• CD Moderators: someguyontheinternet
  • Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

This is scary

Oh I have, ive read hours upon hours. And also many cancer studies and I dont think that all of that is correct, or even most of it. But none the less there is still a risk of many lung diseases. And I also posted it kind of to see it get ripped a part by BLers :) .
 
Apparantly cannabis does not bind to the alveoli( air sacs ) in your lung -where oxygen is transferred to your bloodstream- in the same way as tar in cigarette smoke does.

However, usually when I smoke I mix a quarter of a cigarette into the grinder so . . . .

That said, been a full on stoner in varying degrees for about ten years now and I can't say I have any noticeable shortness of breath.

My dad is 49 years older than me and has smoked 20 "afton" filterless cigarettes a day since 1947 and he's still kicking around so maybe my family is less prone to such ailments.
 
tekahydrocannabinol... what the hells that... only THC i know is tetrahydrocannabinol

this study is also too old to know that THC is an anti-carcinogen (at least on in-vitro tests) and so as its in witht he carcinogens nullifies the affects

looks like grade A bull-plop to me
 
bullshit...ill be smoking only marijuana my entire life so in 50 years come find me and ill be the first isolated case study and show that marijuana is not overtly harmful to your lungs or body.
 
ezbakeoven said:
bullshit...ill be smoking only marijuana my entire life so in 50 years come find me and ill be the first isolated case study and show that marijuana is not overtly harmful to your lungs or body.
Click to expand...

wtf, how is it bullshit? im amazed at how many stoners are downright delusional about the health affects of marijuana. lets examine the conclusion from the webpage and see if it is indeed "bullshit":

"Summary

The evidence for the harmful consequences of marijuana smoking is preliminary and requires long-term study. In the interim, prudent advice must serve where substantial clinical evidence is lacking. Habitual marijuana use, as often as one joint per day, may result in serious pulmonary consequences. In the short term, breathing may be restricted, coughing may be increased, and resistance may be lowered to opportunistic infections of the lungs such as pneumonia. Respiratory cancer is a likely result in the long term. Heavier use of marijuana is likely to have more potent, adverse health consequences."

they never claim that marijuana definitely causes cancer, they simply say more research is needed. as for the rest of the paragraph, it sounds dead on. there are countless studies supporting what they say about increased coughing and lowered resistance to repsiratory infection in marijuana users and very few (if any) to the contrary.

now please explain the reasoning behind YOUR claim that its bullshit.
 
hedgewitch said:
tekahydrocannabinol... what the hells that... only THC i know is tetrahydrocannabinol

this study is also too old to know that THC is an anti-carcinogen (at least on in-vitro tests) and so as its in witht he carcinogens nullifies the affects

looks like grade A bull-plop to me
Click to expand...

according to this study "As yet there is no evidence that THC or other cannabinoids have anticancer effects in humans."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...tool=iconabstr&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum
 
i stand corrected, unless theres a more recent studdy

thought there was a study on long term users published a month or so ago claiming no link to cancer in long term smokers (30+ years) i'll have to dig that up
 
Yeah, but in every study they forget to realize that mary jane aint standardized like many other controlled substances they research (tabacco, alky), thus rendering all studies null and void.

"One marijuana cigarette was shown by Wu and colleagues (1988) to deposit four times as much tar in the lung as a single filtered tobacco cigarette of approximately the same weight. ."

Hey buddy, stuff your weed in that cigarette tube and smoke it, dollar says it will have 4x less tar, atleast.
 
hedgewitch said:
i stand corrected, unless theres a more recent studdy

thought there was a study on long term users published a month or so ago claiming no link to cancer in long term smokers (30+ years) i'll have to dig that up
Click to expand...


there was a study which found no link to lung cancer. ive spent quite a bit of time researching the affects of cannabis smoking on the lungs and in my humble opinion, chances are you won't get lung cancer from smoking marijuana. however, that does not mean it is safe, as it actually causes more pathological chances to the lungs than smoking tobacco. many people fail to realize that there are tons of other serious repiratory problems which can result from smoking other than cancer, in fact, if i were a tobacco smoker, i would be far more worried about emphysema than cancer.
some of the data on marijuana causing emphysema is conflicting, like the original article said, some studies have found an association between marijuana and emphysema while others have failed to find such an association. however, many of these studies which found no association had small sample sizes and/or used relatively unsophisticated measures of lung function. what we can conclude from the current data is that marijuana smoking undoubtedly damages the lungs far more quickly than tobacco smoking, although the liklihood of it causing a life threatening lung condition remains unknown. marijuana smokers need to stop delluding themselves into believing what theyre doing is somehow safer than smoking tobacco. here is some relavent data:

“As compared with smoking tobacco, smoking marijuana was associated with a nearly fivefold greater increment in the blood carboxyhemoglobin level, an approximately threefold increase in the amount of tar inhaled, and retention in the respiratory tract of one third more inhaled tar.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=3340105


“Significant respiratory symptoms and changes in spirometry occur in cannabis-dependent individuals at age 21 years, even although the cannabis smoking history is of relatively short duration.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ool=iconabstr&query_hl=16&itool=pubmed_DocSum

“
Regular marijuana smokers are presenting with emphysema 25 years earlier on average than tobacco smokers….
‘We were shocked when we saw the degree to which the lung was damaged and the early age this was occurring’

http://www.alfred.org.au/articles/news/20060426143502_481.html

“This report calls attention to the accelerated pathological changes in the lungs from marijuana smoking as compared to tobacco smoking leading to pulmonary scarring, emphysema, and eventual chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ool=iconabstr&query_hl=33&itool=pubmed_docsum

young marijuana smokers have also been found with severe lung bullae disease, as well as restrictive lung disease. you can search pubmed for case reports of lung bullae in marijuana smokers and emphysema.
 
yes it is scary, thats why its called a scare tactic surely you dont believe that bullshit
 
pin said:
yes it is scary, thats why its called a scare tactic surely you dont believe that bullshit
Click to expand...

what are you taling about? that is a PRO MARIJUANA website. click the links on the top and they have growing guides for crying out loud. i honestly cannot believe how delusional some of the people who post here are. even NORML admits "Human studies have found that pot smokers suffer similar kinds of respiratory damage as tobacco smokers, putting them at greater risk of bronchitis, sore throat, respiratory inflammation and infections." and "it is widely suspected that marijuana smoking causes cancer. Studies have found apparently pre-cancerous cell changes in pot smokers.3 Some cancer specialists have reported a higher-than-expected incidence of throat, neck and tongue cancer in younger, marijuana-only smokers.4 A couple of cases have been fatal." (taken from their marijuana health mythology). this isn't scare tactics. this is REALITY. something you should consider aquainting yourself with.
 
so now youve changed your position from "cannabis doesn't hurt you in any way" to "sure it gives you cancer but so does everything else"? hmmm, quite a turn around there. it's also ironic that you would label this information as "scare tactics" considering that claiming everything gives cancer could very well be considered a scare tactic. the reality is that cancer is by no means inevitable and it should be up to each individual person whether they wish to take measures to prevent it. hence the need for them to have accurate information. i fail to understand why you have a problem with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top