1 Joint as Damaging as 5 Cigarettes to Your Lungs

[SamanthaNY]

Emphasis below is mine. If people wanna smoke or toke - that's fine. Your health, your choice. But I have experienced a sense of 'superiority' among pot smokers that I've always found misleading and destructive, so I found this article particularly interesting.


TUESDAY, July 31 (HealthDay News) (http://health.ivillage.com/mentalhealth/mhaddiction/0,,wbnews_bx4fb4z0,00.html?dst=rss%7Cwb) -- Smoking just one marijuana joint is the same as smoking five cigarettes in terms of the damage it does to your lungs, a new study found. Lung damage from marijuana results in chronic bronchitis and other respiratory problems. But whether marijuana causes emphysema or lung cancer isn't clear, the researchers said. "This damage is a full range from symptoms to structural lung damage and reduced lung function," said lead researcher Dr. Richard Beasley, director of the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, in Wellington.

Beasley thinks marijuana smokers should heed the study's findings. "Many people think that marijuana is safe, but this shows that it's not safe. Hopefully, this will avoid a lack of knowledge among smokers," he said. For the study, Beasley's group collected data on 339 people. The group consisted of people who smoked at least one marijuana cigarette a day for five years; people who smoked a pack of tobacco cigarettes a day for at least a year; and people who smoked both. There were also people who didn't smoke either tobacco or marijuana. All the study participants had lung X-rays and took breathing tests to see how well their lungs worked, according to the July 31 online report in the journal Thorax. Among the 75 people who smoked only marijuana or the 91 who smoked tobacco and marijuana, there were complaints of wheezing, coughing, chest tightness and phlegm. But, the researchers found signs of emphysema only among the people who smoked just tobacco or tobacco in combination with marijuana. Marijuana did, however, damage the lungs and stopped them from working properly. The drug decreased the number of small fine airways, which carry oxygen and waste products to and from the blood vessels. In addition, marijuana damaged the large airways, blocking airflow and making the lungs work harder, the researchers found. The amount of damage was directly related to the number of joints smoked, with more marijuana associated with more lung damage, Beasley noted.

The extensive damage from marijuana results from its higher burn temperature, and because it is inhaled more deeply and held in the lungs longer than cigarettes, Beasley explained. "In addition, there is no filter," he said. One expert thinks this study is the first to really explain the risks to the lungs posed by marijuana. "We have always suspected that marijuana causes lung damage, but it's nice to have it quantified," said Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer at the American Lung Association. "Now we can say much more strongly, to people who smoke marijuana, that they are doing bad things to their lungs." There are still many unanswered questions about marijuana smoking, Edelman said. "Do marijuana smokers go on to get chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?" he asked. "We don't know that."

[Admiral_Snackbar]

Statistically speaking, 339 people is an abysmally small group from which to draw such wide-ranging conclusions.
I wonder if this study was subsidized by Philip Morris. It sounds almost as inane as some of their earlier arguments about the 'safety' of cigarettes.
You don't have to smoke pot to get high. I think the nicotene would actually make you sick if you put tobacco into brownies.
Do people really smoke 1-3 packs of joints a day? Doesn't the Paracelsus Doctrine apply here (the dose makes the poison), in that by and large one would consume more nicotene per individual than THC?
How do they account for the additives in cigarettes (tar)? How can that NOT be more damaging in the long run?
Doesn't inhaling the smoke from ANYTHING cause lung damage and reduced lung function?


It astounds and surprises me how such poorly-designed science can see the light of day, and how something at such a preliminary stage of study can make such unwarranted conclusions. I personally wouldn't advocate cigarettes or pot (though I would prefer the legalization of marijuana over alcohol, even though I don't imbibe any of these three items), but it seems that the study really tells us nothing conclusive in the end.

[Jes]

Do people really smoke 1-3 packs of joints a day?
.

yes. You wanna make somethin' of it, punk?

[Admiral_Snackbar]

yes. You wanna make somethin' of it, punk?

