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."

[concerned about politics]

10 years ago I had a bad brownie experience. I didn't know how much weed I should use, so I used an ounce - for one small pan of brownies.

We did that on purpose one year for New Years. I don't remember what the subject was on TV that night, but it was sooo funny. Never laughed so hard in my life. I think we were watching the pope. I don't remember if it was a church show or the news.
No offence, but not being Catholic and being too rolling stoned, the guy was really funny. Couldn't understand a word he said.

[concerned about politics]

Or so I've heard.

LOL

[GoreIsLove]

Bob was so cool he used to smoke it through his toes.

[68 grunt]

Aww gee, you just reminded me of my friend, Lee Atwater. He died, much younger than Marley, of a brain tumor. I wonder if Lee was a closet loadie?

[concerned about politics]

I don't use marijuana. But I don't like the enormous criminality and corruption that follows from its being illegal. It's just like what happened during Prohibition. The corruption and crime are worse than anything the drug does.

I think the real reason they don't want it legal is their inability to tax it.
If it were legal, you could just grow your own.
If you had to buy it, how could they regulate the underground enough to collect "their share" from it?
Right now, they collect more cash from drug busts than they could with a sales tax.

[SheLion]

Why do I get the impression that she thinks that young people making their own decisions is a bad thing?

Nice win, but no cigar (Wimbledon champ horrifies anti-smoking nannies!)

In that post, the winner (21 years old) was seen smoking a cigar, and the anti's came unglued saying that ""We're not dealing with adults who are able to make informed choices."

So, why isn't it ok like " 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."

I wish they would together and decide on keeping on topic about how old a person has to be in order to become an ADULT!

[concerned about politics]

I wish they would together and decide on keeping on topic about how old a person has to be in order to become an ADULT!

Well, to liberals, you're old enough to make decisions about sex at 10 years old, but if it has to do with something liberals don't like, the age of consent goes up to 105.

[DAnconia55]

Smoking ANY thing obviously has elements of danger.

Campfires, grills, tobacco, even if you were to simply smoke newspaper....

But that's not a reason to make it illegal.

[RolandBurnam]

what were we just talking about??

[robertpaulsen]

So if I were to smoke 1-2 Marlboro cigarettes a day, that wouldn't hurt me? And if it isn't harmful to me, then it certainly isn't harmful to the non-smokers around me. Therefore, I can smoke my Marlboros in public as long as no one else in the area is smoking? Try it, just one time.

[SheLion]

Campfires, grills, tobacco, even if you were to simply smoke newspaper....

But that's not a reason to make it illegal.

Oh! But "they" sure are trying! Nothing surprises me anymore.

Never tried smoking newspaper. hehe!

[DAnconia55]

Cigarettes contain all sorts of bad chemicals... put there by the tobacco companies.
A more accurate comparison would be a cigar or pipe tobacco.

Tobacco can even contain traces of uranium, if I'm not mistaken (It leeches it from the soil).

[NoLongerLurker]

So if I were to smoke 1-2 Marlboro cigarettes a day, that wouldn't hurt me? And if it isn't harmful to me, then it certainly isn't harmful to the non-smokers around me.

Both of the above statements are coreect.

There are essentially no detectable ill effects in people who smoke 1-2 cigarettes per day. It takes 15-20 pack-years of smoking to show a significant increase in incidence of cancer, emphysema or heart disease.

The effects of the secondary smoke of 1-2 cigarettes per day on others would be undetectable on any basis.

Except for your hysteria on the subject.

[HELLRAISER II]

Yes smoking anything will put you at risk of cancer, whether it's pot, tobbacco or bananna peels and yes it should be treated the same as alcohol in ref; to driving. If your driving while stoned & get caught, it's DUI bubba. But come on, we don't forget to where we're driving regardless of the quality of smoke. And for the record there is no way on god's green earth that anybody could smoke a filter, yuck.

[Nate505]

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

What kind of chicken little garbage are you saying? Will you get arrested if you are caught with tobacco, in your own home? Can you not go to the local 7-11 and get tobacco? Gee, I can't go to 7-11 and get any weed, and I get arrested for it if I'm caught with it, so cry me a #$$#% river about how mistreated you poor tobacco smokers are. Oh no, they're raising the taxes on tobacco 50 cents, and you can't smoke in some restaraunts, gee, the world must be coming to an end for you guys.....

[Nate505]

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.

The best argument is virtually no pot smokers smoke 15 grams of pot a day, while the average tobacco smoker does. So even if on a per weight basis pot is more harmful than tobacco, the amount used is so much less that the comparison is dumb. It's like saying cyanide is more poisionous than hemlock, so therefore it's more dangerous to eat a milligram of cyanide than it is to eat a couple grams of hemlock.....

[Nate505]

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.

Why would the tobacco nazis care about weed? Weed's already illegal....

[HELLRAISER II]

Your 100% right of course, but in her defense it's pretty $hitty what their trying to do the Tobbacco crowd as well.

[HELLRAISER II]

That's a fact, what I wouldn't do to have some stuff from the 70's or the 80's.

[HELLRAISER II]

No, this is true. My grandfather & my dad both we're told by their physicians that smoking would clear up their bronchial problems. I know that sound's like B.S. but this is a true statement no matter how bogus it actually was for them.