Marijuana smokers face rapid lung destruction?

[Guest]

Says clearly that it is how the canabis is smoked which causes the problem, and NEVER states anywhere that the specific chemical properties of the smoke have anything to do with the disease.

Where did I say it mentioned that? And if I had to guess, it's a combination, this is not black & white here, like you are making it seem.

So... Take smaller hits and don't hold them as long...

And you'll *still* be inhaling more smoke and holding it longer than cig smokers.

And here it stated that the doctor was clearly struck by the fact that the disease caused no abnormal function in half of the cannabis smokers. Which leads to a possible conclusion that the cannabinoids prevented the impaired function normally caused br the disease.

Is that the conclusion? Or is it just one possible conclusion of many? I'd go with the latter.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

lol, journies... Like I'm making it seem??? You mean like the article made it seem...

You're trying to make it seem as though the cannabis smoke in itself is the cause here... based on your guess, not the content of the article...

You alarmist just make me lol sometimes... anything you can twist to make cannabis appear harmful...

Keep trying, this one proves absolutely nothing about cannabis smoke being harmful.


AND, are you trying to imple that cannabis smokers have no choice but to inhale more smoke and hold it longer???
That's just downright silly...

The only thing this article shows is that we should take smaller hits and not hold them in as long... It does not show that cannabis smoke causes any harm whatsoever.


ALSO... I said one possible conclusion... where did I say it was 'the' conclusion?

 

[Guest]

lol, journies... Like I'm making it seem??? You mean like the article made it seem...

You're trying to make it seem as though the cannabis smoke in itself is the cause here... based on your guess, not the content of the article...

You alarmist just make me lol sometimes... anything you can twist to make cannabis appear harmful...

Keep trying, this one proves absolutely nothing about cannabis smoke being harmful.

First of all I never made that guess in the beginning and just said before it, if I had to make a guess....etc

And btw the study neither verifies nor dismisses the possibility that this is due to marijuana being specifically the problem or a causaul agent in addition to the smoke. It simply says that it was found that chronic MJ smokers get lung disease. Bam. Bam!

I don't twist things, I love the herb with a passion, I just love my own body more, much, much, more.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

And btw the study neither verifies nor dismisses the possibility that this is due to marijuana being specifically the problem or a causaul agent in addition to the smoke. It simply says that it was found that chronic MJ smokers get lung disease. Bam. Bam!

LMFAO...
The article CLEARLY STATES that the cause was the method of smoking, not the substance smoked. Never even implies that the marijuana is a causal agent... That's purely your guess....

refer to my earlier posts if you still don't understand... Post #78 in particular...

BAM!

 

[Guest]

Can you just copy/paste the exact words from the study, not because I'm lazy or want you to do work, I just want to see exactly where this idea is coming from.

And I know it's easy to get heated up over this, but I wanna let you know that I'm on your side & we're both striving for the same things even if done in different ways..And I say Bam! because it's fun to, not to piss you off or be an a s s about it....Peace

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Can you just copy/paste the exact words from the study, not because I'm lazy or want you to do work, I just want to see exactly where this idea is coming from.

And I know it's easy to get heated up over this, but I wanna let you know that I'm on your side & we're both striving for the same things even if done in different ways...Peace

I did in post #78 of this thread.

The Idea is coming directly from what the article clearly states.

" is the breathing manoeuvres of marijuana smokers"

 

[Guest]

Ok, and where did I say or imply that it is more than just the maneuvers....I truly don't remember
If you don't wanna do the work I'll restate -

I don't think the study neither confirms or denies the fact that it is due to anything more than smoking maneuvers, but that's what this study concluded based on the evidence they found.

