Pot smokers don't puff away lung health: study

[kpete]

(Reuters Health) - A few hits on the bong now and then don't seem to have any detrimental effects on lung health, suggests a new study.

Researchers found that multiple measures of lung function actually improved slightly as young people reported using more marijuana -- at least up to a couple thousand lifetime joints.

........................

"Previous studies have had mixed results," Kertesz explained. "Some have hinted at an increase in lung air flow rates and lung volume (with marijuana smoking), and others have not found that. Others have found hints of harm."

While marijuana smoke has a lot of the same toxins as cigarette smoke, he added, people who use pot tend to smoke fewer joints each day than tobacco users smoke cigarettes. That and the method of inhaling may offer some relative lung protection, researchers have proposed.

more:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/10/us-pot-health-idUSTRE8092BC20120110

[Bozita]

1. Some folks are sayin' pot smoking turns your lungs into prunes ...

... and that trumps any and all science!

[1Greensix]

35. Really. A prune?

I think you might want to call your old high school biology teacher and get some of those "old basics" brushed up on. Prunes are dried plums. If I were you, I'd stay away from pot. It DOES make you blog.

[alfredo]

38. Those "Some Folks" need a

good bowel movement, so they probably have prunes on the brain.

Prunes are good when you get the munchies.

[Dreamer Tatum]

2. Look for this to get misconstrued by the Pot is Safer Than Water Committee nt

[tridim]

5. Cannabis is non-toxic.

Despite your silly comment.

[Dreamer Tatum]

6. Yes, everyone knows drawing unfiltered smoke into the lungs cannot possibly do any harm.

(here it comes...."but ALCOHOL is legal!&quot

[tridim]

7. I didn't say anything about drawing unfiltered smoke into the lungs

Do you know anything about Cannabis?

[Dreamer Tatum]

9. Do you know anything about the OP article?

Which specifically mentions smoking it?


"...why, I smoke it all the time, and I'm FINE! That should prove anything to anyone!"

[tridim]

10. My comment was in response to your idiotic post, not the article.

[Dreamer Tatum]

12. Boo hoo, you don't like my opinion.

Shucks. I was so hoping you would.

[tridim]

16. Ironically you could probably use a toke or two.

It'll help open your closed mind.

BTW, Reefer Madness was bullshit. I think you might be one of the last people on Earth that doesn't know that.

[wildbilln864]

33. it was used in floor wax...

and could actually be used in dessert toppings!
The oil.
www.jackherer.com

[ronnie624]

61. Good one. n/t

[frylock]

31. the one that scientifically contradicts your opinion?

that article?

[dixiegrrrrl]

65. Logical error at work here.

While smoking pot was mentioned, I saw no mention of "unfiltered " smoking.

There are several ways to use cannabis which do not include "unfiltered smoking".

[wildbilln864]

8. not more harm than the poluted air itself! nt

[RainDog]

15. here ya go, hater

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.

They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

See, a doctor who has studied this intensively has put forth a possible explanation for why cannabis smokers do not see the problems that cigarette smokers see - THC, as was demonstrated in Spanish and other research into the antitumor properties of cannabis, promotes autophagy, or death of cancer cells.

This autophagy has been demonstrated in various studies for various cancers.

Have a great day!

[Dreamer Tatum]

18. Cancer is the only possible respiratory illness? Wow, who knew. nt

[RainDog]

22. there's also this

Tashkin et al. studied 14 asthmatic volunteers and compared smoked cannabis (2%THC), oral THC (15mg) and the drug isoprenaline (0.5%). They found that smoked cannabis and oral THC produced significant bronchodilatation of at least two hours duration. The effect of smoked cannabis was nearly equivalent to the clinical dose of isoprenaline.

Smoked cannabis was also capable of reversing experimentally induced bronchospasm in three asthmatic subjects. (…) Williams et al. compared a THC aerosol containing 0.2 mg THC with a salbutamol aerosol (0.1 mg) in 10 asthmatic subjects. Both drugs significantly improved respiratory function. The onset of effect was more rapid with salbutamol, but the effects of both drugs were equivalent at one hour. Tashkin et al. compared several doses of THC aerosol (5-20mg) with a standard dose of isoprenaline in 11 normal volunteers and five asthmatic subjects.

http://medicalcbd.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/asthma-treated-with-cannabis/

The real issue is that we employ cost/benefit analyses to determine policies or actions and, in the great big scheme of things, the hysterical prohibition of cannabis is far worse than legalization of the same.

So, no, cancer isn't the only lung disease, but it's one of the main ones that the Drug Czars and Czaristas use as a scare tactic by comparing cannabis to cigarettes and cancer-causing inhaled substances - THEY use this propaganda - which is why you see others rebut it.

If you want ppl to STFU about cannabis - you should be for legalization too. I wouldn't have one thing to say about it were it not for current stupid laws.

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. I am absolutely for legalization.

I just don't delude myself that it is nearly as safe for everyone, all the time, as many people SWEAR it is.

[RainDog]

32. I don't think anything is safe for everyone

most ppl respond to things based upon their own experience, however, and in reaction to things - like the whole WoD propaganda.

I definitely don't think teenagers below the age of, say, 18 should use cannabis unless it's for treatment of a disease or the problems caused by... like chemo.

But many do with no ill effects. Same with alcohol - which I also don't think should be legal for kids.

So, I don't delude myself either, or think that there should be no regulations.

thanks for the snark-less reply!

take care

[EOTE]

63. Instead of the idiotic request to have everyone here prove a negative, why don't you prove

the positive? As in show scientific studies which show the harm of smoking marijuana. I'm sure you'll be providing that any second, right? Or does your intellectual ability only allow you to demand evidence of others?

[randome]

64. How can anyone possibly believe that breathing in smoke is good for your health?

This OP reminds me of the one that suggested kids would do better in school if they smoked pot.

Smoke is bad for your lungs. Period. Maybe short term it is not. Maybe in small doses it is not. But to claim that inhaling smoke into your lungs is actually BENEFICIAL for one's health is ludicrous.

I can see the point about legalization. I'm for the most part against it but I wouldn't stand in the way if certain drugs were legalized. But this kind of over-the-top rationalization is ridiculous.

[EOTE]

70. Ahhh, so you ignore the science as well?

People can possibly believe that because there's a shitload of scientific evidence regarding the health benefits of cannabinoids. Why is it so hard to believe that those health benefits more than negate any issue with breathing in hot smoke? You are completely ignoring available scientific evidence. Did you even read the OP? Are you aware that THC is a bronchodilator? Are you aware that pot smokers on average have GREATER lung capacity than the general population? I'm guessing you don't because that shatters your preconceived notions. Funny how people will so readily ignore science when it doesn't fit their world view.

[randome]

72. The studies have had mixed results.

It says it right in the article. Therefore, in the absence of definitive proof one way or another, it's prudent to go with what 'seems' right. And if you are trying to say that inhaling smoke is actually GOOD for one's lungs, you may have your own preconceived notions to dispel.