You'd be too high to fight me, and if nothing else you would want to sit and contemplate the Universe with me. If you were still feeling feisty, all I'd have to do is throw a box of Twinkies at you to stop you in your tracks, then just crank up some Zeppelin to make my escape. :D

[Dr. Feelgood]

I recall reading something similar about ten years ago. The study concluded that marijuana smoke contained some of the same harmful compounds that were found in tobacco smoke, but that they did more damage in the case of marijuana because the smoke was held in the lungs for a longer period of time. I don't know if it's true, but it sounds reasonable.

[Rowan]

Terrible terrible....

Pot is a gateway drug....dont you know this people???

It's a gateway to gettin fat from getting the munchies LOL

[Elfcat]

1. So this is even with all the toxic stuff Truth.org says is put in cigarettes?

2. If filtering is a major issue, is smoking through a bong less toxic?

3. What about eating it?

4. Why do I get the feeling that the tobacco industry is behind this somehow?

[love dubh]

Terrible terrible....

Pot is a gateway drug....dont you know this people???

It's a gateway to gettin fat from getting the munchies LOL

Ah, the old "gateway drug" theory. What a bunch of crap, as it's not the drug itself that leads to other drugs, but other factors. You're doing something illegal, and getting away with it. THAT is what makes you more brazen, more likely to break other laws, and more likely to get caught. Then, there's the association with your dealer. Kid's probably pushing other drugs, too. Perhaps influences you to buy something else. Or the crew you're with, they might get onto something new.

But all this crap about the "gateway drug" makes it look like weed exists in a vacuum, and smoking weed = DEATH BY HEROIN. It's like the whole "having sex = STI." Like, spontaneous generation? The act of fucking creates the affliction? o.O

[Dr. Feelgood]

4. Why do I get the feeling that the tobacco industry is behind this somehow?

I keep hearing rumors that the various tobacco companies have already prepared packaging designs and advertising campaigns in the event that marijuana becomes legal. Whether that's true or not, I expect the last thing -- well, okay, the next-to-last thing they'd want people saying is that marijuana is even more dangerous than tobacco.

[ZainTheInsane]

Ah, the old "gateway drug" theory. What a bunch of crap, as it's not the drug itself that leads to other drugs, but other factors. You're doing something illegal, and getting away with it. THAT is what makes you more brazen, more likely to break other laws, and more likely to get caught. Then, there's the association with your dealer. Kid's probably pushing other drugs, too. Perhaps influences you to buy something else. Or the crew you're with, they might get onto something new.

But all this crap about the "gateway drug" makes it look like weed exists in a vacuum, and smoking weed = DEATH BY HEROIN. It's like the whole "having sex = STI." Like, spontaneous generation? The act of fucking creates the affliction? o.O

I think someone needs their bong hit...:p

[fatlane]

I spent a year living next door to a neo-nazi homosexual drug dealer who worked at a porno store... with very thin walls between our apartments. Anyway, he smoked dope constantly. He never smoked cigarettes. EVERY MORNING WHEN HE WOKE UP HE COUGHED UP A LUNG AND A HALF.

Moral: put smoke in your lungs and it will MESS YOU UP.

... and I've seen a ton of chronic chronic smokers wind up not thinking very clearly at all. It will mess up your head, too.

BUT ALCOHOL IS WORSE, CRY THE POT SMOKERS!

I agree. But that doesn't make pot good for you. If you want to smoke it, fine. But don't try and tell me any of that "it's harmless" crap. Everything comes with a price, so if you're gonna use it, use it like the tobacco smokers. Use it with the knowledge that yeah, it's gonna kill you faster, but so what?

I can respect that. Just don't lie to me.

[Miss Vickie]

BUT ALCOHOL IS WORSE, CRY THE POT SMOKERS!

I agree. But that doesn't make pot good for you. If you want to smoke it, fine. But don't try and tell me any of that "it's harmless" crap. Everything comes with a price, so if you're gonna use it, use it like the tobacco smokers. Use it with the knowledge that yeah, it's gonna kill you faster, but so what?

I can respect that. Just don't lie to me.

