Posted on 01/27/2008 5:32:48 AM PST by 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.
How can inhaling any smoke from any source be anything but unhealthy? Your lungs will get coated with the particles thus reducing their functionality. Over time, this has got to build to a point were it has a noticeable affect. Sort of like a clogged furnace filter.
> And potheads never use any of those too. /sarc
Are you seriously suggesting that the majority of drug-related crime are committed to get money for pot, not those other drugs? Are you high? ;-)
Legalized pot in California goes for about $300 an ounce.
I didn't either, but the study is without value and deserves dismissal precisely because pot is already illegal. I guess you just missed my point. (And maybe just again right here.)
As for limiting choices, go tell that to the cigarette smokers.
Why? What have cigarette smokers done? Instead, I will - and have - presented vigorous opposition to smoking bans both in my state and at my employer. And I'm a nonsmoker. I even hate the smell of cigarette smoke - but I hate do-gooder busybody statists more than smoke. I'd rather go to smoky restaurants (now illegal) than have arrogant authoritarians tell me that they're inflicting all sorts of new laws on me "for my own good."
Are you seriously suggesting that the majority of perps committing drug-related crime don't use and buy pot too?
I saw this story yesterday.
York County Officer Charged with Stealing Cash from Evidence Room
And Fwiw, this story as well.
Former Police Officer Gets 25 to 52 Years for Molesting 4-Year-Old Girls
It seems as cops in PA are doing all sorts of stuff.
I don’t think it’s a silly connection and I’m amazed really that anyone would doubt the study in light of the thousands of tobacco studies that prove unequivocally that inhaling smoke (doesn’t really matter what kind) is bad for you. I say this as a cigar smoker and a critic of the restrictions placed on cigarette smokers.
Such is the cost of “legalization” with all attendant regulations, considering that it’s a weed that anyone could grow for practically nothing. Are you being deliberately obtuse or did you miss that I wrote “decriminalized” in one of my posts (which California medical pot isn’t).
Dumb question, I know.
On your last point I agree wholeheartedly.
And that, by doper logic, proves that pot is good for you.
However, I am highly (no pun) skeptical of this “study”.
This sounds like Reefer Madness to me.
******************************************
I find the study to be plausible but likely exaggerated to a degree... there is no doubt that inhaling any burned substance is bad for you ,,, however just as a cigarette smoker/nicotine addict can get a fix with an absorbable patch , I think that if marijuana was decriminalized we would see safer usage as the cost would make safer usage cost effective,,, vaporizers that don’t release nearly the amount of toxins , more cooking of marijuana (brownies etc.) to release the active ingredient...
As to the property crimes problem referenced in this thread I seriously doubt that marijuana smokers are a large part of the problem ,, that would be druggies hooked on things with physical cravings and withdrawal symptoms.. METH , crack , crank , morphine , heroin etc.
Protect yourself, use a bong.
Oh, come on. The majority of perps probably eat sandwiches and drink beer, too, but that doesn't mean they commit their crimes to get money for sandwiches and beer. Read the statistics that differentiate between different drugs, before you attempt to lump them all together as if they're all equivalent.
Show me even one study, government or otherwise, that shows that the majority of drug-related crimes are committed to get money for pot, not heroin, cocaine, or meth. Then maybe you'll get my attention again. Until then, we're just going in circles.
BINGO
"Patients" may grow their weed for practically nothing. Yet they're paying $300+ ounce to buy from "clinics" staffed with guys in tie died uniforms.
Hospice facilities are filled with relatively young cigarette smokers dying of nasty diseases. Where are the potheads? The sixties were a long time ago now. Not all of the flowere children gave up their habit. Where is the empidemic?
“In 2004 30.3% of state prison inmates who committed property crimes did so in order to get money for drugs.”
So what’s your point? Drugs will cost money, whether they are illegal or not. Those who have no jobs, and crave drugs, will have to steal to buy them either way.
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.