Good News Everyone!

[Haggis_McMutton]

Haggis, I'm going to have to intervene. You're addicted to SMBC and it's really hurting your social life.

LIES.

I CAN QUIT ANYTIME I WANT !

[AndyDufresne]

You're the one who made the thread, you were expected to post Farnsworth.

Well geez.

Here, have this instead:

--Andy

[Victor Sullivan]

Also, the whole "cannabis has more carcinogens/tar/whatever than tobacco" thing has been thoroughly debunked ages ago, if I recall it turned out they only studied the leaves of the plant or something.

Pulmonary Hazards of Smoking Marijuana as Compared with Tobacco

To compare the pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana and tobacco, we quantified the relative burden to the lung of insoluble particulates (tar) and carbon monoxide from the smoke of similar quantities of marijuana and tobacco. The 15 subjects, all men, had smoked both marijuana and tobacco habitually for at least five years. We measured each subject's blood carboxyhemoglobin level before and after smoking and the amount of tar inhaled and deposited in the respiratory tract from the smoke of single filter-tipped tobacco cigarettes (900 to 1200 mg) and marijuana cigarettes (741 to 985 mg) containing 0.004 percent or 1.24 percent Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

As compared with smoking tobacco, smoking marijuana was associated with a nearly fivefold greater increment in the blood carboxyhemoglobin level, an approximately threefold increase in the amount of tar inhaled, and retention in the respiratory tract of one third more inhaled tar (P<0.001). Significant differences were also noted in the dynamics of smoking marijuana and tobacco, among them an approximately two-thirds larger puff volume, a one-third greater depth of inhalation, and a fourfold longer breath-holding time with marijuana than with tobacco (P<0.01). Smoking dynamics and the delivery of tar during marijuana smoking were only slightly influenced by the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol.

We conclude that smoking marijuana, regardless of tetrahydrocannabinol content, results in a substantially greater respiratory burden of carbon monoxide and tar than smoking a similar quantity of tobacco. (N Engl J Med 1988;318:347–51.)

-Sully

[BigBallinStalin]

"Did they pick out the seeds and stems," I wonder.

[Army of GOD]

Also, the whole "cannabis has more carcinogens/tar/whatever than tobacco" thing has been thoroughly debunked ages ago, if I recall it turned out they only studied the leaves of the plant or something.

Pulmonary Hazards of Smoking Marijuana as Compared with Tobacco

To compare the pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana and tobacco, we quantified the relative burden to the lung of insoluble particulates (tar) and carbon monoxide from the smoke of similar quantities of marijuana and tobacco. The 15 subjects, all men, had smoked both marijuana and tobacco habitually for at least five years. We measured each subject's blood carboxyhemoglobin level before and after smoking and the amount of tar inhaled and deposited in the respiratory tract from the smoke of single filter-tipped tobacco cigarettes (900 to 1200 mg) and marijuana cigarettes (741 to 985 mg) containing 0.004 percent or 1.24 percent Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

As compared with smoking tobacco, smoking marijuana was associated with a nearly fivefold greater increment in the blood carboxyhemoglobin level, an approximately threefold increase in the amount of tar inhaled, and retention in the respiratory tract of one third more inhaled tar (P<0.001). Significant differences were also noted in the dynamics of smoking marijuana and tobacco, among them an approximately two-thirds larger puff volume, a one-third greater depth of inhalation, and a fourfold longer breath-holding time with marijuana than with tobacco (P<0.01). Smoking dynamics and the delivery of tar during marijuana smoking were only slightly influenced by the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol.

We conclude that smoking marijuana, regardless of tetrahydrocannabinol content, results in a substantially greater respiratory burden of carbon monoxide and tar than smoking a similar quantity of tobacco. (N Engl J Med 1988;318:347–51.)

-Sully

don't worry, I'm qualified to post for natty.

At this point, I think we have insufficient data to make any more accurate conclusions about this.

[Woodruff]

Also, who the f*ck smokes 3-4 joints a day?

In my view, if you're only focusing on health issues, this seems to me to be the most important aspect.

(Disclaimer: I don't smoke in any fashion.)

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Also, the whole "cannabis has more carcinogens/tar/whatever than tobacco" thing has been thoroughly debunked ages ago, if I recall it turned out they only studied the leaves of the plant or something.

