-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
British Lung Foundation Health risks of cannabis 'underestimated'
- Thread starter DoobieDuck
- Start date
here's some propaganda for you!
i was very ill for a long time with liver cancer that ultimately resulted in me getting a liver transplant.
when you are a transplant candidate they give you every medical test known, repeatedly.
one of the test i got was an endoscopy, where they stick a miniature scope down your throat and look at your throat and lungs.
i had my daughter drive me as they knock you out to do this procedure.
i have been smoking weed since i was 15 years old, i am 62 now and was about 55 at the time of this test so that's 40 years of pot but no tobacco.
after the test the doctor looked at my daughter and said "he doesn't smoke, does he?" he said my lungs were clean and healthy. no evidence of any damage.
at that time my cannabis use was at an all time high, if you will pardon the pun, as i was using it all day long every day because of my illness.
i have always led an active, healthy, lifestyle with lots of aerobics.
i'm sure that if you sit on your ass all day long, eating bon bon's, smoking pot, you will die younger than than if you didn't.
oh, and by the way, zbenjii, this is a pro cannabis website!
i was very ill for a long time with liver cancer that ultimately resulted in me getting a liver transplant.
when you are a transplant candidate they give you every medical test known, repeatedly.
one of the test i got was an endoscopy, where they stick a miniature scope down your throat and look at your throat and lungs.
i had my daughter drive me as they knock you out to do this procedure.
i have been smoking weed since i was 15 years old, i am 62 now and was about 55 at the time of this test so that's 40 years of pot but no tobacco.
after the test the doctor looked at my daughter and said "he doesn't smoke, does he?" he said my lungs were clean and healthy. no evidence of any damage.
at that time my cannabis use was at an all time high, if you will pardon the pun, as i was using it all day long every day because of my illness.
i have always led an active, healthy, lifestyle with lots of aerobics.
i'm sure that if you sit on your ass all day long, eating bon bon's, smoking pot, you will die younger than than if you didn't.
oh, and by the way, zbenjii, this is a pro cannabis website!
Science is not made up by one biased report, but by the collective body of research made. So, here's some more research made on the subject:
Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
Marijuana Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html
“We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD. “But we did not find any evidence for an increase in cancer risk for even heavy marijuana smoking.” Carcinogens are substances that cause cancer.
The more tobacco a person smoked, the greater their risk of developing lung cancer and other cancers of the head and neck. But people who smoked more marijuana were not at increased risk compared with people who smoked less and people who didn’t smoke at all.
Does smoking cannabis cause cancer?
http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk....-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer
Several research studies have shown a link between cannabis and cancer. But other studies have shown no link. This makes it difficult to say exactly what the risk is. There have been a couple of systematic reviews that have tried to draw some conclusions on this.
In other words, there is no consensus, therefore no. Inhaling smoke, whether it's Cannabis, Tobacco or any other smoke is unhealthy. You solve the problem by eating your Cannabis instead of smoking it, or use a vaporizer. No physical ill effects of THC has ever been established by a serious, scientific study.
Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
Marijuana Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html
“We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD. “But we did not find any evidence for an increase in cancer risk for even heavy marijuana smoking.” Carcinogens are substances that cause cancer.
The more tobacco a person smoked, the greater their risk of developing lung cancer and other cancers of the head and neck. But people who smoked more marijuana were not at increased risk compared with people who smoked less and people who didn’t smoke at all.
Does smoking cannabis cause cancer?
http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk....-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer
Several research studies have shown a link between cannabis and cancer. But other studies have shown no link. This makes it difficult to say exactly what the risk is. There have been a couple of systematic reviews that have tried to draw some conclusions on this.
In other words, there is no consensus, therefore no. Inhaling smoke, whether it's Cannabis, Tobacco or any other smoke is unhealthy. You solve the problem by eating your Cannabis instead of smoking it, or use a vaporizer. No physical ill effects of THC has ever been established by a serious, scientific study.
You forget the cannabinoids in Cannabis have antioxidant & anticarcinogenic properties which means they neutralise the damage caused by oxidants the substances (Nitrosamine, PAH, Benzene etc) in smoke.Tobacco contains no antioxidants to neutralise those damage or any other constituent which has anticarcinogenic properties.IMO it is still safer smoking a joint than doing exercise along the highway with al those flue gasses or smog in the city.