[EOTE]

73. The studies do NOT have mixed results.

It says right there in the article that they're not saying that everyone should be going out and getting high and that more research needs to be done. That's NOT mixed results, that's the standard crap all scientific studies say when their results are controversial. And yes, I'm saying that inhaling marijuana smoke is good for one's lungs. That's because I put more stock in science than I do in any preconceived notions that I have. Also, I used to suffer from bronchitis every damned year of my life, without fail. Every year I'd suffer through a week of misery while I attempted to get better. Since discovering cannabis 12+ years ago, I haven't endured bronchitis once. Now when I feel that awkward tickle in my chest, I'll smoke a bowl and cough up some phlegm. That's because THC is a broncho dilator. The phlegm never has a chance to settle in my lungs and cause infection. Truly I can assure you that scientists know a great deal more about this stuff than you ever will.

[randome]

75. Mixed results.

"Previous studies have had mixed results," Kertesz explained. "Some have hinted at an increase in lung air flow rates and lung volume (with marijuana smoking), and others have not found that. Others have found hints of harm."

I have no desire to keep you from doing anything you think is helpful to you. All I'm saying is that smoke in itself is NOT good for one's lungs. Maybe something in the pot helps you and more power to you and to research to find out what it is but the idea that inhaling smoke is GOOD for your lungs flies in the face of logic. And like I said, since the science is not indisputable, it's logical to go with one's 'gut feeling'.

Most people would agree that putting smoke into your lungs is BAD for you.

[EOTE]

76. So these "mixed results" you're referring to is a person saying "Others have found hints of harm."

Wow, 80 years of testing and the best you can do is find someone saying that results in the past have found "hints of harm". Do you know how much fucking damage tylenol can do to people? I'll tell you that it's a hell of a lot more than "hints of harm". You can go around telling people how damned dangerous tylenol is, but most people realize that it's pretty damned safe overall. The scientific concensus is without a doubt that marijuana has far many more health benefits than it does detriments. The only problem with your "face of logic" is that it relies solely upon your current conceptions rather than relying even the slightest bit on science. If you look at the science, you'll have no doubt that the health benefits of cannabis far outweigh the detriments.

[RainDog]

83. there were three different articles posted on this study yesterday

http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/10/10098412-smoking-pot-doesnt-hurt-lung-capacity-study-shows

the above is the best one. marijuana is illegal so no paper reporting this is not going to include "but don't take this as a reason to use cannabis" in the article b/c they don't want to offend the drug warriors in power. that's the way the world works.

but, most importantly, this statement is part of this reportage

Dr. Donald Tashkin, who has studied the relationship between marijuana smoking and lung function for more than 30 years as a professor of medicine at UCLA, says the study confirms what other research has also concluded.

“This is a well-done study involving more subjects than in the past,” says Tashkin, who is not affiliated with the new study. “The public should take away it’s a confirmatory study, but larger and longer than previous studies demonstrating, once again, that smoking marijuana does not impair lung function, unlike tobacco.”

This is a 20 year study with the most participants ever. This study, therefore, carries more weight than a small scale study over a shorter period of time.

And so, what one doctor who has spent years studying pulmonary function in relation to cannabis is saying is... this study demonstrates moderate, not heavy, cannabis use does not impair lung function. This study, in addition to past studies, CONFIRMS that the sort of marijuana use that average Americans engage in does not harm their lung function.

Here's another one from AP

People who occasionally smoke marijuana do not suffer long-term lung damage the way cigarette smokers do, and may actually experience a slight improvement, said a 20-year US study published Tuesday.

Since the research included more than 5,000 people over a long time span, the authors said it should help clear up some of the confusion about the risks of marijuana smoking, which is increasingly common in the United States.

--IOW, don't confuse the issue. This study doesn't look at bronchitis or lung cancer (tho lung cancer studies do exist that show the same thing - that cannabis is not like cigarette smoking) but it does look at lung function and this should be considered the current medical standing for this issue.

[Warren Stupidity]

69. straws are the only thing possible to grasp here.

[AlphaCentauri]

39. What would replace aging cells?

the chemical THC should be made medicine

[RainDog]

41. I don't understand the question

what's interesting, tho, is that it isn't the single molecular compound for THC that has benefits. cannabis is the only plant in the world with its particular complement of chemicals. some work with one another to mitigate possible harm.

patient experiences with marinol vs. whole-plant cannabis confirm this for some people.

while western medicine has a particular approach to something - and it's understood b/c they are trying to limit harm - some things work better as a whole - like vitamins, too, if someone is deficient.

with cannabis, it's another cannabinoid that's really good for gastro-intestinal issues, etc.

[frylock]

29. read the article ffs..

evidently science disagrees with you.

[Threedifferentones]

56. The two halves of your post do not relate.

Yes, any smoke must be harmful to some extent, it seems impossible it could be beneficial.

Keeping alcohol legal and marijuana prohibited is absolutely hypocritical. If the explanation for prohibition is safety or toxicity, cigarettes and alcohol ought to be illegal as well. Hence, that is clearly not the explanation. Last I checked, cultural prejudices were not supposed to trump freedom here.

So, to review, marijuana smoke is harmful, and the plant and its buds should be legal.

[EOTE]

62. Did you even read the article?

Christ, every day more information is released on how pot is not only fairly harmless, but it has tons of health benefits. The science is there, you just refuse to read it. I suppose you can point to studies which show the harm that smoking pot does? I'm sure you'll provide that right away. I can point to myriad studies showing the health benefits of smoking pot.

[enki23]

44. calling anything "non-toxic" is like a giant blinking red light to anyone who knows what toxic means

like, for instance, a toxicologist.

[tridim]

46. If it ever kills someone I'll take it back. It is a fact that Cannabis is non-toxic.

[RainDog]

51. what's the established toxicity level for cannabis?

toxicity is established by dose

so what's the toxicity dose for cannabis?

[RainDog]

52. here it is

via Wiki

Toxicity

THC has an extremely low toxicity and the amount that can enter the body through the consumption of cannabis plants poses no threat of death. In lab animal tests, scientists have had much difficulty administering a dosage of THC that is high enough to be lethal.[citation needed] Accordingly, there is little reason to believe a human would self-administer such doses. Indeed, a 1988 ruling from the United States Department of Justice concluded that "In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity."[14]

According to the Merck Index,[15] the LD50 of THC (the dose which causes the death of 50% of individuals) is 1270 mg/kg for male rats and 730 mg/kg for female rats from oral consumption in sesame oil, and 42 mg/kg for rats from inhalation.[16]

The ratio of cannabis material required to produce a fatal overdose to the amount required to saturate cannabinoid receptors and cause intoxication is approximately 40,000:1.[17][18] It is extremely difficult to overdose by smoking marijuana; a typical marijuana "joint" contains less than 10 mg of THC, and one would have to smoke thousands of those in a short period of time to approach toxic levels. According to a 2006 United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is much less dangerous than tobacco, prescription drugs, and alcohol in social harms, physical harm, and addiction.[19] It was found in 2007 that while tobacco and cannabis smoke are quite similar, cannabis smoke contained higher amounts of ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and nitrogen oxides, but lower levels of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).[20] This study found that directly inhaled cannabis smoke contained as much as 20 times as much ammonia and 5 times as much hydrogen cyanide as tobacco smoke and compared the properties of both mainstream and sidestream (smoke emitted from a smouldering 'joint' or 'cone') smoke.[20] Mainstream cannabis smoke was found to contain higher concentrations of selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) than sidestream tobacco smoke.[20] However, other studies have found much lower disparities in ammonia and hydrogen cyanide between cannabis and tobacco, and that some other constituents (such as polonium-210, lead, arsenic, nicotine, and tobacco-specific nitrosamines) are either lower or non-existent in cannabis smoke.[21][22]

------------
and here's a report from the FDA - no reported deaths from cannabis in this longitudinal study. however, they do report 4 deaths from marinol, which the synthetic and DEA approved.