Pulmonary Hazards of Smoking Marijuana as Compared with Tobacco

To compare the pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana and tobacco, we quantified the relative burden to the lung of insoluble particulates (tar) and carbon monoxide from the smoke of similar quantities of marijuana and tobacco. The 15 subjects, all men, had smoked both marijuana and tobacco habitually for at least five years. We measured each subject's blood carboxyhemoglobin level before and after smoking and the amount of tar inhaled and deposited in the respiratory tract from the smoke of single filter-tipped tobacco cigarettes (900 to 1200 mg) and marijuana cigarettes (741 to 985 mg) containing 0.004 percent or 1.24 percent Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

As compared with smoking tobacco, smoking marijuana was associated with a nearly fivefold greater increment in the blood carboxyhemoglobin level, an approximately threefold increase in the amount of tar inhaled, and retention in the respiratory tract of one third more inhaled tar (P<0.001). Significant differences were also noted in the dynamics of smoking marijuana and tobacco, among them an approximately two-thirds larger puff volume, a one-third greater depth of inhalation, and a fourfold longer breath-holding time with marijuana than with tobacco (P<0.01). Smoking dynamics and the delivery of tar during marijuana smoking were only slightly influenced by the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol.

We conclude that smoking marijuana, regardless of tetrahydrocannabinol content, results in a substantially greater respiratory burden of carbon monoxide and tar than smoking a similar quantity of tobacco. (N Engl J Med 1988;318:347–51.)

-Sully

There are numerous studies that suggest otherwise. Besides, that study is skewed because the fifteen men they studies smoked both cigarettes and mj. It's a null study. And measuring carboxyhemoglobin content merely measures the partial pressure of CO2 and the saturation of hemoglobin by oxygen on RBCs. At most, this will cause a temporary drop in oxygen levels and a decrease in blood pH, which is easily fixed by the natural carbonic acid-bicarbonate buffer system.

I know this is anecdotal, but I know several people who got cancer/emphysema from tobacco (including my grandfather), but I have never met anyone who's contracted cancer from marijuana even though they've used it their entire adult lives (some people I know that span 40+ years of marijuana use).

Seriously, I want somebody to post a case of one person developing lung cancer (or any cancer for that matter) which can be tied solely to marijuana use. You won't find it.

-TG

[natty dread]

don't worry, I'm qualified to post for natty.

Psht, you're like 10 years too young and 50 cm too short to post for me. Also, you forgot to say "inb4".

inb4 AoG says "inb4"

Also, the whole "cannabis has more carcinogens/tar/whatever than tobacco" thing has been thoroughly debunked ages ago, if I recall it turned out they only studied the leaves of the plant or something.

Pulmonary Hazards of Smoking Marijuana as Compared with Tobacco

To compare the pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana and tobacco, we quantified the relative burden to the lung of insoluble particulates (tar) and carbon monoxide from the smoke of similar quantities of marijuana and tobacco. The 15 subjects, all men, had smoked both marijuana and tobacco habitually for at least five years. We measured each subject's blood carboxyhemoglobin level before and after smoking and the amount of tar inhaled and deposited in the respiratory tract from the smoke of single filter-tipped tobacco cigarettes (900 to 1200 mg) and marijuana cigarettes (741 to 985 mg) containing 0.004 percent or 1.24 percent Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

As compared with smoking tobacco, smoking marijuana was associated with a nearly fivefold greater increment in the blood carboxyhemoglobin level, an approximately threefold increase in the amount of tar inhaled, and retention in the respiratory tract of one third more inhaled tar (P<0.001). Significant differences were also noted in the dynamics of smoking marijuana and tobacco, among them an approximately two-thirds larger puff volume, a one-third greater depth of inhalation, and a fourfold longer breath-holding time with marijuana than with tobacco (P<0.01). Smoking dynamics and the delivery of tar during marijuana smoking were only slightly influenced by the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol.

We conclude that smoking marijuana, regardless of tetrahydrocannabinol content, results in a substantially greater respiratory burden of carbon monoxide and tar than smoking a similar quantity of tobacco. (N Engl J Med 1988;318:347–51.)

-Sully

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 083353.htm

Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer

ScienceDaily (May 26, 2006) — People who smoke marijuana--even heavy, long-term marijuana users--do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer, according to a study to be presented at the American Thoracic Society International Conference on May 23rd.


