as patient lung tumor samples express CB1 and CB2, and that non-toxic doses of THC inhibited growth and spread in the cell lines. "When the cells are pretreated with THC, they have less EGFR stimulated invasion as measured by various in-vitro assays," Preet said.
Then, for three weeks, researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice that had been implanted with human lung cancer cells, and found that tumors were reduced in size and weight by about 50 percent in treated animals compared to a control group. There was also about a 60 percent reduction in cancer lesions on the lungs in these mice as well as a significant reduction in protein markers associated with cancer progression, Preet says.
Although the researchers do not know why THC inhibits tumor growth, they say the substance could be activating molecules that arrest the cell cycle. They speculate that THC may also interfere with angiogenesis and vascularization, which promotes cancer growth.
Preet says much work is needed to clarify the pathway by which THC functions, and cautions that some animal studies have shown that THC can stimulate some cancers. "THC offers some promise, but we have a long way to go before we know what its potential is," she said.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by American Association for Cancer Research.
No, we're not claiming that it is as beneficial as mother's milk may be, but we do have a God-given right to pursue happiness...& we intend on doing so regardless of what the law says.
The drug warriors would love it if pot was worse than tobacco. Unfortunately for them, it isn’t.
Maybe we can get all Obama voters to smoke lots of pot. I would like it if - I say give em as much as they can smoke. Hope & Change. Let ACORN hand out bales of dope to dopes.
Libertarians by an large are okay but dope smokers are loons.
Very interesting point, that I would have to agree with.
Interesting collection of studies on the linked webpage showing the research is all over the place. I don’t think a lot of the research can be believed one way or the other because so many people are still “in the closet” and real long term data is difficult to collect given the situation that people don’t want to incriminate themselves.
Oops, I forgot to ping Teflonic about quoting his post.
Pursuing a God-given right to be an idiot.
Go for it dude & dudettes!
really
most folks I knew who were smack pot heads were never tobacco smokers.
I used to hear that a Marijuana cigarette was the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes, and the pot smokers called it bunk. Regardless of who was right, pot should be safer, maybe put in a pill form that can be swallowed, put in tea or coffee, snorted up the nose, chewed like gum, applied as a skin patch or inserted as a suppository. This is post-America, where the dangers of pot need not prevent people from enjoying their favorite pastime.
Weighing in with an obligatory mention of alcohol. The "grown-up" drug of choice.
I know what you mean. I was a tobacco addict for 20 years, & the quitting process was4 & 1/2 months of pure hell. But when I go w/o smoking weed, it doesn’t bother me one bit. It seems to me that the WRONG drug has been made illegal in this case.
LOL...
Unfortunately they will demand everyone else pay for their healthcare resulting from their own poor life decisions.
It depends on the grade of dope one smokes, a couple of good hits of high grade and your in orbit. The bottom line is, don’t overdo it. If people had limited themselves to a half pack of cigs per day the whole tobacco holocaust would not have happened and we wouldn’t have these inane stupid smoking laws we have now.
Paving the way for massive taxation when they legalize it. Can’t let someone get out from under the tax man.
No sympathy here for the potheads.
In order for the sturdy to have any validity the researchers would have to find exclusive users of each product. They must exist, but I was just thinking back on everyone I've ever known who smoked weed, and they all smoked cigarettes. Just my own experience.
I primarily used tobacco in it's smokeless form (Copenhagen), but I did smoke cigarettes also regularly for 27 years. During that time, I frequently had sinus infections, congestion, and a persistent cough. I quit all tobacco almost 3 years ago and have been almost completely free of those symptoms.
I'll leave to the reader's imagination to figure out the relevance of my comments to this topic.
Get a vaporizer.
Here's a real scientific study conducted with hundreds of patients:
Study: Pot users happier
November 17, 2005
A new study conducted by researchers at the University at Albany, State University of New York concludes that marijuana users are less depressed.
In what was the largest-ever study of marijuana and depression, daily or weekly marijuana users had fewer symptoms of depression than non-users. Marijuana users were also more likely to report positive moods and fewer somatic complaints such as sleeplessness.
Not only does marijuana not cause depression, it looks like it may actually alleviate it,” said Mitch Earleywine, co-author of the new study and associate professor of psychology at the University at Albany.
Smack pot heads? As in heroin? What is a smack pot heat?
What study? Performed by whom? Paid for by whom?
Who were the subjects and how were they assembled? What were the double-blind controls employed (if any)?
Our government has a long and undisputed history of creating "scientific" reports on the dangers of marijuana, all of which are complete bullsh*t. Their film "Reefer Madness" is a cult classic of absolute fabrications and phantasmagorical distortions about the effects of weed smoking. I know people who have smoked weed for over 50 years, and the general public is far less healthy than they are.
I also know that Thomas Jefferson wrote that, among his most treasured memories was sitting on his back porch in the evening, looking out across the marsh, smoking "hemp."
Hmmm. What a radical wasteoid, huh? If it weren't for being addicted to weed, he probably could have made something of himself, huh? Effing imbeciles.
;-/
They should put it in suppository form.
The name of my new band.
Marijuana is not as bad as alcohol, health-wise.
Alcohol is not as bad as tobacco, health-wise.
Tobacco is only 1/4 as damaging as marijuana.
I have some cognitive dissonance going on here, so pass the Bushmill’s and a fine cigar.
nice... it’ll be all the rage. ;-)
Love the smell of hickory burning, though, as I barbecue my pig meat.
Interesting, because I've had the opposite experience. Most of the true potheads I've ever known have been some of the most adamant anti tobacco zealots I've ever met.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