"Deaths from Marijuana v. 17 FDA-Approved Drugs" (PDF).

you can find this via the link above.

[Oldenuff]

54. Toxicity level is:

15lbs dropped from the tenth floor of an apartment building or similar onto your head.Or,if you try to ingest it before taking it out of the baggie like some poor guy did a while back.

[RainDog]

84. LOL.

there's no cure for some things.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. what is the lethal dose?

And please provide a link.

I'll wait.

[McCamy Taylor]

17. Weed is safer than a lot of water in this country, which says more about the water than the weed.

[Mnpaul]

114. and not as flammable

What have we come to in this country?

[frylock]

30. are they anything like the "i got nothing so let me pull my opinion outta my ass" committee?

[DLine]

36. You can overdose on water....

But not pot.

[boppers]

112. False.

It's LD-50 is 1:40,000, it works out to smoking 1,500 pounds in 15 minutes.

So, difficult, but not impossible.

[DLine]

115. Yeah, like I said....

Smoking an Oldsmobile size joint in 15 minutes is impossible.

[underpants]

37. What, the Michael Phelps angle?

Who the hell lets HIM near their pot???

[Fokker Trip]

58. Angry, sarcastic and completely uninformed.

You're a real asset to this website Dreamer, keep on keepin' on.

[EOTE]

77. Pot is safer than water, objectively and scientifically speaking.

People die from water overdosing every year, usually a fair number of them. It's physically impossible to overdose on pot. And ZERO people die from marijuana every year. But hey, don't let science get in the way of your prejudices.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

78. Maybe it's all that weed I've smoked, but it seems half your posts are imaginary arguments no one

actually makes on DU.

[tridim]

3. The only adverse side-effect of cannabis use is jail.

A charge of "Marijuana possession" should actually be "Maintaining personal health via herbal medicine"

[Mimosa]

4. Che Guevara smoked marijuana to relive asthma

I don't smoke marijuana. I'm not a fan. I used it now and then in my forties to relieve extreme menstrual pain from endometriosis (sp?). It worked better than Vicodin. Because it worked in my body as a medicine I didn't get 'high'.

I know a couple of people who smoke marijuana for medical reasons. It should be available for people to use like that. We don't need government to tell us how to live.

[Charlemagne]

11. My friend was a Marine

He was in the Battle of Fallujah and got shot up pretty bad. Anyway, he told me he takes taking the pain meds the VA will give him. They make him nauseous, lethargic, just not himself and unable to function.Moreover, they dont fully relieve the pain from his wounds. He said that marijuana actually relieves the pain and allows him to function. Unfortunatly, marijuana is illegal.

[AlecBGreen]

21. Im sorry to hear about your friend

hopefully he lives in a state that allows his doctor to prescribe MM. Im optimistic the tide is turning in this country, despite the foot dragging and hand wringing of many in Washington.

[musiclawyer]

13. quickly becoming an irrelevant issue

The cost of vaporizers and portable vaporizers is coming down so fast that smoking will be mostly for teen kids without money in the future.
Vaporizing is also much more economical because you use so much less of the herb and can reheat/reenergize any residue in baking or frying.

[slay]

14. It is far past time that we legalize it and at the very least put that part of the stupid drug war

behind us. it was never a "drug war" anyways - it's a war on PEOPLE who use drugs. ugh.

[Loge23]

19. It's 2012 and we're still debating pot.

The absurdity of the prohibition and fear campaign on marijuana has no boundaries.
Most people in this country think it's fine that just about every potential job comes with a pot test. Most drugs, harder than marijuana, are flushed quickly from ones' system. It's the pot that lingers. Why does every company in the USA test for marijuana?
Get the job and you may be soon be celebrating some BS company achievement or associates B-day at the local pub. That's OK, but God forbid you smoke a goddamn joint!
The hysteria created by this absurdity results in otherwise sensible individuals buying into the Great Pot Menace - as if decriminalizing pot (let alone actually legalizing it) will unleash a completely disfunctional society, similar to say, Congress.
I smoke pot. I love it. I wish I could smoke more. It's my choice. I don't smoke for medicinal reasons. I endorse the use of marijuana for medicinal reasons, but I don't think it should be limited for that purpose.
The laws suck, and the hysteria mob sucks. The paranoia over pot, laughable in Reefer Madness, has become policy.
There is no reasonable reason that pot is outlawed while alcohol and tobacco - far more dangerous substances - are legally sold.
I do not suggest banning alcohol and tobacco. Use your head - and leave mine alone.

[LittleGirl]

47. +1+1 n/t

[nebenaube]

97. sure there is...

the only justifiable reason to create a black market is to exploit it.

[haydukelives]

20. But Pres. Raygun

Said it causes brain damage. Now I'm confused!

[Loge23]

23. He should know! (nt)

[waddirum]

43. I have no doubt that Reagan tried MJ and other drugs when he was young

Hollywood ALWAYS had these substances available. Psychiatrists would prescribe LSD for therapy sessions.

[jumptheshadow]

24. I want MJ legalized but have heard differently from doctors

I've asked several doctors and they all have told me that any smoke is bad for the lungs.

I believe strongly that MJ has healing properties in many different situations. It's based on anecdotal evidence, for sure, but the substance has consistently been helpful for family and friends who are on heavy duty medical treatments. I also think that it can be an older woman's equivalent of Viagra.

I would not advise anybody dear to me to smoke it. Grind it up into a fine powder and bake it into cookies.

The problem with illegal MJ is that you don't know where it's been or whether pesticides were used to grow it. Basically you are putting yourself at the mercy of strangers with unknown value systems.

MJ should be legalized. It can be calming and beneficial and should be sold in a regulated environment.

But, IMO, it shouldn't be smoked, especially if it is obtained illegally and you don't know if there are allergens or chemicals in the weed.

[dflprincess]

42. My brother's oncologist told him to use a

vaporizer "should he decide to use a herbal remedy for nausea". He also mentioned that some of his patients found a "more natural" substance more helpful for side effects. Of course, my brother already had lung cancer and the doctor thought a vaporizer was the best choice under those circumstances.