Marijuana smoking also did not appear to increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus, the study found.

The findings were a surprise to the researchers. "We expected that we would find that a history of heavy marijuana use--more than 500-1,000 uses--would increase the risk of cancer from several years to decades after exposure to marijuana," said the senior researcher, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles.

[BigBallinStalin]

Also, the whole "cannabis has more carcinogens/tar/whatever than tobacco" thing has been thoroughly debunked ages ago, if I recall it turned out they only studied the leaves of the plant or something.

Pulmonary Hazards of Smoking Marijuana as Compared with Tobacco

To compare the pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana and tobacco, we quantified the relative burden to the lung of insoluble particulates (tar) and carbon monoxide from the smoke of similar quantities of marijuana and tobacco. The 15 subjects, all men, had smoked both marijuana and tobacco habitually for at least five years. We measured each subject's blood carboxyhemoglobin level before and after smoking and the amount of tar inhaled and deposited in the respiratory tract from the smoke of single filter-tipped tobacco cigarettes (900 to 1200 mg) and marijuana cigarettes (741 to 985 mg) containing 0.004 percent or 1.24 percent Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

As compared with smoking tobacco, smoking marijuana was associated with a nearly fivefold greater increment in the blood carboxyhemoglobin level, an approximately threefold increase in the amount of tar inhaled, and retention in the respiratory tract of one third more inhaled tar (P<0.001). Significant differences were also noted in the dynamics of smoking marijuana and tobacco, among them an approximately two-thirds larger puff volume, a one-third greater depth of inhalation, and a fourfold longer breath-holding time with marijuana than with tobacco (P<0.01). Smoking dynamics and the delivery of tar during marijuana smoking were only slightly influenced by the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol.

We conclude that smoking marijuana, regardless of tetrahydrocannabinol content, results in a substantially greater respiratory burden of carbon monoxide and tar than smoking a similar quantity of tobacco. (N Engl J Med 1988;318:347–51.)

-Sully

There are numerous studies that suggest otherwise. Besides, that study is skewed because the fifteen men they studies smoked both cigarettes and mj. It's a null study. And measuring carboxyhemoglobin content merely measures the partial pressure of CO2 and the saturation of hemoglobin by oxygen on RBCs. At most, this will cause a temporary drop in oxygen levels and a decrease in blood pH, which is easily fixed by the natural carbonic acid-bicarbonate buffer system.

I know this is anecdotal, but I know several people who got cancer/emphysema from tobacco (including my grandfather), but I have never met anyone who's contracted cancer from marijuana even though they've used it their entire adult lives (some people I know that span 40+ years of marijuana use).

Seriously, I want somebody to post a case of one person developing lung cancer (or any cancer for that matter) which can be tied solely to marijuana use. You won't find it.

-TG

I may not know what natural carbonic acid-bicarbonate buffer systems are, but I know a beating when I see it.

TG WITH THE SMACKDOWN!!

[Army of GOD]

also, this is what I'm talkinga bout. Medical researchers will come up with one conclusion and then other researchers will discover something different.

it seems like both sides are lying, or at least stretching the truth, to push their own agendas.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

also, this is what I'm talkinga bout. Medical researchers will come up with one conclusion and then other researchers will discover something different.

it seems like both sides are lying, or at least stretching the truth, to push their own agendas.

That's why peer reviews are so important.

Also, I meant "saturation of hemoglobin by CO2" but wrote oxygen. whoopsie. i iz sorry.

-TG

[nietzsche]

If medical research weren't used as advertising we could have better ones.

[Army of GOD]

I found it interesting that Sullivan's article was from '88 while natty's was within the last 6 years.

Doesn't really help that the 80s was the whole "War on Drugs" thing. I wonder if that had an affect on their conclusions.

[jonesthecurl]

Also, the fact that the researchers were surprized in the latter would seem to indicate they weren't "pushing an agenda".

[natty dread]

Also, the fact that the researchers were surprized in the latter would seem to indicate they weren't "pushing an agenda".

Well, if I'm ever researching a research, now I know what I'm going to say - I'll just say "we were totes surprised by these results, guys!" and everyone will be all "dang, that researcher's gotta be honest like a motherfucker, let's trust everything he says" and then I'll be all like "thanks for all the funding guys!"