I agree completely. If we want to screw with their bodies, we should at least be honest with ourselves and not delude ourselves into thinking that it's somehow "better" than something else. Even if it's true, your body doesn't care what you're NOT doing; it only cares what you ARE doing.

Isn't it amazing the intellectual hoops we go through to justify stuff? Why not just be honest, admit you're doing something potentially dangerous, and accept the consequences. Seems the adult thing to do.

[Wagimawr]

So what about vaporized marijuana?

Yeah, smoke fucks up your lungs, that's obvious. What about alternative methods?

[fatlane]

So what about vaporized marijuana?

Yeah, smoke fucks up your lungs, that's obvious. What about alternative methods?

There are lots of alternative ways of injuring the body in the pursuit of pleasure. Everything comes with a price. To think otherwise means you fell for the propaganda or the advertising.

[Wagimawr]

Translation:

FATLANE sez: "hey, kids, leave your brain alone! EXCEPT, you know, learning and stuff!" :D

[Shosh]

Hey, I have heard tell of this before.I don't smoke cigarettes at all, but I don't mind the occasional spliff for relaxation and the pure enjoyment of it.;)
It is like anything I would imagine. Too much, is too much.
Susannah

[Miss Vickie]

It's ironic. The time in my life when I could use pot most to relax is the very time in my life when I can't. I could be drug tested any time and it's soooo not worth losing my license and my job. But yeah, I could sure use it to relax. Chamomile tea and working out just aren't cutting it. ;)

[Shosh]

Terrible terrible....

Pot is a gateway drug....dont you know this people???

It's a gateway to gettin fat from getting the munchies LOL

Hee Rowan.;) :D The THC made me a BBW!!! Susannah

[fatlane]

Translation:

FATLANE sez: "hey, kids, leave your brain alone! EXCEPT, you know, learning and stuff!" :D

Damn straight. Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Be evil.

[Shosh]

Damn straight. Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Be evil.
Would have picked you as a full on stoner with that Hair there Fattielane.;) S.

[fatlane]

Think of me as Straight Edge with a jagged blade...

[Wagimawr]

jagged blade...So you're a coke dealer? :D

[fatlane]

So you're a coke dealer? :D

Guilty.

Unless you're John Law.

Then I plead the fifth and demand a lawyer and no, I DO NOT understand those rights as you have read them to me.

[Shosh]

All jokes aside, I understand that the potential for damage to the lungs of chronic users of Marijuana certainly exists. There is also the flip side of the coin. Medicinal Marijuana can be a god send for those who suffer from debilitating medical conditions.
I know in my case when I have had an attack of symptoms over weeks, Marijuana has helped to ease the pain. I have had nights where my arms and neck would just burn from the nerve pain from the disease. I couldn't sleep and would just cry. It was awful. Not to mention the pain of stiffness in the legs. It has been a comfort to me at times.
I don't mean to get the thread off track. Chronic abuse of the drug is not advised. When used sparingly and with thought and consideration Marijuana can be of immeasurable benefit.

[fatlane]

Absolutely. If it wasn't for these punk kids getting high, we'd have a better social perception of the pharmacoepia available.

While flinging blame, I'll also send some at drug companies, paper companies, and oil companies. Boo to them for putting the kibosh on good uses for a good plant!

[Shosh]

I think someone needs their bong hit...:p

Hee. Sweet memories of high school.;) :D Shosh

[kr7]

I spent a year living next door to a neo-nazi homosexual drug dealer who worked at a porno store... with very thin walls between our apartments.......

This is completely off topic, but that's one of the most surreal scenarios I have ever heard of. :D I wonder how does a neo-nazi deal with being homosexual.

Chris

[Canonista]

Hee. Sweet memories of high school.;) :D Shosh

I call BS! :D

If you can remember, you weren't taking bong hits! :p :p :p

[Shosh]

I call BS! :D

If you can remember, you weren't taking bong hits! :p :p :p

;) :D Canon. Those were the days. I am an old lady now.:D

[EasyRyder]

Hmmm, 1 joint equals 5 cigs...back in the day when I first started ( which was when Magellan discovered the earth was round or was it Monty Python who captained the El Nina ?) it was 1 joint equalled 7 cigs. So that means now I can smoke 7 joints compared to 5 joints from yesteryear to equal 35 cigs. Holy Smoke.:doh: Man, less thinkin'...more tokin'.
Now if we can only roll back the price..............