(Thanks to Tim Pawlenty, medical marijuana is not legal in Minnesota, so his doctor couldn't flat out tell him to use weed. It was kind of entertaining to hear the doctor talk around it. We all knew what he meant but I could honestly say he never suggested using marijuana.)

[LittleGirl]

48. I've always questioned that where does it come from?

Where has it been and is it just the plant or the plant with secret additives. I think they should legalize MJ and criminalize nicotine which is a proven addictive substance and yet cigarettes are still legal? WTF? A proven addictive substance Nicotine is legal but non-addicting MJ is illegal. What nonsense is that? Come on People, wake up! Think!

Legalize it, make it safe and stop arresting people with small quantities. Stop the war on MJ and start the war against nicotine. Which is pure evil on the human body and society in general.

Heroine and nicotine = same thing. Addictive, deadly and yet which one is still legal?

[Oldenuff]

55. of course they say it is bad for you..

now here...take this pill.

[caseymoz]

27. Skeptical.

Except there's not too much doubt that a few hits on the bong are not as bad as twenty cigarettes that day.

There's no way inhaling smoke and dust into the lungs is actually good for them, or even neutral. But you take the bad with the good, the consequences with the benefits, and you calculate one outweighs another, or you just trust your luck, or both.

Even food kills you slowly while it nourishes you for that day, and calorie restricted diets demonstrate that beyond a doubt.

[EOTE]

66. Why would you say "no way"?

Do you say that from a scientific stand point, or does it simply not make sense to you? You seem to suggest that there's no way that hot smoke in your lungs could not be bad, but what about the stuff the smoke contains? THC is a bronchodilator. There are many other cannabinoids in weed which provide other health benefits. Why is it so difficult to believe that any negative effects of inhaling hot smoke are offset (or more than offset) by the health beneficial cannabinoids in pot?

[caseymoz]

86. Because, if pot is natural, smoking absolutely is not.

Last edited Thu Jan 12, 2012, 07:37 AM - Edit history (1)

There is not another animal, not in our family tree, not any other phylum that smokes anything. So, this means: in terms of evolutionary biology, there's no way lungs are adapted for it. Period. It's not in the natural practice for any pair lungs to be found in the animal kingdom. If we ever find an exception, it will likely be pretty far off our branch.

This means that smoking is as industrial a process as any distillery or a sausage factory. And comparatively, the distillery and sausage factory are far less crude.

That is rock solid reasoning, and you need a mountain of evidence to disprove it. Smoke is not good in any way for your lungs. There is no argument with this unless you've got double blind studies to show this isn't the case.

I might be for legalization, but when pot advocates can't seem to grasp the obvious fact that smoking anything is bad for the lungs, it shakes whatever trust I have for the rest of their arguments. I begin to think they are too caught up with the pleasure of pot to think straight about it, or even be truthful with themselves much less anybody else. And falling in love with what brings you pleasure, to the point where you can't consider it's less beneficial than it looks, is not just a quality of marijuana users.

Are you suggesting smoking a joint will relieve an asthma attack? I've not heard anybody go that far. Bronchodilators, BTW, are not needed unless your bronchial passages are constricting. They're not doing you more good using them all the time just because they help you in that situation. So don't argue that a bronchodilator is good for lung health. Open passages aren't the only thing needed for your lungs to exchange gases. Meanwhile, you still get all the side-effects and unintended consequences from a bronchodilator. That's why healthy people don't take them for nothing. At least intelligent ones don't.

[EOTE]

87. How about responding to the science rather than attempting to play scientist?

Because you don't do a very good job at it at all. Did you even read the article? The science is in in this regard, it's a settled matter. This scientific study investigated the SMOKING of pot, are you really unable to grasp this simple concept? It really seems that you are and that's really sad.

As for THC's bronchodilator effects, I never suggested that pot should be smoked for someone experiencing an asthma attack, but I wouldn't be surprised if it offered benefits (though not as quickly as an inhaler). The biggest benefit of its bronchodilating effects is that it allows any tar or other undesirables to leave your lungs immediately after smoking.

You prohibitionists would be hilarious if it weren't for your complete inability to handle and understand facts.

[caseymoz]

91. Oh, are you saying that smoking doesn't occur in nature isn't a scientific fact?

That lungs aren't adapted to do it? That's not a solid demonstrable scientific fact? How about responding to that? Why must I consider "the science" for you when you won't give the least consideration of what I say.

Prohibitionist? Did you miss me saying I was pro-legalization? I've got to think the rest of your opinions are from just as many misreadings.

I'll tell you right out: I've heard enough of what marijuana advocates say that I don't trust them at all to give the least accurate depiction or interpretation of the science. They're too close to the issue. Sorry.

What I learn about it I read, undirected, from Science News, Science Digest, Scientific American and that's all I have time for. And generally, I see pot as beneficial.

Otherwise, I'm already pro-legalization, and if that's not good enough for you, you could always try to convince me to oppose it by demanding more passion. You'll fail on both, but go ahead and aim at your foot if you want.

So, get out of my face about it.

[EOTE]

92. No, I'm saying that's a ridiculous strawman.

Do pancakes occur in nature? Does that fact make them dangerous? It's utterly, entirely irrelevant, but you don't seem to see that.

Prohibitionist? Yes, you didn't say you were pro-legalization in the post I responded to, you said that you WOULD be for legalization if the arguments by the pro-legalization camps weren't so wacky. Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

You may think that you have an even-handed approach as you think that your position is the moderate one, but you still have zero respect for the science. If you have any actual science to provide about the harmfulness of pot, you've been more than welcome to provide it. But instead you're just going to arrive at the same conclusions because you don't care one whit for the science, you only care about your preconceived notions.

So, get out of MY face about it. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, I sure as hell am not forcing you to. But if you're going to spout out bullshit, I'll be damned if I'm not going to call you out on it.

[caseymoz]

102. It's only irrelevant to you because you don't want to consider it.

Last edited Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:18 AM - Edit history (1)

No, it's not a straw man because it's the exact reason I have trouble accepting an experiment like until it's peer reviewed and duplicated. I've tried to repeat this in various ways to you. Try this: my parents smoked, my relatives did. I found irritating all through my childhood, and pot smoke only slightly less so. Smoking (tobacco) was not just irritating. Even in childhood, I could see it was doing bad things for them. Finally, it killed my mom, nearly killed my dad, killed two uncles, nearly killed another one, killed my first cousin and childhood best friend. And in the meantime, I felt left out because I didn't take up the family pastime.

My personal experience is absolutely supported by science. (I know, straw man here, I'm talking about tobacco. Stay with me for a second.) I'm not trying to milk sympathy here. I'm just saying it's as accepted to me as gravity that any smoke is mostly combustion waste products, and anything else there is accidental. That's even true of candles and incense. Read the science behind that.

And otherwise, I've read other science articles about the effects of all smoke and soot on the lungs. Smoking is bad for the lungs is as solid a scientific principle to me as gravity. And to make an analogy, (not a straw man) you're saying I shouldn't be skeptical that they discovered a substance that isn't effected by gravity, because of one recent un-reviewed, un-duplicated experiment/study.