[YOUTUBEIF]8aTbnO9I-TU[/YOUTUBEIF]
Keep on growing
http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/cannabis-smoke-and-cancer-assessing-the-risk
yeah pro cannabis, we can still at least try to be unbiased. tobacco literally causes lung cancer... and it's legal. We can acknowledge the risks of marijuana smoke and still believe that it should be legal.. if anything, it makes our argument stronger.
yeah pro cannabis, we can still at least try to be unbiased. tobacco literally causes lung cancer... and it's legal. We can acknowledge the risks of marijuana smoke and still believe that it should be legal.. if anything, it makes our argument stronger.
Good links Rosy I'll try to remeber them, but the damage has already been done as this appeared in the national red top rags and there is no way they will ever publish the links you provided so the ignorant swing constituency that believes whatever they read that day will blindly bump along believing that BLF study is the only medical proof out there. On the flipside it kills the 'education' statements of goverments because they put discredited materials up as the only fact giving teens the proof they need that goverments can't be trusted and only the dealer selling them whatever they want as the person they believe to have the factual information regarding enything to do with cannabis or drugs.
The full report pdf available here is a very good read
http://www.lunguk.org/research/special_reports
But it is simply an update on the previous Smokeing Gun ? report.
http://www.lunguk.org/research/special_reports
But it is simply an update on the previous Smokeing Gun ? report.
Not particularly pro cannabis, but speaking from my own experience with tobacco (North State brand was favourite).Began to smoke when i was 8 yrs old, stopped when i was 21 because of problems with Bronchitis.Still smoke Cannabis without any problems with Bronchitis.
Keep on growing
rckymtnthuglife
Member
This post is a complete waste of time. I never should have had to skim through it.
Rosy cheeks you hit it dead on. Smoking anything is not good for the body period. Vap it, or eat it or shove it up your ass, what ever, cannabis not smoked but taken in other ways is harmless to the body. The effects on mental illness is a whole different story. Some people just have a genetic predisposition to adverse effect from cannabis. And should never use it period.
I had a close friend that died of lung cancer, he smoked a pack of cigs a day, at least, lived on white bread and bologna sandwiches, never saw him consume a fresh vegetable or piece of fruit, and swore that it was the two joints a day that caused the cancer.
I had a close friend that died of lung cancer, he smoked a pack of cigs a day, at least, lived on white bread and bologna sandwiches, never saw him consume a fresh vegetable or piece of fruit, and swore that it was the two joints a day that caused the cancer.
Moderate Marijuana Use Does Not Impair Lung Function, Study Finds
Full Article: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/marijuana-smoking-does-not-harm-lungs-study-finds/
"The new research is one of the most extensive looks to date at whether long-term marijuana use causes pulmonary damage, and specifically whether its impact on the lungs is as harmful as smoking cigarettes. The researchers followed more than 5,000 people over two decades and found that regularly smoking marijuana — the equivalent of up to a joint a day over seven years — did not impair performance on a lung function test. The test, a measure of pulmonary obstruction that looks at the amount of air a person can force out in one second after taking a deep breath, is typically worsened by smoking tobacco.
In something of a twist, the researchers found that compared to nonsmokers, marijuana users performed slightly better on the lung function test, though the improvement was minuscule. “Even with this tiny increase in airflow, I have to admit that I really doubt that there’s any real increase in lung health,” said Dr. Stefan Kertesz, an associate professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham school of medicine and an author of the study. The finding may merely reflect marijuana smokers’ years of “training” in taking deep inhalations and holding the smoke, the researchers said."
Full Article: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/marijuana-smoking-does-not-harm-lungs-study-finds/
"The new research is one of the most extensive looks to date at whether long-term marijuana use causes pulmonary damage, and specifically whether its impact on the lungs is as harmful as smoking cigarettes. The researchers followed more than 5,000 people over two decades and found that regularly smoking marijuana — the equivalent of up to a joint a day over seven years — did not impair performance on a lung function test. The test, a measure of pulmonary obstruction that looks at the amount of air a person can force out in one second after taking a deep breath, is typically worsened by smoking tobacco.
