|
|
| Marijuana: No Simple Answers |
|
Posted by FoM on July 09, 2001 at 10:05:17 PT By Timothy Gower Source: Los Angeles Times 
Doctors can't agree on whether patients with cancer, HIV, glaucoma and other conditions get any benefit from smoking marijuana. Last week, two studies published in the British Medical Journal found that marijuana isn't any better for treating pain and nausea than standard drug therapy. And the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in May to not legalize the manufacture and sale of pot for medical use only deepens the debate. Meanwhile, scientists continue to study whether people who smoke pot strictly for pleasure are endangering their health. In June, researchers at Boston's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center reported that a person's risk of having a heart attack increases fivefold in the first hour after smoking marijuana. A fivefold increase doesn't mean much for a young, healthy person, since the risk of suffering a heart attack is minuscule to begin with. But for older smokers, and anyone with a condition that increases the risk for cardiovascular disease (such as diabetes), the study may offer a reason to think twice before getting high. Which got me thinking: Are the guys I know who unwind with this illicit herb putting their health at risk in other ways? For the record, the majority of pot smokers in this country are men. According to government figures, adult males are nearly 21/2 times more likely than females to say they have used marijuana in the last month. Among Americans older than 35, male pot smokers outnumber female users by even greater numbers. So, are these guys doing themselves any harm? Several pieces of pot wisdom about the health of men who smoke marijuana have been handed down over the years. Back in college, I recall hearing that male pot smokers often develop gynecomastia, or saggy breasts. Frequent marijuana use is also rumored to lower a man's sperm count and cause impotence, or erectile dysfunction. But none of these claims has ever been proved true in humans, says Dr. Paul Gahlinger, author of a new book on the history of illegal drugs scheduled for publication later this year. Gahlinger notes that exposure to constituents in marijuana seems to slow sperm in test-tube studies, "but in practice, there doesn't seem to be any difference at all" in the fertility and sexual potency of men who get high and men who don't. Likewise, he says, the flabby-chest and impotence stories lack support too. In regard to heart disease, Gahlinger notes that no reliable research shows pot smokers are any more or less likely than nonusers to have cardiovascular problems. (The Boston study didn't compare people in the two groups.) Other illegal drugs carry far more serious health risks, he insists. "Marijuana is one of the safest drugs ever discovered," Gahlinger says. "It's safer than aspirin." But many physicians in this country don't share Gahlinger's mellow view. "Daily smoking of marijuana causes some of the same consequences as the smoking of tobacco," says Dr. Donald Tashkin, medical director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the UCLA School of Medicine, among them bronchitis, a persistent cough and heavy production of phlegm. Although even regular pot smokers light up only a few times a day, Tashkin points out that joints are loosely packed and don't have filters. What's more, pot users inhale deeply and hold smoke in their lungs far longer than tobacco users. As a result, smoking a marijuana cigarette exposes the lungs to three to four times more tar than smoking a butt. There's little data on lung cancer rates among people who smoke only marijuana, but Tashkin says that lung biopsies of regular pot users reveal the presence of pre-cancerous cells. Last year, a study at UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center showed that mice implanted with malignant cells develop tumors faster if they're exposed to THC. "It appears that the THC in marijuana impairs host defense--the ability to fight infection and fight cancer," Tashkin says. He points out the irony that cancer and HIV patients, whose immune systems need bolstering, are among the loudest voices demanding medical marijuana. It's also conceivable, he says, that THC's effects could make a healthy pot smoker more vulnerable to infectious diseases, such as pneumonia. While researchers try to clear the haze over marijuana's impact on health, a few things aren't up for debate. Driving while high is a terrible idea. "Don't do it," says Gahlinger. "You're intoxicated." One study found that airline pilots operating flight simulators still had delayed reactions 24 hours after smoking pot. Furthermore, like it or not, the stuff is illegal. Getting busted for possession or fired for flunking a drug test are guaranteed ways to complicate your life. Finally, no pot smoker on the planet would deny the existence of a phenomenon universally known as the munchies. Another study published in June, by researchers at the State University of New York at Buffalo, found that marijuana users eat more salty snacks and cheese than nonusers. They also eat fewer fruits and vegetables, consume greater amounts of beer and soda, and smoke more cigarettes. Whatever you think about marijuana, you're kidding yourself if you believe that the path to better health runs through the chips-and-dip aisle at 7-Eleven. Timothy Gower is at: tgower@mediaone.net The Healthy Man runs the second Monday of the month. Source: Los Angeles Times (CA) Related Articles: Research Casts Doubt on Cannabis Benefits Study: Pollutants Can Trigger Heart Attack Study Cites Heart Attack Peril for Older MJ Users Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #35 posted by YYYY on July 10, 2001 at 21:05:47 PT |
| Thank you for giving me the info I will surley look into this. I sencerly hope you didnt take offence thanks again:) have a nice daYYYY [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #34 posted by lookinside on July 10, 2001 at 16:20:57 PT:
|