[StridentDionysus]

Meh, if you're "smoking" anything it will screw your lungs DUH!

Just eat it :). Also, pot has more "goods" than "bads" anyway. It's just awesome :p

[Wagimawr]

Just eat it :).
Heh. Yeah, eat it. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ohV6q5wE1hE)

[mrman1980uk]

Statistically speaking, 339 people is an abysmally small group from which to draw such wide-ranging conclusions.

It is not ideal, but it does not make the results wholly meaningless. It is often the case that evidence from smaller studies prompts larger studies: that is sensible, since larger studies cost a lot more.

I wonder if this study was subsidized by Philip Morris. It sounds almost as inane as some of their earlier arguments about the 'safety' of cigarettes.

I rather doubt that a tobacco company gains much by a study saying, "look, this stuff is even more dangerous than your products". In any case, speculating about the motivation for the study is not a valid argument against it, unless there is real and serious evidence to show that it has been falsified, which, in this case, there is none at all.

You don't have to smoke pot to get high. I think the nicotene would actually make you sick if you put tobacco into brownies.

The significance of the article is not that tobacco is more safe than people have been claiming, but that cannabis is less safe than many people believe. Although the "five times" part of the claim is not very meaningful (and does not appear to relate to the data, since it showed an increased risk of only some kinds of lung afflictions associated with tobacco use), the raw data itself is very instructive, showing serious damage to people's lungs from smoking cannabis.

Do people really smoke 1-3 packs of joints a day? Doesn't the Paracelsus Doctrine apply here (the dose makes the poison), in that by and large one would consume more nicotene per individual than THC?

I suspect that the point of comparing a smaller number of joints with a larger number of cigarettes is a comparison of typical uses: as you point out, tobacco smokers will typically smoke a large quantity of cigarettes daily, whereas cannabis smokers will smoke far less by quantity. The significance of the study is that a typical user of cannabis is in danger of certain kinds of lung problems to a greater extent than a typical smoker of tobacco (although, the converse seems to hold for other kinds of lung problems).

How do they account for the additives in cigarettes (tar)? How can that NOT be more damaging in the long run?

Whether it is or is not more damaging in the long term can only be tested by experimental data, of precisely the sort here. Although a fairly limited study, it seems to show that cannabis is more harmful in some respects, and tobacco more harmful in others.

Doesn't inhaling the smoke from ANYTHING cause lung damage and reduced lung function?


Yes - that is largely the point. Many people believe that there is little or no risk in using cannabis, even though they are well aware of the manifold dangers of smoking tobacco. This study shows that such a belief is wholly wrong.

It astounds and surprises me how such poorly-designed science can see the light of day

Why is it "poorly designed"? The only criticism seems to be the sample size, which would give one to treat the results with some caution, but not discard them all together: 339 participants does not produce a statistically insignificant result if there is substantial variance. The fact that the people who smoked cannabis showed a different pattern of lung problems than those who smoked tobacco tends to lend weight to the validity of the results.

and how something at such a preliminary stage of study can make such unwarranted conclusions.

Which conclusions do you think unwarranted? The "five times" part I agree does not seem to make any sense, but, aside from a general caution about the sample size, is there really any basis for disregarding anything else?

I personally wouldn't advocate cigarettes or pot (though I would prefer the legalization of marijuana over alcohol, even though I don't imbibe any of these three items), but it seems that the study really tells us nothing conclusive in the end.

Science does not have to be conclusive to be useful: it merely has to be statistically significant. This study is: it shows that there are probably very real dangers in using cannabis, of which many people who use it falsely believing it to be safe are unaware.

You might be even more interested in a recent study conducted in the UK - one with a far higher sample size - which showed that incidence of serious mental illness (psychosis) increased by around 40% in people who used cannabis only two or three times in their lives, and by up to 200% for regular users over many years. That is of far greater significance than the lung damage, and is a very real cause for concern amongst mental health professionals.