In something of a twist, the researchers found that compared to nonsmokers, marijuana users performed slightly better on the lung function test, though the improvement was minuscule. “Even with this tiny increase in airflow, I have to admit that I really doubt that there’s any real increase in lung health,” said Dr. Stefan Kertesz, an associate professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham school of medicine and an author of the study. The finding may merely reflect marijuana smokers’ years of “training” in taking deep inhalations and holding the smoke, the researchers said."
Association Between Marijuana Exposure and Pulmonary Function Over 20 Years
Full Study @ http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=307&issue=2&page=173
Context: Marijuana smoke contains many of the same constituents as tobacco smoke, but whether it has similar adverse effects on pulmonary function is unclear.
Objective: To analyze associations between marijuana (both current and lifetime exposure) and pulmonary function.
Design, Setting, and Participants: The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study, a longitudinal study collecting repeated measurements of pulmonary function and smoking over 20 years (March 26, 1985-August 19, 2006) in a cohort of 5115 men and women in 4 US cities. Mixed linear modeling was used to account for individual age-based trajectories of pulmonary function and other covariates including tobacco use, which was analyzed in parallel as a positive control. Lifetime exposure to marijuana joints was expressed in joint-years, with 1 joint-year of exposure equivalent to smoking 365 joints or filled pipe bowls.
Main Outcome Measures Forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC).
Results Marijuana exposure was nearly as common as tobacco exposure but was mostly light (median, 2-3 episodes per month). Tobacco exposure, both current and lifetime, was linearly associated with lower FEV1 and FVC. In contrast, the association between marijuana exposure and pulmonary function was nonlinear (P < .001): at low levels of exposure, FEV1 increased by 13 mL/joint-year (95% CI, 6.4 to 20; P < .001) and FVC by 20 mL/joint-year (95% CI, 12 to 27; P < .001), but at higher levels of exposure, these associations leveled or even reversed. The slope for FEV1 was −2.2 mL/joint-year (95% CI, −4.6 to 0.3; P = .08) at more than 10 joint-years and −3.2 mL per marijuana smoking episode/mo (95% CI, −5.8 to −0.6; P = .02) at more than 20 episodes/mo. With very heavy marijuana use, the net association with FEV1 was not significantly different from baseline, and the net association with FVC remained significantly greater than baseline (eg, at 20 joint-years, 76 mL [95% CI, 34 to 117]; P < .001).
Conclusion: Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function.
Full Study @ http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=307&issue=2&page=173
Context: Marijuana smoke contains many of the same constituents as tobacco smoke, but whether it has similar adverse effects on pulmonary function is unclear.
Objective: To analyze associations between marijuana (both current and lifetime exposure) and pulmonary function.
Design, Setting, and Participants: The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study, a longitudinal study collecting repeated measurements of pulmonary function and smoking over 20 years (March 26, 1985-August 19, 2006) in a cohort of 5115 men and women in 4 US cities. Mixed linear modeling was used to account for individual age-based trajectories of pulmonary function and other covariates including tobacco use, which was analyzed in parallel as a positive control. Lifetime exposure to marijuana joints was expressed in joint-years, with 1 joint-year of exposure equivalent to smoking 365 joints or filled pipe bowls.
Main Outcome Measures Forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC).
Results Marijuana exposure was nearly as common as tobacco exposure but was mostly light (median, 2-3 episodes per month). Tobacco exposure, both current and lifetime, was linearly associated with lower FEV1 and FVC. In contrast, the association between marijuana exposure and pulmonary function was nonlinear (P < .001): at low levels of exposure, FEV1 increased by 13 mL/joint-year (95% CI, 6.4 to 20; P < .001) and FVC by 20 mL/joint-year (95% CI, 12 to 27; P < .001), but at higher levels of exposure, these associations leveled or even reversed. The slope for FEV1 was −2.2 mL/joint-year (95% CI, −4.6 to 0.3; P = .08) at more than 10 joint-years and −3.2 mL per marijuana smoking episode/mo (95% CI, −5.8 to −0.6; P = .02) at more than 20 episodes/mo. With very heavy marijuana use, the net association with FEV1 was not significantly different from baseline, and the net association with FVC remained significantly greater than baseline (eg, at 20 joint-years, 76 mL [95% CI, 34 to 117]; P < .001).
