Marijuana smokers face rapid lung destruction?

[crownedsparrow]

I don't know how many of you have seen this in the media lately but I want to hear your opinions.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...80123104017.htm

Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers

ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2008) — 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."

 

[thcbound]

Vaporize it!

 

[gramsci.antonio]

wich cannabis they used to make the test?


Street cannabis?

Correctly grown cannabis?

Was it mixed with tobacco?



Too many variables has to be considered to make the study consistent.

 

[Stoner4Life]

then why aren't those fvcking smokers cancer wards just chock full of tokers?

more bvllshyt stats bought and paid for by taxpayers monies!

 

[_angst_]

GEE, I WISH THEY'D RELEASE THE PARAMETERS TO THEIR STUDY...

 

[The_Leader]

then why aren't those fvcking smokers cancer wards just chock full of tokers?

more bvllshyt stats bought and paid for by taxpayers monies!

agreed.

tax payers w/no say as to how the taxes are spent.

 

[Guest]

Whether its true or false should have no bearing on a freedom of choice issue

 

[Guest]

1)This isn't cancer, so people in cancer wards have nothing to do with this.

2) I can't even BELIEVE the outright bias that you guys are putting forth, almost automatically ASSUMING that this study is bunk - it's absolutely amazing to me that the pot community is so bias like this, but at the same time I'm not surprised at all.

3) Just because cigs are extremely toxic doesn't devalue any negative effects from smoking weed

4) This is a peer-reviewed journal which means the studies are checked and are not bogus according to the credible scientific community reviewing it.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/press/pressitem.asp?ref=1593
"About Respirology
Respirology is a journal of international standing, publishing peer-reviewed articles of scientific excellence in clinical and experimental respiratory biology and disease and its related fields of research including thoracic surgery, internal medicine, immunology, intensive and critical care, epidemiology, cell and molecular biology, pathology, pharmacology and physiology.


5) If anyone had looked and done some research, easy research, such as I just did, using google, you could easily figure out information about it. Infact here is the study's abstract:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1440-1843.2007.01186.x
Respirology
Volume 13 Issue 1 Page 122-127, January 2008
To cite this article: Su W. HII, Jeff D. C. TAM, Bruce R. THOMPSON, Matthew T. NAUGHTON (2008)
Bullous lung disease due to marijuana
Respirology 13 (1), 122–127.
doi:10.1111/j.1440-1843.2007.01186.x

Bullous lung disease due to marijuana
* Su W. HII,11Departments of Allergy, Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Monash University and
* Jeff D. C. TAM,22Diagnostic Radiology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
* Bruce R. THOMPSON11Departments of Allergy, Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Monash University and AND
* Matthew T. NAUGHTON11Departments of Allergy, Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Monash University and Matthew T. Naughton, Department of Allergy, Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Alfred Hospital and Monash University, Alfred Hospital, Commercial Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004, Australia. Email: [email protected]

*
1Departments of Allergy, Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Monash University and 2Diagnostic Radiology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Matthew T. Naughton, Department of Allergy, Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Alfred Hospital and Monash University, Alfred Hospital, Commercial Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Bullous lung disease due to marijuana
HII SW, TAM JDC, THOMPSON BR, NAUGHTON MT. Respirology 2008; 13: 122–127
Abstract

Background and objective: In contrast to the well-described effects of tobacco smoking upon pulmonary emphysema, with ~15% of smokers being affected at the age of 65 years, the effects of marijuana smoking are rarely reported and poorly understood.

Methods: We report a series of 10 patients (mean age 41 ± 9 years, eight male, two female), who presented over a period of 12 months to our respiratory unit with new respiratory symptoms, and who admitted to regular chronic marijuana smoking (>1 year continuously). Symptoms on presentation were dyspnoea (n = 4), pneumothorax (n = 4) and chest infection (n = 2).

Results: High-resolution CT revealed asymmetrical, variably sized, emphysematous bullae in the upper and mid zones. However, the CXR was normal in four patients and lung function was normal in five.

Conclusions: Marijuana smoking leads to asymmetrical bullous disease, often in the setting of normal CXR and lung function. In subjects who smoke marijuana, these pathological changes occur at a younger age (approximately 20 years earlier) than in tobacco smokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



There ya go. You can now play scientist and tell us the real scientists have no idea what they are doing, and neither does the community of people that peer review articles for the journal Respirology. In the meantime, I'll actually listen to credible evidence without bias, and understand that smoked marijuana is not some wonder drug that magically has no negative effects.... =/

 

[blitz]

Well, the article actually makes sense: a lot of marijuana users have really destructive smoking habits such as "ghosting" (holding a hit in until exhalation doesn't produce any visible smoke- the ash stays in the lungs) or inhaling hot smoke directly from a pipe. Cigarette smokers, probably because of greater public awareness about tobacco's negative health effects, just inhale and exhale fairly quickly. From my experience, most of the the THC in smoke probably gets absorbed by your lungs within a second, so holding a hit in really doesn't do much except give tar more a chance to accumulate.