You're offended that I even dare doubt that? You call me unscientific for it?

No, it's not a straw man.

It's because of science I know that marijuana has some health benefits. I just have trouble believing that it helps every medical condition in every way. And why not? I also have trouble believing, unlike every consumable substance in the universe, this one thing has no side-effects and is absolutely harmless in every single way.

That's what you're attacking me for. And I hate to say it, that's what I've come to expect from marijuana advocates, or marijuana users, all the way back to grade school. The group pressure hasn't changed.

Marijuana is an industry with dedicated consumers. They're driving for legalization against an opposition that's known to lie. I see them throwing anything they can into this to win legalization. Now, in that noisy environment with propaganda going back and forth, I should be more skeptical, not less.

And what, I didn't say I was pro-legalization in the post you responded to? Go back and look again. Read the edit history from post #86, (the post you responded to):

"I might be for legalization, but when pot advocates can't seem to grasp the obvious fact that smoking anything is bad for the lungs, it shakes whatever trust I have for the rest of their arguments."

"Might" does not mean "could." I didn't say "except" to start the the second clause. It's not even ambiguous. It's not even a possible dialect difference. I could understand it might not be completely clear to you on the first reading, but it sure as hell should be on the second. Yet, instead of saying, hey, I misread that, I should retract, you get insulted. What class! If that's the maturity you have when you consider the science, I can't consider your perception of it accurate. You can't analyze the science if you get rattled by any doubt about your favorite consumer product. If so, your reading it like you watch an infomercial.

And how do you read in the word "wacky" into my statement? That's your Orwellian slang for it not mine. But I'll go with it: I think the pro-legalization camp has lost their minds regarding the science. You're just, like, too close to it, man, and you count on science too much to vindicate and promote your favorite consumer product.

Why do you have to have absolutely scientific approval on every facet, every possible benefit of marijuana to enjoy it? Why? Alcohol users don't do that. Heroin users don't do that. Why do you have to have even bystanders acknowledge its every imaginable benefit and show no doubt?

And don't even say it's to get it legalized; you already have more than enough science behind it to win that. No, this is a purely psychological need. You shouldn't fulfill that by alienating what would otherwise be friendly support by accepting only absolute agreement without even the least skepticism.

[EOTE]

105. It's a strawman because it has nothing to do with the facts.

What you're suggesting is that anything that's not "natural" is bad for you. That's absurd on its face and anyone who'd use that argument is not capable of holding a rational conversation.

[EOTE]

106. And yes, that's rather unscientific.

Many scientific studies have been done about tobacco smoke. The undoubtable consensus is that tobacco smoke is very bad for you and causes cancer. Many scientific studies have also been done regarding marijuana smoke. None of them have found any evidence of much harm and they've found much in terms of benefits. If you can't understand that the science is in in this regard, you're pretty much helpless.

I don't need scientific approval in any facet regarding marijuana. I use it because I enjoy it and it's harmless. However, I'm not going to stand by and listen to this unscientific bullshit and not call you out on it.

[EOTE]

93. Oh, and it looks like marijuana, even smoked, IS an effective treatment for asthma.

As I said, it certainly wouldn't surprise me. But you are so tainted and ignorant on this matter, you thought it would be beyond the realm of possibility. You really know far, far less about this than you think you do.

[caseymoz]

95. Oh, read my response to that.

And you said I wouldn't read the science.

[EOTE]

96. All the available information suggests that marijuana alleviates the symptoms of asthma

there's no information to suggest it exacerbates them. You have yet to provide ANY evidence of the harm that marijuana causes, even anecdotal. ANY. Yet you've been provided quite a bit about the health benefits. Yet you continue to claim that smoking marijuana HAS to be bad for you, you say it's just common sense and nature, while have ZERO evidence to back up your claim. And yes, you refuse to recognize any science which doesn't fit your already established views. That is quite clear.

[RainDog]

90. yes. this study looked at harm from avg., not heavy cannabis use

when smoked.

the heavy use of cannabis can demonstrate problems for some people.

I think that people may get a little enthusiastic about this issue because of the antitumor qualities demonstrated by cannabinoids (at least two of them at this point, it seems.)

The scientists in the article mention this issue - they speculate that there is some protective quality from THC or CBD that is demonstrated by the improved lung function for MODERATE cannabis smokers based upon other studies that have demonstrated this same function.

That doesn't mean there are no harmful particulants introduced into people's lungs from smoking anything. Since cannabis use now has moved to smoking only the THC intense buds, rather than leaves, people use less plant material than in the past - the equivalent of one or two draws from a cigarette, rather than an entire cigarette, for example.

anyway -

This study from 1975 demonstrated the use of cannabis for asthma.

(I'm posting a link that goes directly to the article but it you google the title, you can obtain the study as a pdf doc.)

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/tashkin/tashkin1.htm

Effects of Smoked Marijuana in Experimentally Induced Asthma

After experimental induction of acute bronchospasm in 8 subjects with clinically stable bronchial asthma, effects of 500 mg of smoked marijuana (2.0 per cent Delta 9-tetrahydrodrocannabinol) on specific airway conductance and thoracic gas volume were compared with those of 500 mg of smoked placebo marijuana (0.0 per cent Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol), 0.25 ml of aerosolized saline, and 0.25 ml of aerosolized isoproterenol (1,250 ug).

Bronchospasm was induced on 4 separate occasions, by inhalation of methacholine and, on four other occasions, by exercise on a bicycle ergometer or treadmill. Methacholine and exercise caused average decreases in specific airway conductance of 40 to 55 per cent and 30 to 39 per cent, respectively, and average increases in thoracic gas volume of 35 to 43 per cent and 25 to 35 per cent, respectively.

After methacholine-induced bronchospasm, placebo marijuana and saline inhalation produced minimal changes in speci! fic airway conductance and thoracic gas volume, whereas 2.0 per cent marijuana and isoproterenol each caused a prompt correction of the bronchospasm and associated hyperinflation. After exercise-induced bronchospasm, placebo marijuana and saline were followed by gradual recovery during 30 to 60 min, whereas 2.0 per cent marijuana and isoproterenol caused an immediate reversal of exercise-induced asthma and hyperinflation.

Another study

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1429361/

Abstract
1 delta1-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol, (delta1-THC) produces bronchodilatation in asthmatic patients. 2 Administered in 62 microliter metered volumes containing 50--200 microgram by inhalation from an aerosol device to patients judged to be in a steady state, it increased peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). 3 The rate of onset, magnitude, and duration of the bronchodilator effect was dose related.

Another one

Acute Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Specific Airway Conductance in Asthma Subjects
American Review of Respiratory Disease, Volume 109, 1974, p. 420-428

By Donald P. Tashkin, Bertrand J. Shapiro, and Ira M. Frank

SUMMARY: The acute effects of smoked 2 per cent natural marijuana (7 mg per kg) and 15 mg of oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on plethysmographically determined airway resistance (Raw) and specific airway conductance (SGaw) were compared with those of placebo in 10 subjects with stable bronchial asthma using a double-blind crossover technique. After smoked marijuana, SGaw increased immediately and remained significantly elevated (33 to 48 per cent above initial control values) for at least 2 hours, whereas Sgaw did not change after placebo. The peak bronchodilator effect of 1,250 mcg of isoproterenol was more pronounced than that of marijuana, but the effect of marijuana lasted longer.