| early this morning i received a reply from mr. gower...i responded back, including a number of comments from this string...i the interests of brevity i didn't include them in my earlier post and will not here... following is his reply and my reply to this morning's email... > I sent this message once, but it doesn't seem to have gone mr. gower, after two years of intensive reading on the subjects of the it would be interesting to find out if your editors would be why am i so interested? my wife is a medical marijuana i strongly urge you to question any government study that [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #33 posted by Jose Melendez on July 10, 2001 at 10:13:08 PT:
|
| Again, sorry for the HUGE posts... I received this: I tried to read your message, but you lost me with all that skydiving Br J Psychiatry 2001 Feb;178:101-6 Further research would turn up more, I'm sure. I didn't "dismiss" the studies you mentioned, I'm just saying that they're balanced by other research. Now, since you and I obviously will never persuade one another of a darn thing, and we both (I trust) have better things to do, let's call the matter closed. Goodbye. >>Note: I started narcosoft.com to expose the hypocrisy of the War on Drugs, especially considering the fact that we get high on all sorts of legal substances that cause much greater harm. So I found the time to reply: Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 09:54:04 -0700 That is again, exactly what I am suggesting media does consistently with marijuana research and info. Same goes for the local TV coverage of a simple parachuting accident, sorry if that seemed off-topic. It is not. You spent five minutes, found something against pot, and now you feel that confirms that drivers on any amount of Cannabis are out of control or don't know what they are doing to themselves. All the while we are getting arrested, for something that by your own argument harms only us, if at all. On PubMed, which I have used extensively some years ago, I found this using this search: and came up with this abstract first: and then I noticed the first study you specify, which states: BACKGROUND: Increasing prevalence of recreational cannabis use among the young population has stimulated debate on the possible effects of acute and longterm use. AIMS: To highlight recent knowledge of mechanisms of action, effects on psychomotor and cognitive performance, and health risks associated with cannabis consumption. METHOD: A brief review of recent literature on the prevalence of recreational cannabis use, the potency of modern cannabis preparations and the pharmacological actions of cannabis. RESULTS: Cannabinoids derived from herbal cannabis interact with endogenous cannabinoid systems in the body. Actions on specific brain receptors cause dose-related (emphasis mine) impairments of psychomotor performance with implications for car and train driving, aeroplane piloting and academic performance. Other constituents of cannabis smoke carry respiratory and cardiovascular health risks similar to those of tobacco smoke. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis is not, as widely perceived, a harmless drug but poses risks to the individual and to society. Now, as I expected, this particular study glosses over the reality that responsible driving can occur with reasonable amounts of Cannabis consumption. The AIMS of the study above were to highlight health risks. The METHOD was to make a brief review of recreational use, and use potency claims to indicate (adverse) pharmacological actions. IMHO, that conclusion is erroneous because it does not take into account that stronger pot is safer, because smoking it creates less carbon monoxide and can be self-titrated more easily. Which is in direct contrast to modern consumption of tobacco, in which the filter is designed to reduce the amount of desired nicotine, in order to sell more cigarettes. To me, it is obvious that the health risks of cannabinoids are unfairly equated to those of legally available poisonous substances. Case closed? Well, yes. narcosoft.com (202) 777-2644 x7545 - voicemail/fax [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #32 posted by Jose Melendez on July 10, 2001 at 09:05:35 PT:
|
| I applaud Tim Gower for not ignoring my challenge. His response and my reply are below. My opinion is that his error is in, as was mentioned here earlier, undermining the validity of anything that suggests positive effects of any amount of Cannabis. --- Tim Gower tgower@mediaone.net wrote: So I replied: To:tgower@mediaone.net > > I just think That "very real possibility" has resulted in zero deaths due to overdose in all of recorded human history. There are virually no cases of lung cancer in people who choose to inhale pot smoke, but not tobacco (first or second hand) or any other legal particulate carcinogens and poisons that it is arguably not their choice to inhale. > If Gahlinger (the pro-pot doctor I quoted) were in Exactly! What you would NOT do is ask for a comparative study that would balance out those numbers, providing a more accurate picture of the risks involved. As a skydiver, I just went through this concept with the local TV station. A low time jumper broke his toe while showing off on landing for his family. Well, all of a sudden there are cameras in his face, and the reporter repeats for two days that this is the FIFTEENTH accident in the last year at Skydive DeLand, and by the way, you can die skydiving. What they did _not_ report was that one of those "accidents" was a 911 call to the drop zone restaurant... (The Perfect Spot Restaurant in DeLand, FL has great big hamburgers and dollar drafts on weekday afternoons ;) ...for someone with heart trouble. And it took two or three days before they admitted that Skydive DeLand made over forty thousand jumps in the last few months, and is one of the busiest parachuting facilites in Florida... which (as the reporter somewhat sheepishly admitted in person THAT DAY and later in writing) tended to balance out the misleading numbers in the story. It still took two days and lots of erroneous news segments before they got it right on the air, though. I suppose you think Fox News is fair and balanced also. What's truly insulting is that the only "science" that is given any real credibility is that which implies that _any_ amount of mj is bad for you. FACT: The brain makes its own naturally occuring