Cannabis 'worse than tobacco'

BBC News ^ | 10 July 2002

[SheLion]

Cannabis poses a greater threat to health than tobacco, lung experts have warned.

The warning comes on the day that Home Secretary David Blunkett is due to make a Commons statement about the future of government drug policy.

Many young people are simply not aware that smoking cannabis may put them at increased risk of respiratory cancers and infections .

Dame Helena Shovelton:

The Home Affairs Select Committee has recommended that cannabis is downgraded from a class B drug to class C. This would mean that possession would lead to a caution, rather than arrest.

The British Lung Foundation is currently carrying out a review of research into the impact of smoking cannabis on health.

Preliminary results suggest that the drug is at least as harmful as smoking tobacco - and may carry a higher risk of some respiratory cancers.

Ignorance

BLF chief executive Dame Helena Shovelton said: "Many young people are simply not aware that smoking cannabis may put them at increased risk of respiratory cancers and infections.

"The government spends millions of pounds a year on smoking cessation and public education about the dangers of smoking, yet smoking cannabis is at least as harmful as smoking tobacco and, indeed, may carry a higher risk of some respiratory cancers."

She said regardless of cannabis's legal status, many young people will make their own decision about whether they wish to use it or not.

"The government have a public health responsibility to ensure they do so with full knowledge of the risks associated with smoking cannabis," she said.

"Fifty years ago, people thought smoking was a good thing. Now it is described as a public health disaster - we don't want to see the same thing happen with cannabis."

Under estimate:

The report is also expected to warn that research carried out in the 1960s and 1970s may underestimate the impact of today's cannabis since it is much more potent than the cannabis smoked then.

The average cannabis cigarette smoked in the 1960s contained about 10mg of D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the ingredient which accounts for the psychoactive properties of cannabis, compared to 150mg of THC today.

British Lung Foundation chairman Dr Mark Britton said: "There is an urgent need for more research into the effects of cannabis on respiratory health so that we can feel confident in the advice we give to young people.

"As a respiratory consultant physician, I see the devastating consequences of smoking-related lung diseases, such as emphysema and chronic obstructive airways diseases, every day and I am fearful that long-term cannabis smoking may be linked to similar conditions."

[SheLion]

"Fifty years ago, people thought smoking was a good thing. Now it is described as a public health disaster - we don't want to see the same thing happen with cannabis."

OH REALLY! It's nasty to smoke a regular cigarette, but Lord Have Mercy, don't let nothing happen to the WEED!

[SheLion]

Yes! Protect the WEED! It's ok to smoke WEED but heaven help us if we smoke tobacco!

[Behind Liberal Lines]

This has always been one of my major beefs with cannibus.

It has always also been one my major beefs with the "enlighted" who wouldn't be caught dead smoking tobacco.

So to summarize: marijuana is like a combination of the worst parts of alcohol and tobacco. It makes you stupid, it can be addictive, causes cancer and gives off second hand smoke.

[TheOtherOne]

So being Anti-Weed helps your Pro-Smoking Jihad how?

[SheLion]

So to summarize: marijuana is like a combination of the worst parts of alcohol and tobacco. It makes you stupid, it can be addictive, causes cancer and gives off second hand smoke.

Yet, this report states that they "don't want the same thing to happen to cannibus."

I think they are trying to "protect" it for it's medical benefits?

[steve50]

Considering the amounts ingested cannabis is not even close to tobacco. The nanny state needs to link them to exert control over both. The WOsD and the war on tobacco are soon to become one. Get the government out of the multi billion dollar business of regulating what relatively mild stimulents law abiding citizens wish to use.

[angkor]

Many young people are simply not aware that smoking cannabis may put them at increased risk of respiratory cancers and infections .

Not that I'm advocating anything relating to pot smoking, but it humorous that not a single shred of evidence is presented in this story - not even a hint at fact - to back the assertions of the headline or of the story itself.

So we have a bunch of pols, a physician, a reporter, and the BBC itself fabricating a story on the basis of precisely nothing.

[Wolfie]

High Anxieties: What the WHO doesn't want you to know about cannabis

"Health officials in Geneva have suppressed the publication of a politically sensitive analysis that confirms what ageing hippies have known for decades: cannabis is safer than alcohol or tobacco."