After ingestion of 15 mg of THC, SGaw was elevated significantly at 1 and 2 hours, and Raw was reduced significantly at 1 to 4 hours, whereas no changes were noted after placebo. These findings indicated that in the asthmatic subjects, both smoked marijuana and oral THC caused significant bronchodilation of at least 2 hours' duration.

Introduction

In the nineteenth century, one of the medicinal uses of marijuana was in the therapy of bronchial asthma (1); however, no definite evidence of its effectiveness as a bronchodilator was adduced until recent studies demonstrated significant airway dilatation in healthy young men after both the smoking of marijuana (2,3) and the ingestion of its principal psychoactive ingredient delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (3). Whether similar effects could be elicited in subjects with bronchospastic disease was of interest because the irritant effect of marijuana smoke, which is probably responsible for the symptoms of bronchitis attributed to heavy or chronic marijuana smoking (4,5), might outweigh the bronchodilator properties of delta-9-THC, thereby resulting in bronchospasm in patients with hyper-reactive airways. Consequently, the acute effects of both inhaled marijuana smoke and oral delta-9-THC on specific airway conductance (SGaw) were investigated in a group of patients with clinically stable bronchial asthma.

It is counter intuitive to assume any smoked material might have a positive effect - with current uses of vaporizers or sublingual cannabis meds, tho, smoking can be avoided.

Cannabis that contains CBD as well as THC seems to be useful b/c of the anti-inflammatory and anti-anxiety properties of CDB.

[caseymoz]

94. First study had eight, second had five and the third had ten subjects.

So, all three are scientifically invalid due to the small sample groups. This means you can't draw any accurate conclusion from them at all. The first is more than forty years old, meaning the accuracy of the equipment used to measure relief of asthma might be questionable. The use of the control groups in the first and second also look dubious, no pun intended.

These are, at most, preliminary studies, and that's being charitable. The kind of thing you do to try to get money for the real study you want to do. These are so bad, apparently so poorly funded, that if these experiments weren't staged to give marijuana advocates something to quote, they might be more reputable if they were.

As for pot's medicinal use for asthma in the 19th century: it's odd any scientific article would begin by citing that as the source of its curiosity, because in that age, they were also using mercury and tobacco for indigestion. You'd do better trusting random chance than start with that age's popular medical observations.

That's not off topic. It's because of that level self-deception about medicine throughout human history that I'm skeptical about marijuana.

I agree you could put it in vaporizers. That would be better than smoking it.

[RainDog]

99. you know, it is currently accepted as a medical reason for cannabis too

Tashkin is quoted in the article here because he's also the most experienced researcher on pulmonary issues and cannabis - so you can take it up with him and the doctors who are currently recommending it for asthma in states with medical MJ - and the patients who are using it for the same.

You can go look at the many studies Tashkin has done and you can argue this with the doctors who have far more experience in this subject than either you or I.

noting it was a long-recognized medicine for asthma was part of the introduction to see if that traditional usage bore out in the study - in the same way that people, say, would note willow bark was long used for the same reason aspirin is now. it's ridiculous to try to claim that noting a history is the same as talking about the uses of mercury. total bullshit misrepresentation.

some people put their research into perspective to explain why they decided to do one test or another.

You are free to go spend your time looking for research papers that are available thru subscription at universities, by talking to the doctors and patients who currently use this - one of them is here, btw.

I didn't do a comprehensive search. However, you should recognize that asthma research is considered valid enough concerning mj for doctors to recommend it at this time.

[caseymoz]

103. No, it isn't a total bullshit misrepresentation.

Willow bark was one the few "historical" cures that panned out. If you take a proportion of the ones that did to the ones that proved to be bullshit, you'll likely find that people were probably just a little better off using herbs for sicknesses randomly, including the harmful ones. That's the only reason why doctors could prescribe arsenic and mercury with any credibility, because the herbals worked so fucking poorly, so doctors tried something different, and people were willing to go along with it. Then as now, human beings, strangely, are terrible at judging what makes them better when sick. The brain tells you when you feel better, and sometimes, it lies to you, the sick person, and you in turn, pass the lie on to the people around you. And sometimes, as they are finding with bacteria, the disease agent actually deceives the brain.

I'll add, that taking a hit of marijuana probably makes it easier for the brain to lie to you. And since doctors are 80 percent dependent on what a patient reports to make their evaluations, it might be easy for doctors to get misled, too.

Part of the problem is that all diseases are cyclical until their terminal phase. I'm not even sure if medical science has realized this yet, but it could be one reason for the "placebo effect." The majority of asthma patients will get better within a few hours of an attack, if it doesn't kill them. So, if they use marijuana and they get better, does that mean the marijuana did it? That's why you have science. That's why you have to be careful. I know these experiments controlled for this, though I don't know from the digests how well. The one with the five patients, though, the "control group" had to be at least fifty percent larger or smaller than its counterpart. That raises problems right there.

Tashkin is the most experienced marijuana researcher? His experiment still only had eight subjects. He has to be experienced enough to know the problems with that. I know that's not a scientific statement, but just sayin'.

There's one woman I know who strongly advocated pot, had pictures of her smoking it in her blog with the headings, "Legalize it," and used it every day.

Then she came down with asthma, and had to quit. And did.

I realize that's a single, anecdotal case, in my personal experience, and it therefore has no validity, but it's just as valid as any of the articles you cited. Since it's in my experience, it carries a little weight with me.

Besides the fact that using marijuana smoke to treat asthma sounds as counter-intuitive as using arsenic to treat syphilis. But, of course, the latter, is only in retrospect.

[RainDog]

107. Yes. It is total bullshit

which, if you'd bothered to read the rest of this thread, not simply what was later posted, you'd know.

It's BULLSHIT on your part because, if you read the fucking statement, you'd see it entirely talks about context.

READ the sentence : In the nineteenth century, one of the medicinal uses of marijuana was in the therapy of bronchial asthma (1); however, no definite evidence of its effectiveness as a bronchodilator was adduced until recent studies demonstrated significant airway dilatation in healthy young men after both the smoking of marijuana...Whether similar effects could be elicited in subjects with bronchospastic disease was of interest because the irritant effect of marijuana smoke, which is probably responsible for the symptoms of bronchitis attributed to heavy or chronic marijuana smoking (4,5), might outweigh the bronchodilator properties of delta-9-THC...

And, again, if you BOTHERED to find out something beyond the one post to which you are responding, you would see, upthread, that Tashkin has been engaged in studies with much larger numbers, is aware of studies by others and is the FUCKING Medical Director of the Pulmonary Function Laboratory, Professor of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles TO THIS DAY. And, yes, he's aware of the issue of small subject size for studies or the issue of random vs. chosen... so am I and have mentioned this in other contexts here.