 

[Guest]

And if anyone wants to suggest this is some gov't-influenced study, prove it - you would be working against an esteemed medical journal and scientific peer review board.

From what I can find, this was not a gov't funded or influenced kind of study.. and is actually extremely credible...unfortunately....

 

[blitz]

Just in response to "journies" rather self-righteous and condescending post:

I don't think that it's that unreasonable for pot smokers to be suspicious of scientific/government publications regarding marijuana, given the bias in those professions AGAINST marijuana usage, and the ease with which numbers can be manipulated to support any position.

As well, you'll notice that the article didn't specifically blame marijuana, but the smoking practices associated with marijuana consumption:

"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."

Besides, you're creating a straw-man when you claim that others believe marijuana to be a wonder drug with no negative effects: nobody claims that. However, for many medical marijuana users (especially those with a terminal illness), respiratory issues just aren't important. As well, the study didn't mention whether the test subjects smoked tobacco in addition to marijuana.

Finally, had you any knowledge on the subject, you wouldn't assume that peer-reviewed journals are automatically correct. It just means that they're credible, but even that isn't always the case.

 

[Guest]

I started smoking in the early 70s and was told and partly believed my heavy smoking would cause lung cancer.Google cannabis cancer 2006 and you'll see why people like me take these "studies" with a grain of salt.I'd post the link but I cant find my reading glasses.As for esteemed "peers" and scientific journal studies they all have grants and agenda's,or was I born yesterday?

 

[Guest]

Just in response to "journies" rather self-righteous and condescending post:

I don't think that it's that unreasonable for pot smokers to be suspicious of scientific/government publications regarding marijuana, given the bias in those professions AGAINST marijuana usage, and the ease with which numbers can be manipulated to support any position.

It is not unreasonable at all! What is unreasonable is people implying that these studies are influenced right off the bat, without even knowing, or showing us evidence. It just irritates me that people are bias like that.

As well, you'll notice that the article didn't specifically blame marijuana, but the smoking practices associated with marijuana consumption:

"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."

I wasn't disputing that

Besides, you're creating a straw-man when you claim that others believe marijuana to be a wonder drug with no negative effects: nobody claims that. However, for many medical marijuana users (especially those with a terminal illness), respiratory issues just aren't important. As well, the study didn't mention whether the test subjects smoked tobacco in addition to marijuana.

Finally, had you any knowledge on the subject, you wouldn't assume that peer-reviewed journals are automatically correct. It just means that they're credible, but even that isn't always the case.

Peer reviewed journals are not automatically correct, but we know for sure this isnt a gov't influenced scheme, or a journal that lacks credibility..

I'm not disputing that we don't know if they smoked anything else, that's a valid thing to ponder, but what I was mainly responding to in such a frustrated way was the unfounded bias right off the bat from many people in this thread. That's all. You're a civil person and I'll use that to remind myself to keep my cool.

 

[crownedsparrow]

Has anyone on this board been told by a medical professional that they have Bullous Lung Disease? It seems to slip under the radar in most medical exams.
The thing that bothers me about the test is
A. That the clinic did not administer the marijuana, so we only have the subject's word about how much and what he/she has been smoking.
B. They only tested 10 people. How did they select these 10 people out of the others that applied for the study? 10 people do not give me confidence that they have maintained a accurate cross-section of the chronic marijuana smoking population.
C. The method of smoking is not explained. Was it water filtered? Joints? Blunts?

Lastly I agree with journies when I dont think that this is any form of government propoganda since the study wasn't even carried out in the US but rather in Australia.

 

[GHETTO_grower]

said half of them were fine ...maybe that was the half fo them that didnt also smoek ciggs

 

[Guest]

Which leads us to:

People really *don't know* how bad smoking MJ is for you because we still are in the infancy of studies. Which is even more reason for me, personally, to not smoke. We don't even fully know what it can do to you, and it obviously can't be good whatever it is. Just my opinion though

 

[crownedsparrow]

why do you spend so much time in a marijuana forum if you dont smoke? just curious

 

[spadedNfaded]

anything you smoke isn't good for you bro.
burning shit and inhaling it makes it bad right off the bat.
it doesn't matter if it's cigarettes, or marijuana, or crack or fruit loops.

SMOKING has been known to cause problems. your body doesn't give a fuck what's burning, it doesn't like it. Period.

- SubN

 

[Guest]

why do you spend so much time in a marijuana forum if you dont smoke? just curious

Are you kidding?

 

[spadedNfaded]

it seemed like a valid question to me....?

- SubN