[EasyRyder]

Granted, anything other than oxygen going into your lungs is bad for you...but after tokin' for 38 years, I can still jog the occasional mile and I work out and still feel good.
Eubie Blake, a jazz musician lived to 100 years old and he smoked cigarettes and drank whiskey every day. Bottom line is...depends on your physical make-up. Heck, that guy that wrote the book (and lived it) on jogging died of a heart attack. Go figure.
If it's my time to go...so be it...until then ,I'll keep smokin' God's prozac.
(It's got some good after effects....:eat1: )

[CurvyEm]

What about if you used a vaporiser or consumed pot? It can't be that bad for you, I mean even alcohol is more harmful than weed and that is legal.

Here is a graph of how harmful drugs are:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42718000/gif/_42718419_drugs_graph2_416.gif

and some information from a recent study.

The drug classification system in the UK is not "fit for purpose" and should be scrapped, scientists have said.

They have drawn up an alternative system which they argue more accurately reflects the harm that drugs do.

The new ranking system places alcohol and tobacco in the upper half of the league table, ahead of cannabis and several Class A drugs such as ecstasy.

The study, published in The Lancet, has been welcomed by a team reviewing drug research for the government.

The Academy of Medical Sciences group plans to put its recommendations to ministers in the autumn.

Suggested rating of drugs according to harm done

A new commission is also due to undertake a three-year review of general government drug policy.

The new system has been developed by a team led by Professor David Nutt, from the University of Bristol, and Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council.


HAVE YOUR SAY
I would say that on balance, many 'illegal' drugs are less harmful than the two 'legal' drugs available
Chris, Shropshire

Send us your comments

It assesses drugs on the harm they do to the individual, to society and whether or not they induce dependence.

A panel of experts were asked to rate 20 different drugs on nine individual categories, which were combined to produce an overall estimate of harm.

In order to provide familiar benchmarks, five legal drugs, including tobacco and alcohol were included in the assessment. Alcohol was rated the fifth most dangerous substance, and tobacco ninth.

Heroin was rated as the most dangerous drug, followed by cocaine and barbiturates. Ecstasy, however, rated only 18th, while cannabis was 11th.

Arbitrary ranking


CURRENT DRUG CLASSIFICATION
Class A
Cocaine/crack
Heroin
Ecstasy
LSD
Magic mushrooms
Crystal meth (pending)
Class A/B
Amphetamines
Class C
Cannabis
Ketamine

Drugs key facts
Crystal meth to be Class A

The researchers said the current ABC system was too arbitrary, and failed to give specific information about the relative risks of each drug.

It also gave too much importance to unusual reactions, which would only affect a tiny number of users.

Professor Nutt said people were not deterred by scare messages, which simply served to undermine trust in warnings about the danger of drugs.

He said: "The current system is not fit for purpose. Let's treat people as adults. We should have a much more considered debate how we deal with dangerous drugs."

He highlighted the fact that one person a week in the UK dies from alcohol poisoning, while less than 10 deaths a year are linked to ecstasy use.

Professor Blakemore said it was clear that current drugs' policies were not working.

"We face a huge problem. Illegal substances have never been more easily available, or more widely abused."

He said the beauty of the new system, unlike the current version, was that it could easily be updated to reflect new research.

Professor Leslie Iversen, a member of the Academy of Medical Sciences group considering drug policy, said the new system was a "landmark paper".

He said: "It is a real step towards evidence-based classification of drugs."

Professor Iversen said the fact that 500,000 young people routinely took ecstasy every weekend proved that current drug policy was in need of reform.

Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker said: "We have no intention of reviewing the drug classification system.

"Our priority is harm reduction and to achieve this we focus on enforcement, education and treatment."

He said there had been "unparalleled investment" of £7.5 billion since 1998, which had contributed to a 21% reduction in overall drug misuse in the last nine years and a fall of 20% in drug related crime since 2004.