Conclusion: Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function.
I'm going to hold my hits longer and deeper my whole life everyday... document it and prove them all wrong.
See you when I'm a Hundred and twenty and still growing.
Peace and Puffs
See you when I'm a Hundred and twenty and still growing.
Peace and Puffs
audioaddict
Active member
Yeah, though by the sound of that quote you posted, another stoner forum has already been there!
haha.
I mean who has friends who desert them when they have MDMA?
Irv Rosendale
Irv Rosendale
Not sure on spelling of name. The guy that the government sends 300 joints a month too.
He has smoked 300 joints a month for over 25 years !!! ( 300 / month X 12 months = 3600 joints a year. 3600 X 25 years = over 90,000 joints ! ) He breathes just fine. What the fuck else do you need.
Healthier ways, of couse. You wanta look at BIG LONG TIME smoking and effects, look at this guy. He is easy to find.
come on Brit's
Irv Rosendale
Not sure on spelling of name. The guy that the government sends 300 joints a month too.
He has smoked 300 joints a month for over 25 years !!! ( 300 / month X 12 months = 3600 joints a year. 3600 X 25 years = over 90,000 joints ! ) He breathes just fine. What the fuck else do you need.
Healthier ways, of couse. You wanta look at BIG LONG TIME smoking and effects, look at this guy. He is easy to find.
come on Brit's
Is the British Lung Foundation gov't run or is it independent? If it is independent I highly doubt they would waste their money putting out "propaganda".
I am not going to say that I believe that 1 joint = 20 cigarettes, but I will say that if you think that MJ smoke is benign, has no risk, or worse yet you are one of the idiots that think that MJ smoke itself is "medicinal", you really need to get your head out of the sand.
Just because your buddy who smoked "x" number of joints for 30 years and did not develop problems does not mean someone else wouldn't. I know people that smoked a pack a day or more of cigarettes and they did not have ling problems or gets cancer. It varies from person to person.
I am not going to say that I believe that 1 joint = 20 cigarettes, but I will say that if you think that MJ smoke is benign, has no risk, or worse yet you are one of the idiots that think that MJ smoke itself is "medicinal", you really need to get your head out of the sand.
Just because your buddy who smoked "x" number of joints for 30 years and did not develop problems does not mean someone else wouldn't. I know people that smoked a pack a day or more of cigarettes and they did not have ling problems or gets cancer. It varies from person to person.
Suggest you download and read the short 1.3 meg pdf , their view is credible and cautious , with 80 legitimate references it is an overview of current specialist medical opinion and the BMA.
They have charitable status and are well respected , they have done good work with industrial lung desease and similar.
After decades of argument over tobacco and health resulting in the acceptance of even passive smokeing as being a risk , few doctors or medical proffessionals will advocate smokeing weed , the BMA wants to go the extract/synthetic route for safer medication at reliable dosage
They have charitable status and are well respected , they have done good work with industrial lung desease and similar.
After decades of argument over tobacco and health resulting in the acceptance of even passive smokeing as being a risk , few doctors or medical proffessionals will advocate smokeing weed , the BMA wants to go the extract/synthetic route for safer medication at reliable dosage
audioaddict
Active member
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the BLF are not the ones putting this information out there off their own back.
The reports are being published by the media such as the BBC and newspapers based around a BLF funded study, the way it is being perceived and reported on is the propagandist element, and I am still certain that this is not a study on the health effects of cannabis alone, but how the traditional method of smoking cannabis in the UK (ie, with tobacco) compares to people who just smoke cigarettes.
The result is pretty predictable, especially as I remember hearing this same old story back in the 90's, it is a favourite of the UK government.
Again, I do also believe it foolish to suggest that smoking anything, cannabis included, is benign.
Also, the BLF are a registered charity, not a government agency, but they most likely still receive a lot of their funding from government and assorted corporate sources, so it is not a huge leap to suggest they may do a little line toeing.