 

[Four2Zero]

Well it is the cannabis smoke that we are talking about. What other smoke are millions of people breathing in as deeply as possible and holding for much longer than a normal breath? So its the method but the method is applied to only one smoke that I know of (other than when people smoke hard drugs). I have no doubt that 35 years of bonging is bad for your lungs which is exactly why I cant bong anymore. If I do I get pains in my lungs the next day. I was the bong meister for sooo many years. Vaping doesnt hurt, but gives me asthmatic conditions after a couple days. Same with some friends so its not just me. Im telling you there is a lung related health issue with this way of living. Maybe its just the hardcore that need to think about this..... I certainly have been a heavy pot smoker since around 1972. I would suggest anyone who is planning to smoke weed for their lifetime to toke it easy and you may never have any noticable issues.

 

[Luther Budbank]

This thread has been enlightening. I plan on playing it safe. More pot cookies for me! When that's not possible, I'll take smaller hits and not hold them in so long. Smaller hits make your weed last longer, anyway.

I used cannabis to quit tobacco years ago. It was a lot less harmful and easier to quit. I just smoked a jay every time I got the urge to smoke tobacco. What tobacco?

 

[Guest]

Nice. Cool thing that you found it!

 

[Guest]

Good thing you found the report, nice!

 

[Sammet]

For anyone interested in this thread, I'm not going to tell you my view on the subject however I will say this:

A scientific journal that is peer reviewed, is normally checked and reviewed by a single person, normally a person chosen by the author. Scientists are not as impartial as some might think.... Generally within any field, say pharmacology or physiology (pertaining to the lungs in this case), there tends to be more than one opinion on the matter and approval for publishing can easily be gained by finding a peer with similar opinions.


So don't think that scientific papers are without agenda.

And who likes to read just the abstract? I went and got the rest of the article for you guys to discuss





Introduction

Marijuana is the dried material from the hemp plant, Cannabis sativa. The active ingredient in all forms of marijuana is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which is rapidly absorbed from the lungs and bound to endogenous cannabinoid receptors in the central nervous system, providing the psychoactive effects that users seek.

The commonest method of marijuana use is by smoking, either as a rolled cigarette (joint) or through a water-filled pipe (bong). The rate of marijuana use has increased significantly over the past three decades in most developed societies, and is currently 1–3% among adults and 10% among 21-year-olds in Australia and New Zealand.3 In contrast, ~20% of adults currently smoke tobacco.

Marijuana is inhaled as extremely hot fumes, usually to peak inspiration, and held for as long as possible before slow exhalation. This may predispose to greater damage to the lung parenchyma than is seen with standard tobacco smoking. Seven case reports of bullae (large and multiple) in predominant marijuana smokers have been published. The true prevalence and incidence of such bullae is not known, and they were not mentioned in a recent position statement on marijuana smoking. Indeed, it was concluded that ‘all the available evidence suggests that the risks of regular marijuana smoking are similar to those of regular tobacco smoking’.

Clinical suspicion that marijuana smokers are more prone to bullous lung disease was prompted by a single case report. Over the next 12 months, data were collected on a further nine regular marijuana smoking patients, who presented to our centre over a 12-month period with respiratory ailments, and are the bases of this report.

Methods

All patients (inpatient or outpatient) requiring admission to the Alfred Hospital, Melbourne with new respiratory symptoms, and who volunteered that they had smoked marijuana regularly for at least a 12-month period of their lives, were identified. The 350-bed university-based teaching hospital has a 30-bed respiratory ward, in addition to an outpatient service assessing approximately 250 patients per week. The mean age of patients admitted with tobacco smoking-related COPD is 67 years. Demographic data, details of marijuana and tobacco usage and mode of inhalation, CXR, alpha-1-antitrypsin level, high-resolution CT (HRCT) scan of the chest and details of lung function were recorded. Marijuana usage was estimated by the patient in terms of years smoked, mode of ingestion (joint or bong), number of ‘smokes’ per day and number of grams consumed per day. Marijuana usage was compared using an estimate of ‘joint years’ (1 joint year = 365 joints) and/or 0.75 g marijuana per smoke, based on an average of 0.5–1.0 g marijuana per joint. The study was approved by the Alfred Hospital Ethics Committee (project no.180/70) and all patients provided informed consent.