But he added: "The government is not complacent and will continue to work with all of our partners to build on this progress."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6474053.stm#drugs


I find a lot of the stuff you here is scaremongering. Most people don't know anything about drugs, only what they read in the paper/online. I don't mean to be rude but a lot of it is bullshit.

There ARE bad drugs. Drugs that ruin lives. But there are also drugs that are deemed as bad which can be used safely. I think moderation is the key. Moderation and education.

If the goventment lies about such things as weed, young people might try it and see they were lying so think that they lied about heroin too. Education is the key.

[Wagimawr]

Hmm. I have a hard time believing Ecstasy is so relatively harmless. Haven't they confirmed that brain damage results from long-term E use?

[Shosh]

Hmm. I have a hard time believing Ecstasy is so relatively harmless. Haven't they confirmed that brain damage results from long-term E use?

Ecstacy is a completely different kettle of fish to Marijuana.It would most certainly cause brain damage from long term chronic abuse. Having said that, smoking ganga ruthlessly over time can't be too beneficial to the old brain cells either. Shosh

[BBWDREAMLOVER]

1. So this is even with all the toxic stuff Truth.org says is put in cigarettes?

2. If filtering is a major issue, is smoking through a bong less toxic?

3. What about eating it?

4. Why do I get the feeling that the tobacco industry is behind this somehow?
Had to respond to this..........I have smoked before and I share everything I do with my Dr. I asked him if smoking mj was ok and he told me smoking in a water bong is the safest way to smoke mj. It filters alot of the yucky stuff and keeps it out of your lungs.
I for one say what is the BIG DAMN DEAL about mj.........it doesn't cause cancer...in fact the 2 legal subtances that are available today alcohol & cigarettes cause more damage to the body in one day than mj could in a lifetime.

I never heard of anyone dying from years of mj use LOL but I have heard of people dying from years of alcohol & cigarette use.

[BBWDREAMLOVER]

I spent a year living next door to a neo-nazi homosexual drug dealer who worked at a porno store... with very thin walls between our apartments. Anyway, he smoked dope constantly. He never smoked cigarettes. EVERY MORNING WHEN HE WOKE UP HE COUGHED UP A LUNG AND A HALF.

Moral: put smoke in your lungs and it will MESS YOU UP.

... and I've seen a ton of chronic chronic smokers wind up not thinking very clearly at all. It will mess up your head, too.

BUT ALCOHOL IS WORSE, CRY THE POT SMOKERS!

I agree. But that doesn't make pot good for you. If you want to smoke it, fine. But don't try and tell me any of that "it's harmless" crap. Everything comes with a price, so if you're gonna use it, use it like the tobacco smokers. Use it with the knowledge that yeah, it's gonna kill you faster, but so what?

I can respect that. Just don't lie to me.LMAO!! I Love your point of view and I agree 100%.......the way I see it, I'm dying one day and I really don't wanna live to be old & wrinkly..........I'm too shallow for that lol:p so fire me up baby!:p

[BBWDREAMLOVER]

EAT MJ BROWNIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
their the best and no smoke in your lungs, but don't add a whole oz to 4 brownies like I did LOL my friends were stoned for days LOL

[Admiral_Snackbar]

EAT MJ BROWNIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
their the best and no smoke in your lungs, but don't add a whole oz to 4 brownies like I did LOL my friends were stoned for days LOL

When we used to review reproductive toxicology studies on THC (marijuana is embryotoxic and neurotoxic), the only way to get them into rats was to feed them. Apparently the rat bong prototypes didn't work well enough to deliver a consistent, metered dose.

[Tracyarts]

EAT MJ BROWNIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
their the best and no smoke in your lungs, but don't add a whole oz to 4 brownies like I did LOL my friends were stoned for days LOL

Go to youtube and watch "cop eats pot brownies" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrZLc9lqQM0

It is audio (with sarcastic typed running commentary) of a real 911 call from an off duty police officer who ate some pot brownies with his wife and then freaked out and thought they were gonna die and called 911 saying they OD'ed. On pot brownies.