But you just want to try to make a point rather than get information, so you aren't trying to find out about someone's work or qualifications. Maybe your brain is lying to you because you are selectively looking at this - cognitive bias.

There are many plants that are the basis for modern synthetics - digitalis is from foxglove, aspirin is from salix, morphine and codeine are from poppies, menthol is from mint, L-dopa is from velvetbean, camphor is from the camphor tree, atropine is from belladonna, pseudoephredrine is from ma huang, etc... ipecac, taxol, quinine...

so, again, since another study from Tashkin was mentioned upthread and you didn't bother to read it - go find out about the subject you're trying to discount, first. That's what other doctors did, such as Lester Grinspoon and Dr. Tashkin, and both came away convinced of either the value of cannabis for medical uses or in the relative harmless nature of cannabis for the general population as something other than medicine.

[randome]

108. 'Relative harmless' isn't the issue.

The issue is whether inhaling smoke into your lungs is beneficial or not.

How about this for a test:
You have a container of smoke and a glass of orange juice. A friend of yours is feeling ill. Which of these items do you hand him/her?

And why?

[RainDog]

109. LOL

that isn't even a valid point. smoke is made up of various things.

[caseymoz]

110. In other words, HIS statement was bullshit.

You're not treating this like something scientific. You're treating it like I just put down your favorite band. That's the tone you're taking. I just doubted your favorite cure-all, the thing that brings pleasure to your life. And you can't tolerate it.

Yes, I did read it. But you don't even realize with a qualifier like that he's saying that the proposition has never had a leg to stand on prior. So why does he mention it? Maybe to make advocates think that there's some pertinent medical history there? If I were cynical, I'd say that. But that's what I would say about his writing (it's an opening I would edit out), not about his science, so this whole thing is a just tangent that irritates you.

And I noticed how quickly you dropped the benefit of 19th century medicine, the willow-bark stuff. That's what I thought you were saying bullshit to. I never got a chance to say "check" before you rearranged the board.

It doesn't matter if I read your friggin information immediately or not. I don't have asthma, I don't use pot in any way, and I'm already pro-legalization. And I'm not in the scientific or medical fields. So, why the fuck is it also so important to you that I quit harshing up your mellow about pot? Why should it be that important to me? I have other, more important things in my life. I'll read it in my own time, thank you. And I will read it.

Moreover, why the fuck is it in my interest to get a Ph. fucking D. in pot science so you can feel you're totally and absolutely affirmed in the benefits of getting high? But that still wouldn't be good enough, because than I'd still have the least doubt in the smallest benefit it could have.

You're not persuasive, to say the least. And I'm not the only person who sees this when they try to talk pot advocates down even the least bit from the medicinal promise of marijuana. As I said, you don't even need it for legalization. Tobacco and alcohol aren't legal because they're medically beneficial. If you can't get it legalized on the benefits already demonstrated, throwing in a few more is not going to do it. It's not being kept illegal because it isn't beneficial enough.

So, why the fuck are you insisting that I make myself an expert just because I find one little reason to doubt? The scientific hurdle here should be pretty high, no pun intended, higher than it was for ulcers being caused by bacteria, which I couldn't find much doubt in at the time. At least bacteria couldn't be expected to make ulcers better.

[RainDog]

113. LOL

there are so many factually incorrect statements in this post - I just don't think it's worth the effort to try to get beyond all of your erroneous assumptions since this has had no impact in previous attempts.

attacking someone you don't know anything about is a sure sign of someone who has no valid argument, however.

and with that, I'm done.

[nebenaube]

98. We have been smoking since we discovered fire. n/t

[caseymoz]

100. Yes, and it's well-known that every animal makes fire.

Last edited Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:24 AM - Edit history (1)

And lungfish first made fire in 250 million BC. So, lungs have evolved since the Permian period to inhale smoke. Thank you for proving your sense of relevance and knowledge of evolutionary biology in support of your favorite consumer product.

And that's considering if what you said isn't a crock of shit, which it is.

And yet, again, my doubts that marijuana advocates know what they're talking about with science or can even be rational about marijuana is bolstered.

[RainDog]

101. if you're interested

Here is a doctor who talks about current uses at a conference at UW-Madison Medical School in 2007.

David Bearman M.D., Santa Barbara, California, is one of the leading physicians in the U.S. in the field of medical marijuana. He has spent 40 years working in substance and drug abuse treatment and prevention programs. Dr. Bearman was a pioneer in the free and community clinic movement. His career includes public health, administrative medicine, primary care, pain management and cannabinology.

Bearman's not a pulmonary specialist, however. Dr. Tashkin is.

Tashkin recruited 400 people for an experiment (beyond the ones I linked to initially here.) These people had various levels of usage, including heavy usage.

&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLA8CA98AB933908C9
Part 1 looks at overall lung function and various studies.

Donald P. Tashkin, MD - Medical Director of the Pulmonary Function Laboratory, Professor of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. Presented to Fifth Clinical Conference on Cannabis Therapeutics held in Pacific Grove, CA, April, 2008

His findings in this study replicate his earlier studies. He includes a study from 2007 in New Zealand, another study in Arizona...

regular heavy smoking of cannabis is asso. with coughing and sputum. bronchitis. inflammation of the bronchia. that is not the same as lung disease.

he notes COPD, i.e. emphysema, is not evidenced with cannabis but it is with tobacco. loss of lung function...all lung function for the cannabis users was within the normal function in his large study. The New Zealand study confirmed this. The Arizona study found it might, in the future, lead to COPD.

COPD tends to occur later in life. This is why the study in the OP, a twenty-year study, is considered important b/c of the normal onset of COPD - or decrease in lung function.

&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLA8CA98AB933908C9
Part 2 looks at emphysema

The New Zealand study only found emphysema in the tobacco smokers.

He talks about 4 individuals who were reported with billae (not generalized emphysema) and those people were also associated with cigarette smoking.

Marijuana smokers, even if they smoked tobacco as well, as the same rate of lung function, over time, as non-smokers of any kind. Only tobacco-smokers had decreased lung function.

&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLA8CA98AB933908C9
Part 3 looks a lung cancer

I think what you find, often, is that the govt. has so consistently lied about the properties of cannabis, in general, that people in the U.S. who know about this history begin to have a "the boy who cried wolf" reaction.

The govt. has hurt its capacity, or anyone else's, to make a case about real issues concerning cannabis b/c of this long history of lying about the same.

People know about the bad studies the govt has done and tried to hide - like the one in which they suffocated monkeys and claimed mj causes brain damage - and then tried to deny access to others who wanted to look at the study. (That was in the 1980s.)

People know that the govt tried to make it hard to obtain early studies that other researchers sought out later b/c they didn't like the positive results of those studies. That's not science. That's politics.

This is why prohibition is such a bad idea. In order to maintain it, the govt has been so willing to lie or obscure that they have lost their authority among a population and have created disrespect for institutions that are supposed to exist to provide information, not support for bad law.