Results

Ten patients who smoked marijuana regularly were identified. Three were outpatients with subacute problems and seven were inpatients with acute respiratory disorders. The diagnoses on presentation were spontaneous pneumothorax (n = 4), pulmonary abscess (n = 2), acute or chronic respiratory failure (n = 3) and subacute exertional dyspnoea (n = 1). One patient had a long history of asthma, and in recent years had become HIV seropositive and developed sleep apnoea. The mean age of the patients was 41 years, and eight were male (Table 1). HRCT generally showed asymmetrical, variably sized, emphysematous bullae mainly in the upper and mid zones, and in both the peripheral and central regions of the lungs (see Figs 1–10).

Lung function testing indicated that five patients had no evidence of airflow obstruction and three had moderate to severe airflow obstruction. One patient failed to attend for lung function testing despite numerous attempts to contact her. Age and tobacco and/or marijuana consumption (amount and mode) were similar in the groups with normal or abnormal lung function. Only three patients had abnormal CXR and lung function.

Discussion

We report the details of 10 patients who regularly used marijuana, and who developed new respiratory symptoms. Nine of these patients showed severe asymmetrical and variably sized bullae on HRCT. The novel messages from this case series are the young age at presentation and the lack of abnormality on CXR or lung function testing in nearly half of these patients, despite the abnormal HRCT findings.

The mean age at presentation of our group of patients was 41 years, which contrasts significantly with the 62–67 years mean age of patients with smoking-related COPD. The findings in marijuana smokers also contrast with those on cigarette smokers, among whom <15% show changes in lung function and HRCT findings are often normal,12 or ~50% reveal only subtle airway wall thickening.

Wu et al. reported that marijuana smokers have a 70% larger inspiratory volume and hold their breath four times longer, indicating markedly different breathing manoeuvres compared with cigarette smokers. The concentration and pulmonary deposition of inhaled particulate matter, and the rise in carboxyhaemoglobin saturation, are estimated to be two- to threefold greater with marijuana compared with tobacco smoking. Histopathological studies have shown airway inflammation even after limited exposure to marijuana smoke.

The upper lobe predominance of smoking-related emphysema due to high V/Q units is well recognized, compared with basal bullae in alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency due to low V/Q units.19 All the patients in this study had normal alpha-1 antitrypsin levels. However, the manoeuvre used by marijuana smokers usually involves a larger inspiratory effort and a longer period of breath holding, thereby affecting more apical and mid zones of the lung. This manoeuvre could also result in barotrauma to the lung. Of note, four of 10 patients presented with spontaneous pneumothorax, raising the question of whether these lung bullae contributed to the development of pneumothorax, or the barotrauma caused by marijuana inhalation.

The extensive injurious effect of marijuana on the respiratory tract has been documented in numerous studies. Regular marijuana use leads to alveolar macrophage dysfunction and possible depression of the immune system, resulting in increased incidence of pulmonary infection. In addition, endoscopic findings of erythema, oedema and increased secretions, histopathological alterations in bronchial biopsies and dysregulated growth of the bronchial epithelium have been noted. These processes may well contribute to the greater frequency of upper airway cancer observed in this population.

Two patients presented with culture-negative upper lobe abscesses. One of these patients had fungal elements in his sputum and improved with conventional antibacterial and antifungal treatment, whereas the other responded to conventional antibiotics. They were both active marijuana smokers at presentation and both used joints and water pipes. There are reports of atypical aspergillosis infections in immunocompromised marijuana smokers, tuberculosis among users sharing a bong and histoplasmosis in a marijuana plant gatherer.

In addition to bullous disease, marijuana smoking is associated with interstitial fibrosis, byssinosis and necrotizing pulmonary granuloma. However, none of the patients in this study had obvious occupational exposure or peripheral signs of connective tissue disease suggestive of underlying causes of the disease process. A recent report from New Zealand suggested that early and long-term marijuana consumption is associated with a greater incidence of lung cancer than use of tobacco alone.