"According to a document leaked to New Scientist, the analysis concludes not only that the amount of dope smoked worldwide does less harm to public health than drink and cigarettes, but that the same is likely to hold true even if people consumed dope on the same scale as these legal substances. "

[coloradan]

The report is also expected to warn that research carried out in the 1960s and 1970s may underestimate the impact of today's cannabis since it is much more potent than the cannabis smoked then. The average cannabis cigarette smoked in the 1960s contained about 10mg of D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the ingredient which accounts for the psychoactive properties of cannabis, compared to 150mg of THC today.

Typically, the report is exactly backwards. If the modern drug is more potent, one needs to smoke less to obtain the same effect. The health hazards arise from the smoke, not the active ingredient, so the more potent it is, the less has to be smoked, with less health risk.

Furthermore, cannabis doesn't need to be smoked at all to obtain the effect - it can be baked into brownies and eaten, with nuch less deleterious health effects than smoking it - or smoking tobacco.

[concerned about politics]

Tobacco does coat the lungs with resin. Weed would do even more because it's smoked unfiltered. The filters would reduce the THC. Heck, if they were filtered, they'd smoke the used filters in their bongs, too!
AND, tobacco does not alter perceptions. Those who drive stoned are just as dangerous as drunk drivers. The problem is the sort term loss of long term memory. They'll forget where they're driving to. They may even forget they're the driver if they get their hands on that Canadian skunk weed.
If tobacco is considered demonic, the pot is Satan itself.

[Dimensio]

Well, an argument could be made that tobacco is usually filtered while a joint is not. Of course, they wouldn't want to mention that because it reveals that it's the method of intake that is the problem and not the chemicals taken. Also, I've heard that a water based filter (read: bong) is the best way to smoke the stuff, as it greatly reduces the toxins in the lungs.

I don't smoke the stuff, so I can't say for certain.

[TheOtherOne]

I loved the last paragraph:

"As a respiratory consultant physician, I see the devastating consequences of smoking-related lung diseases, such as emphysema and chronic obstructive airways diseases, every day and I am fearful that long-term cannabis smoking may be linked to similar conditions."

[Dakmar]

The report is also expected to warn that research carried out in the 1960s and 1970s may underestimate the impact of today's cannabis since it is much more potent than the cannabis smoked then.

Great - the more potent it becomes the less one needs to smoke to get a buzz.

[Stirner]

There have been conflicting studies over the years about the lung effects of smoking marijuana. Some have shown bad effects, others have not. However, marijuana does not need to be smoked to have the effect that users seek. It can be eaten or blended into drinks. The only advantage to smoking is that it requires less marijuana than ingesting it through the gut by drinking or eating. In other words, smoking is a response to the artificially high price that its being illegal causes. Lower the price to what similar dried vegetation costs (parsley, oregano) and users could avoid whatever health dangers smoking poses.

[SheLion]

So we have a bunch of pols, a physician, a reporter, and the BBC itself fabricating a story on the basis of precisely nothing.

Isn't that how most Editorials read today? Half-truths and bogus studies. And they hope the general public will believe it all.

[concerned about politics]

gives off second hand smoke.

It just died a sudden death, unless the anti-smoking-Nazi liberals are hypocrits. Could it be?

[Dakmar]

Those who drive stoned are just as dangerous as drunk drivers. The problem is the sort term loss of long term memory. They'll forget where they're driving to. They may even forget they're the driver if they get their hands on that Canadian skunk weed.

Wanna buy a bridge? If you believe what you posted I guess you'll believe anything.

[Wolfie]

The report is also expected to warn that research carried out in the 1960s and 1970s may underestimate the impact of today's cannabis since it is much more potent than the cannabis smoked then.

Pure myth.

[skeeter]

So we have a bunch of pols, a physician, a reporter, and the BBC itself fabricating a story on the basis of precisely nothing.

Sounds like someone involved with the report, which hasn't yet been completed, is giving reporters a summary preview.

I do agree with SheLion. I expect any evidence of the deleterious effects of pot to be met with thundering silence by the tobacco nazis.

[jae471]

Furthermore, cannabis doesn't need to be smoked at all to obtain the effect - it can be baked into brownies and eaten, with nuch less deleterious health effects than smoking it - or smoking tobacco.

Are you familiar with a drink called the Green Lizard (I think that's what its called)? Over-proof rum spinkled with ground pot. It's readily available in the Jamaica.