BWA-ha-ha-ha! I laugh so hard I cry every time I hear it.
Tracy

[GenericGeek]

I agree completely. If we want to screw with their bodies, we should at least be honest with ourselves and not delude ourselves into thinking that it's somehow "better" than something else. Even if it's true, your body doesn't care what you're NOT doing; it only cares what you ARE doing.

Isn't it amazing the intellectual hoops we go through to justify stuff? Why not just be honest, admit you're doing something potentially dangerous, and accept the consequences. Seems the adult thing to do.

Accept the consequences? Good God, Vickie, what are you trying to do? Wreck our economy? That would put all of the tort lawyers and insurance companies out of business!

Next, you're going to start insisting that people act with honor and integrity. Dangerous ideas, all of them! Dangerous, I say!!! :rolleyes:

[GenericGeek]

If the math is 1 Mr. Jay equals 5 Mr. Butts, then:

1 pack of "20 Class A Cigarettes" = 4 joints. A TWO pack a day smoker would smoke the equivalent of 8 joints a day.

OK, that's pretty heavy use, especially at modern weed potencies. Most folks I know tell me they feel just fine after one or two tokes. Three or four at a sitting would be the max.

What's a good estimate for the number of hits in a joint? More than 3 or 4, I bet. But just for argument's sake, let's assume you only get four. We also assume that you're pretty ripped after that one joint.

So somebody that's smoking "8 J a day" (catchy advertising slogan, no?), or doing the same damage to their lungs as a 2 pack/day stinkorette smoker, IS PRETTY DAMNED RIPPED MOST OF THE TIME.

Now, maybe Snoop Dogg, or Willie Nelson, or the late Carl Sagan reaches this level of hempage, but I sincerely doubt that your average recreational cannabis user does. So (s)he may be putting crap into their lungs, but I doubt that it is at the same rate as most tobacco smokers I have known.

[Lastminute.Tom]

how the hell does this study work though? I mean joints can vary vastly in strength not only the potency of the skunk but the ammount and type of tobacco, I mean for arguments sake they could have made big joints with five times the amount of tobacco of a ciggarette and a ten bag of skunk, I'm not saying that I deny that a joint can be equal to five cigarettes, because I got told that when I was stoned along time ago so I have believed it for ages, but from country to country the methods can vary stupidly, like in new zealand they only roll blunts because its so cheap over there

[MWBBWFanMan]

I have a feeling that the pot smoked nowdays is quite a bit stronger than when I was in high school. (I have heard that this is true:D ) I Know people that like to puff some now and then and have heard the taste actually can be quite nummy if you have the right batch of buds. Here is a photo of some "Brownie Ingredients" LOL...No Idea where this pic came from at all....It must have been from one of them internet sites promoting legalization or something. We all know that anything to excess can be bad for us is some ways. Why do all the fun little things in life gotta be bad for us is my question?

[BBWDREAMLOVER]

When we used to review reproductive toxicology studies on THC (marijuana is embryotoxic and neurotoxic), the only way to get them into rats was to feed them. Apparently the rat bong prototypes didn't work well enough to deliver a consistent, metered dose.
LMAO!!!!!!

[BBWDREAMLOVER]

Go to youtube and watch "cop eats pot brownies" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrZLc9lqQM0

It is audio (with sarcastic typed running commentary) of a real 911 call from an off duty police officer who ate some pot brownies with his wife and then freaked out and thought they were gonna die and called 911 saying they OD'ed. On pot brownies.

BWA-ha-ha-ha! I laugh so hard I cry every time I hear it.
TracyLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what an idiot:rolleyes:

[BBWDREAMLOVER]

If the math is 1 Mr. Jay equals 5 Mr. Butts, then:

1 pack of "20 Class A Cigarettes" = 4 joints. A TWO pack a day smoker would smoke the equivalent of 8 joints a day.

OK, that's pretty heavy use, especially at modern weed potencies. Most folks I know tell me they feel just fine after one or two tokes. Three or four at a sitting would be the max.

What's a good estimate for the number of hits in a joint? More than 3 or 4, I bet. But just for argument's sake, let's assume you only get four. We also assume that you're pretty ripped after that one joint.