Unlike tobacco-related COPD, there is a paucity of good longitudinal studies on marijuana smoking and its effects on lung function and carbon monoxide transfer factor. The largest of these studies compared annual spirometry over an 8-year period in 394 subjects (131 heavy marijuana smokers, 112 marijuana and tobacco, 65 tobacco alone, 86 non-smokers). Of the 65% who completed the study, the rate of decline in FEV1 was not different in the marijuana smokers compared with similarly aged (~32 years) non-smokers. The present findings are consistent with that study, in that spirometry was often normal despite significant bullous disease being detected by HCRT.

The limitations of this study are that it was a case series, without a formal control group. Estimates of tobacco and marijuana use were based upon patient recollection. Finally, the population screened were those presenting with respiratory complaints to a large teaching hospital. Accordingly, there is a need to confirm these findings with larger prospective community-based studies that are controlled for tobacco use.

In summary, atypical bullous disease was present in all patients with respiratory symptoms who volunteered that they were regular users of marijuana. Surprisingly, CXR were normal and lung function was mildly reduced in ~45% of the patient group. Given that 1–2% of the mature adult population is estimated to use marijuana regularly, a prospective epidemiological study of marijuana smokers is required to assess the prevalence and incidence of lung disease and, in particular, so that comparisons can be made with purely tobacco-related pulmonary damage.


I highlighted the most important paragraph in bold.

 

[Guest]

For anyone interested in this thread, I'm not going to tell you my view on the subject however I will say this:

A scientific journal that is peer reviewed, is normally checked and reviewed by a single person, normally a person chosen by the author. Scientists are not as impartial as some might think.... Generally within any field, say pharmacology or physiology (pertaining to the lungs in this case), there tends to be more than one opinion on the matter and approval for publishing can easily be gained by finding a peer with similar opinions.


So don't think that scientific papers are without agenda.

And who likes to read just the abstract? I went and got the rest of the article for you guys to discuss

If we are to try to eliminate misinformation you should be fairly certain of your comments...

I read a lot of abstracts and papers and your comments about peer review virtually are all different from mine....

Here is a little from the web....



At a journal or book publisher, the task of picking reviewers typically falls to an editor. When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews from scholars or other experts who may or may not have already expressed a willingness to referee for that journal or book division. Granting agencies typically recruit a panel or committee of reviewers in advance of the arrival of applications.

In some disciplines there exist refereed venues (such as conferences and workshops). To be admitted to speak, scholars and scientists must submit papers (generally short, often 15 pages or less) in advance. These papers are reviewed by a "program committee" (the equivalent of an editorial board), which generally requests inputs from referees. The hard deadlines set by the conferences tend to limit the options to either accept or reject the paper.

Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close colleagues, students, or friends. Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise. Journals or individual editors often invite a manuscript's authors to name people whom they consider qualified to referee their work. Authors are sometimes also invited to name natural candidates who should be disqualified, in which case they may be asked to provide justification (typically expressed in terms of conflict of interest). In some disciplines, scholars listed in an "acknowledgements" section are not allowed to serve as referees (hence the occasional practice of using this section to disqualify potentially negative reviewers).

=========================================================

Peer review is almost always chosen by the editor of the publication.... they are actually almost always anonymous to the author....

The editor is covering the ass of the publication....

they are not going to let some friend of the author do the review....

and peer review is more typically done by more than one reviewer... not one..

 

[Verite]

My god, sounds like now is the perfect time to switch over to jenkem.


Mmmmm good chet man.

