Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers

Science Daily ^ | (Jan. 27, 2008) | staff

[saganite]

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.

At present, about 10% of young adults and 1% of the adult population smoke marijuana regularly. Researchers find that the mean age of marijuana-smoking patients with lung problems was 41, as opposed to the average age of 65 years for tobacco-smoking patients.

The study "Bullous Lung Disease due to Marijuana" also finds that the bullous lung disease can easily go undetected as patients suffering from the disease may show normal chest X-rays and lung functions. High-resolution CT scans revealed severe asymmetrical, variably sized bullae in the patients studied. However, chest X-rays and lung functions were normal in half of them.

Lead author Dr. Matthew Naughton says, "What is outstanding about this study is the relatively young ages of the lung disease patients, as well as the lack of abnormality on chest X-rays and lung functions in nearly half of the patients we tested."

He added, "Marijuana is inhaled as extremely hot fumes to the peak inspiration and held for as long as possible before slow exhalation. This predisposes to greater damage to the lungs and makes marijuana smokers are more prone to bullous disease as compared to cigarette smokers."

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.

[csvset]

or choose chronic bad health

Those damn fat people! What do they cost society? Outlaw the porkers! A fat free America !

[Rush4U]

No more anything. But first, I say we do random drug testing of our elected ‘leaders’. They have far more responsibility than law enforcement, they control the purse strings. I for one dont’ want our Congressional heroes casting votes that will affect my future and rights when they are under the influence of any mind altering drugs. They do that, and I’ll take the cash cow known as ‘The War on Drugs’ more seriously.

[dayglored]

> I of course did not say, “Get rid of all vices.” It’s not all or nothing. In fact I specifically mentioned that some restrictions are necessary - not a hugh number and not total abolishment of restrictions. I’m saying that we already legally support alcohol and cigarettes and that both exact a big toll on society. Nobody knows how much more of the nanny state we would see if pot became legal. Do you honestly think that problems would be solved if pot became legal? One set of problems would be replaced by another set.

The attitude that society can cherry-pick which vices it "supports" is EXACTLY the problem. By disallowing some, and allowing others, it gives approval (your word, "support" implies tacit approval) to those. And we know the problems -that- causes.

Personally, I would decriminalize pot for private use (e.g. at home, not on the public roads), and equalize the useful restrictions placed on ALL intoxicants, such as not driving while intoxicated.

I don't smoke pot (haven't in decades), and my personal vices are limited to the occasional shot of tequila. But I don't drive after drinking.

Personal Responsibility is what the government should encourage. Not unevenly-applied restrictions on selected vices.

Just wait until the Federal Government starts picking on your personal vice, whatever it is, I don't need to know... ;-)

[hinckley buzzard]

I didn't either, but the study is without value and deserves dismissal precisely because pot is already illegal

For our next trick we will present data on the effect of chronic pot use on logical thinking...

[Wolfie]

Agreed. According to the article, it’s the WAY marijuana is smoked, not anything intherent to the substance itself. And the whole ritual of holding the smoke in for as long as possible is useless anyway.

[Mojave]

"If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom - and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path." — Ronald Reagan (Reason Magazine, 1975)

Ronald Reagan supported the War on Drugs. Now let's see what you redacted from his actual statement:

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions.

[Mojave]

Anecdotal “evidence” is good enough for the pro addict side, but no study is rigorous enough on the science side.

It was always thus.

[coloradan]

I agree with you that no-knocks are still a risk, that’s why I said “reduce” the risk, as opposed to eliminating it. Apparently Mojave thinks otherwise, that there is “no risk.” Perhaps you and him should go fight.

If you only smoke it as soon as you get it, instead of growing it harvesting, and smoking, the length of time you are in violation of the law is measured in minutes instead of months, and the odds of getting busted are correspondingly reduced. (Not “eliminated.”)

As for your implications that I smoke pot, go to hell. I don’t. False accusations are prohibited in, among other things, the Ten Commandments, if that has any bearing on the way you conduct your life.

[csvset]

when they are under the influence of any mind altering drugs

Politicians aren't drug tested. With the crazy laws that comes out at the city, state and federal level, you'd think they were all zonked out on something.

[coloradan]

Nice try, but rp’s posts were about Amsterdam and Canada, not California.

As I said, seek help.

[Mojave]

Apparently Mojave thinks otherwise, that there is “no risk.”

You have come up with "no" DEA raids of California marijuana patients for possession. They have more risk of being hit by lightning.

[Mojave]

Nice try, but rp’s posts were about Amsterdam and Canada, not California.

I must have missed your retraction of your claim about DEA raids against California marijuana "patients". Which post was that?

[KDD]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=dea+raids+cannabis+club&spell=1

Plenty of raids on medical pot clubs, and by extension the patients who use their services.

[dayglored]

> Now let's see what you redacted from his actual statement:

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions.

I agree completely with the above statement from Reagan. I am not a member of the Libertarian Party, nor do I think they are a particularly useful representation of libertarianism. They are a political party with an agenda. Like Reagan, "I do not agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party, say".

There are indeed "legitimate government functions". National defense, roads, currency, things like that everybody agrees on. I believe that most else should be handled at the state or local level.

Useful restrictions on public behavior are warranted. Driving while intoxicated is an obvious one.

Conservatism and libertarianism are, first and foremost, about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Why do you object to that, and think it's better for the Fed Gov to dictate behavior?

[Mojave]

Plenty of raids on medical pot clubs

Sales.

[Mojave]

I agree completely with the above statement from Reagan.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988: This law established a federal death penalty for "drug kingpins." President Reagan called it a new sword and shield in the escalating battle against drugs, and signed the bill in his wife's honor:

Nancy, for your tireless efforts on behalf of all of us, and the love you've shown the children in your Just Say No program, I thank you and personally dedicate this bill to you.

[null and void]

Marijuana smokers have been around a long time. I don’t see pieces of coughed-up lung on the subway, and I ride the NYC subway every day, and I’m sure there’s more than a few potheads riding with me.

I'm sure there are. OTOH, I doubt any but the most dedicated doper smoke the equvalent of a pack or two a day!

[KDD]

You’re wrong again.

Cultivation.

[null and void]

I am often highly skeptical of things I read, even things labeled “research”.

I'd have said:

I am often highly skeptical of things I read, even especially things labeled “research”.

[tacticalogic]

Why do you object to that, and think it's better for the Fed Gov to dictate behavior?

Here's a clue. You're talking to a retired career federal bureaucrat.