So somebody that's smoking "8 J a day" (catchy advertising slogan, no?), or doing the same damage to their lungs as a 2 pack/day stinkorette smoker, IS PRETTY DAMNED RIPPED MOST OF THE TIME.

Now, maybe Snoop Dogg, or Willie Nelson, or the late Carl Sagan reaches this level of hempage, but I sincerely doubt that your average recreational cannabis user does. So (s)he may be putting crap into their lungs, but I doubt that it is at the same rate as most tobacco smokers I have known.
your logic is good :bow:

[CurvyEm]

http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/images/hysteria-poster.gif

[B00TS]

I agree that the study sounds like the usual pile of "let's test a handful of people and get our message across" bullshit.

Everything you imbibe is bad for you if you do enough of it. Water will kill you if you drink enough in one go ! It's all a case of moderation and weighing up the pros and cons.

The vaporizer is a device I'd like to investigate though (In the name of scientific endeavour of course :) ). No combustion see. Thus no combustion products/high temperatures or their associated damage.

I was thinking the temp regulation for one might make an interesting electronics project...

God I'm so dull sometimes. :blush:

[zombie_invasion]

They can do all the studies they want.
I smoke cigarettes and bud.
I say legalization or not, people are gonna get high.
The world is going to have to deal with us destroying
their ozone layer eventually.

[gangstadawg]

I spent a year living next door to a neo-nazi homosexual drug dealer who worked at a porno store... with very thin walls between our apartments. Anyway, he smoked dope constantly. He never smoked cigarettes. EVERY MORNING WHEN HE WOKE UP HE COUGHED UP A LUNG AND A HALF.

Moral: put smoke in your lungs and it will MESS YOU UP.

... and I've seen a ton of chronic chronic smokers wind up not thinking very clearly at all. It will mess up your head, too.

BUT ALCOHOL IS WORSE, CRY THE POT SMOKERS!

I agree. But that doesn't make pot good for you. If you want to smoke it, fine. But don't try and tell me any of that "it's harmless" crap. Everything comes with a price, so if you're gonna use it, use it like the tobacco smokers. Use it with the knowledge that yeah, it's gonna kill you faster, but so what?

I can respect that. Just don't lie to me.
neo-nazi and gay? never heard of that combo. whats next being apart glbt and kkk and the aclu at the same time?

[Lil BigginZ]

i don't believe this study at all. tobacco has so many additives in it and the tar alone i think is more harmful to you then cannabis. i know a lot of people who just smoke and not smoke cigarettes and they don't hack like smokers. i smoke both daily so i guess my odds suck in the long run.

[Jes]

You know what I hear? putting fat in your ass WILL MESS YOU UP!

[Jane]

neo-nazi and gay? never heard of that combo. whats next being apart glbt and kkk and the aclu at the same time?

It just means you want to kick your own ass.

[Elfcat]

Go to youtube and watch "cop eats pot brownies" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrZLc9lqQM0

It is audio (with sarcastic typed running commentary) of a real 911 call from an off duty police officer who ate some pot brownies with his wife and then freaked out and thought they were gonna die and called 911 saying they OD'ed. On pot brownies.

BWA-ha-ha-ha! I laugh so hard I cry every time I hear it.
Tracy

If you're going to eat brownies, I'd recommend making them yourself. I got a brownie off someone at an outdoor concert a few years back. He said it was "double-dosed", to be fair. But I ate the whole thing one Saturday morning, thinking I'd just clean the house nice and easy. I ended up pretty quickly suffering lapses of consciousness, at one point realizing that I was gripping a doorframe with my hands to stay upright. It was very disconcerting, and I did call the ambulance because I thought something else must have been in there. The ER doc said there wasn't. I spent a couple hours in there just being allowed to cool off, which meant gripping the handles of the hospital bed very hard due to muscle clenching, after which I walked and rode home and was later sent a really big medical bill. Not something I feel like repeating any time soon.

[Lil BigginZ]

baking cannabis increases the potentcy