 

[blitz]

Thanks for posting the report, Sammet. Only a couple of sentences in, and I find a glaring problem: "Marijuana is inhaled as extremely hot fumes, usually to peak inspiration, and held for as long as possible before slow exhalation." Sure, if you have some shitty keychain pipe, you're going to be inhaling directly from the burning cannabis: plenty of heat and ash that way. But a joint or a bong will cool the smoke somewhat, plus methods of inhaling (French inhale, exhaling the smoke in a cloud and then re-inhaling to cool it) can make a difference. Plus, who really holds their hits in "as long as possible"? I just inhale for a second or two at most and then exhale- most of the THC is absorbed during that time. The report assumes that smokers use the most damaging method of inhalation possible.

As well, the entire report seems to center on 9 marijuana smokers, who already came forward with pre-existing respiratory problems. These people may have smoked cigarettes, they may have damaged their lungs in other ways, or they may have been unusually susceptible to lung damage from smoking.

I could go on, but the study's authors themselves admit their findings to be essentially meaningless:

"The limitations of this study are that it was a case series, without a formal control group. Estimates of tobacco and marijuana use were based upon patient recollection. Finally, the population screened were those presenting with respiratory complaints to a large teaching hospital. Accordingly, there is a need to confirm these findings with larger prospective community-based studies that are controlled for tobacco use."

 

[Sammet]

If we are to try to eliminate misinformation you should be fairly certain of your comments...

I read a lot of abstracts and papers and your comments about peer review virtually are all different from mine....

Here is a little from the web....



At a journal or book publisher, the task of picking reviewers typically falls to an editor. When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews from scholars or other experts who may or may not have already expressed a willingness to referee for that journal or book division. Granting agencies typically recruit a panel or committee of reviewers in advance of the arrival of applications.

In some disciplines there exist refereed venues (such as conferences and workshops). To be admitted to speak, scholars and scientists must submit papers (generally short, often 15 pages or less) in advance. These papers are reviewed by a "program committee" (the equivalent of an editorial board), which generally requests inputs from referees. The hard deadlines set by the conferences tend to limit the options to either accept or reject the paper.

Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close colleagues, students, or friends. Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise. Journals or individual editors often invite a manuscript's authors to name people whom they consider qualified to referee their work. Authors are sometimes also invited to name natural candidates who should be disqualified, in which case they may be asked to provide justification (typically expressed in terms of conflict of interest). In some disciplines, scholars listed in an "acknowledgements" section are not allowed to serve as referees (hence the occasional practice of using this section to disqualify potentially negative reviewers).

=========================================================

Peer review is almost always chosen by the editor of the publication.... they are actually almost always anonymous to the author....

The editor is covering the ass of the publication....

they are not going to let some friend of the author do the review....

and peer review is more typically done by more than one reviewer... not one..

The journals in which I have published papers (only 2 papers) didn't work in that way. I'm sure that as you are aware, there are many different journals on the same topic, eg. Respirology, Respiration, Respiration physiology, Respiratory medicine, Respiratory physiology & neurobiology, Respiratory research etc.

By picking a specific journal in which to publish, one can assume a favourable approach to the peer review process due to the politics (for lack of a better word) of that specific paper.

Don't believe everything you read on the web. In practice I've found the experience to be different to that mentioned above.

 

[Guest]

By picking a specific journal in which to publish, one can assume a favourable approach to the peer review process due to the politics (for lack of a better word) of that specific paper.

Don't believe everything you read on the web. In practice I've found the experience to be different to that mentioned above.


=====================================================

True... MOst of what I read is major journals...

there has been considerable written about the peer review process and how its failing...

It is also true that with some effort almost anything can be published....

As far as not believing what you read on the web....

Clearly I dont...

As far as science daily....no clue how good their peer review process is...

 

[crownedsparrow]

man what a response!

 

[FRIENDinDEED]

this is all very inlightening to know, but it does all seem to have a "propaganda-ish" feel to it (as far as the report itself goes).

my personal thing is, after so many years of cannabis use and smoking, has anyone ever heard of anyone else that smokes having these types respiratoy problems?

and ofcourse anyone is going to gravitate to what is promoting thier own agenda

 

[dude06version]

its funny how all these negative studies never include vaporizers...