[caseymoz]

104. Not being sarcastic, but I'll set aside Thursday to watch.

-Bookmarked-

I have things to do, and I've been truant about them these last few days, which is why you see me posting.

[caseymoz]

111. First Vid:

Cannabis is effective for migraines. No argument. I agree
Cannabis is effective for seizures: More than likely.
Cannabis is effective against nausea. Well-known (it also can stimulate weight gain.)

Smoking cannabis is effective against asthma? Sorry, I need more to believe that.

Good enough?

[mdmc]

28. finally

[msongs]

34. EAT it! much more efficient, less waste of the good stuff, no smoking reqd nt

[waddirum]

45. the avant garde is juicing raw cannabis

Look up Dr. William Courtney. He is a physician in Mendocino who has his patients on a regimen of consuming raw cannabis (both fan leaves and bud) that is juiced in a reciprocating juicer (wheatgrass style). That way you can get a therapeutic dose of many of the cannabinoids without being limited by the euphoria/dysphoria of getting high. Since nothing gets deoxycarbolated, patients can function fully alert without any "stoned" side effects.

[Fokker Trip]

59. I saw this the other day, very exciting.

The only issue that I can see is the large number of plants necessary to keep up the treatment. But based on what I have experienced and read I have no doubt that this is a really important line of research and it opens the treatment up to so many who don't want the psychoactive effect. It brings the full spectrum of cannabinoids into play and that is huge.

Thanks for bringing this up.

[EOTE]

67. How does this work?

Aren't most of the active in marijuana only orally active when dissolved in fat or alcohol?

[waddirum]

74. don't think of it as "getting high"

In order to "get high" from eating, you need to deoxycarbolate the THC-acid to delta-9-THC and deliver it to the body through fat or alcohol (as you mentioned). It then needs to be digested in the intestines and processed by the liver before delivering the high to the brain, which can take a considerable amount of time.

The purpose of cannabis juicing is to deliver a host of other cannabinoids and terpenes present in the live plant. Some of these are water soluble and others are fat soluble. When juiced, these compounds can be consumed in much higher quantities than would be possible from smoking or eating psychoactive MJ. Some of the cannabinoids in juice immediately enter the bloodstream through absorption in the mouth. Others need to be processed through the digestive system as before.

Check out this youtube:

[EOTE]

79. Very interesting.

Although I have to say that when I'm typically having cannabis edibles, it's to get high . I think of the many health benefits of cannabinoids to simply be icing on the cake with regard to one of my favorite recreational activities.

[RainDog]

85. Please repost this, with the vid, in the Drug Policy forum as a stand-alone post

thank you!!

[RawHemp]

117. Spam deleted by azurnoir (MIR Team)

[scuzati]

40. Such a waste

We all pay for the arrests, prosecution and incarceration, not to mention the price paid by the families, employers and communities. We need those resources elsewhere in our community, or better, back in our pockets.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

81. Or ... such a *profit*

Lots of money being made in drug warring and such.

[byronius]

49. Vaporizing the substance removes the toxins, period. As does eating the wonderful brownies.

But too much of the wonderful brownies give you the spins, and vaporizing can still put you right to sleep.

I still am amazed, after a lifetime of living in backwards pot-hating territories, how different life can be if pot is 'relatively' legal, i.e., available with a doctor's prescription. The impact on the local community seems to me to be entirely positive. California is the perfect case study. Lots of revenue, decrease in traffic fatalities. Most people would rather smoke than drink.

Really, it's just frickin' wonderful to live in a place where no one really minds. There are counties in California where the local cops are following the lead of the rogue state attorney general, but the communities that live and let live are doing fine with it.

[Fokker Trip]

60. Many top creatives use cannabis.

I think that over the coming decades, cannabis tolerant places will move ahead of non-cannabis tolerant places as the creativity of more and more cannabis consumers is unleashed.

It opens the mind to many new possibilities and unleashes a flood of empathy. This effect can cause panic in those who have lived emotionally bottled up lives. We need local teachers to help some people to understand the experience, it can be terrifying to face the bad things that one has done in ones life.

Great post btw.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

82. I'm in California, and let me tell you how bad it's gotten here

No one gets anything done here. I see about a third of my coworkers lying in ditches every morning, too stoned to realize where they are or what they're supposed to be doing. I also see people leaving the dispensaries and looking around for a heroin dealer (I can just tell by the look in their eyes). It's not your father's 60's gateway drug anymore--it's 842 times as strong, and it leads straight to heroin.

Of course the statements above are ludicrous. Last I checked, California was still a big hub for innovation, and was still the 6th or 7th largest economy in the world. We all go about our lives, just like always, but there's no longer any need to stand on the corner of 6th and Market in SFO to either get a dime bag or get punched in the mouth, depending on the day. It's a retail experience now, with lots of choice, and with attentive customer service people working the counter, and receipts given as proof of purchase, just like in a "real business".

California hasn't suffered anything as a result of the de facto legalization of marijuana.

[lunatica]

88. Your post sounds like you're having an argument with yourself

I think you definitely had the last word on the benefits of Marijuana! You win!

[totodeinhere]

50. It is becoming increasingly difficult to justify leaving pot possession illegal.

This study just adds to that.

[Scout]

53. been smokin' daily, in the morning and in the evening, sometimes during the day,

for more than 25 years....if i get a little bit of a cough, i cut back and it goes away. this hardly ever happens.

i like to get high before i exercise, i do elliptical trainer, weight lifting, swimming ... no problems with breathing and it sure helps with the boredom of exercising.

my sister who never did drugs, never smoked cigarettes, rarely took OTC or prescription meds, rarely drank alcohol got a brain tumor that killed her in exactly one year despite 2 surgeries, chemo and radiation.

i'll stick with my pot, thanks, and take my chances.


edit for sense, accidentally left out a word

[AlbertCat]

57. if i get a little bit of a cough,

it's probably from the paper.

[Warren Stupidity]

68. Doesnt damage lungs, doesnt impair motor skills, isnt addictive, dozens of legitimate medical uses

and our prisons are full of pot criminals and we spend billions every year enforcing prohibition.

[Corruption Winz]

80. I'm not someone that every wants to use drugs or support them personally..

I'm not in favor of people virtually any street drug illegal. Especially not weed. While it might have some damaging effects if used too frequently, it's simply the least of all the "evils" and it's time to end the nonsense about it.

Furthermore, it's possible (if this study is to be believed) that it's healthier in a certain sense. Regardless, it's simply stupid to keep marijuana illegal. Just another way to lock up young minorities (primarily).

[lunatica]

89. There's so much more to Marijuana than the drug that truly benefits society

Demonizing it has been closing the door to some very beneficial qualities and that's just plain sad. Demonizing it has hurt this country when you think of the needless incarceration of people who use it or sell it. Now it turns out it's actually medicinal with virtually no side effects other than feeling good. Look at just a few of the good uses of hemp. Legalizing it would create jobs.

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

116. Hmm

with all the pollution in the air, we may as well stop breathing too!~

Pathetic. Bring on the mary jane

/ David