cannabinoid-like substances, and there are receptors that have evolved for more than many thousands of years specifically to utilize Cannabis and THC on a regular, even daily basis. As I tried to demonstrate in a real world scenario, you would not interrogate a personally known driver about which legal medications or addictive substances he or she is using - we accept the reasonable risk that licensed drivers have the responsibility as well as the right to determine for themselves if they are too impaired to drive, and it is very noticeable if that is true. Those studies that you dismiss and ignore show that alcohol is much more likely to impair the driver BEFORE they decide not to drive, UNLIKE Cannabis. The full text article I attached goes into great detail about how science that shows positive effects of THC on tumors gets scrapped. People are still being lied to about the Rhesus monkey Marijunana smoke study, in which gas masks were fitted to force feed restrained animals nonstop Cannabis smoke until they showed signs of brain damage, or died. Guess what they found? Certainly not that carbon monoxide kills brain cells. Nope. That would tend to disprove their fully funded study that is supposed to show that mj kills brain cells. I do agree with the title of the article, there are no easy answers. However, your published and emailed implication that driving under the influence of any amount of marijuana is unsafe begs credibility. I am not sorry that you find that insulting, I am simply disappointed that journalists find it so easy to deny that they give Marijuana a bad rap. Thanks, narcosoft.com (202) 777-2644 x7545 - voicemail/fax [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #31 posted by freedom fighter on July 10, 2001 at 08:32:36 PT |
| to put people in prisons for consuming substance that one may not like? It is just amazing that some folks have to justify the prohibition by using health excuses. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #30 posted by J.R. Bob Dobbs on July 10, 2001 at 07:21:18 PT |
| One thing that's not been mentioned here that I saw... holding your breath for too long kills brain cells. Thus, prohibition kills brain cells. Directly, too, not just because they're jumping out your ears in disgust whenever they hear "This is your brain on drugs" ads... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #29 posted by sm247 on July 10, 2001 at 05:43:29 PT |
| I know for a fact that people who use mj and drive are safer drivers or believe me it would be a non-stop demo derby on the freeway...now combine alcohol and mj and driving and you'll be lucky to get out of the car alive....Alcohol the root of all evil [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #28 posted by The GCW on July 10, 2001 at 05:25:31 PT |
| YYYY, The New American Standard Bible. Look for your self, In 1 Tim. 4:3 (1 Tim. 4:1-5 RULES), (This area titled "Apostasy"), referes to it as food: SAME AS Gen. 1:29 (literally the 1st page of the Bible)! Look closer and in 1 Tim. 4:6-16 (titled "A Good Minister's Discipline") This indicates what a well ministered work is, which is what is not taking place. If the minister is in a state of lost faith -... If God gave us cannabis as food, who gives us cannabis prohibition? Those whom have left the faith? Real live devils advocates that have lost touch with reality? [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #27 posted by lookinside on July 10, 2001 at 04:39:58 PT:
|
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 22:28:07 -0400, Tim Gower wrote: > Go back and reread, slowly this time. My column
for the record, i find your article poorly researched and frank l. cowsert jr. p.s. if you find my use of lower case objectionable, [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #26 posted by Doug on July 09, 2001 at 22:54:43 PT |
| Those of you who have a copy of 'Marijuana Myths Marijuana Facts' (and those of you who don't, you should have it, this is an indispensible book if you frequent this web site) turn to page 116 at the end of the chapter on 'Marijuana and the Lungs' At the very end of the chapter they talk about deeps breaths and holding the breath, with references to studies of just this behavior. The conclusion, these "increase psycholoactive effects marginally, if at all." But holding your breath a long time will cause a rush, whether or not there is smoke in your lungs. Also, the fact that you have inhaled many compounds from burning plant material will have an effect, but this is not due to the THC. When I first tried a vaporizer, I found it differnt from smoking plant material -- it was more like eating it. So part of the effect we say is from marijuana is from the hemp we are smoking. So the deep breaths don't give us much extra bang for the buck, but do harm our lungs, and the longer you hold your breath, the longer the exposure to the smoke. Is this worth it? We all have to make our own decision. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #25 posted by jorma nash on July 09, 2001 at 22:19:26 PT |
i have read many times you absorb all the THC almost instantly. IMHO, holding the hit is giving you the normal THC buzz, remember in high school when kids would hold their breaths for an experiment, toke an imaginary hit, and hold it for a long time. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ so i guess they'll have to declare Oxygen schedule I. they'll have to remove it from the atmosphere, so nobody will abuse it. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #24 posted by New Mexican on July 09, 2001 at 21:32:52 PT |
| Funny, but I don't think this aspect of Cannabis (how long too hold it in) has been discussed at length here before, if it has, I missed it! It's highly relevant to this site! Anyway, way to go Jose Melendez, you spoke for myself as well, but I think i'll e-mail the Times writer too! I've smoked since I was 19 (late start) as I was only into 'natural highs', like playing music and lovemaking, but realized upon moving to Tucson, in the 70's what I had been missing (nothing against lovemaking and music-making) The point I'd like to make is: noone ever worried about driving with me while I or we smoked. Never, not even my mother in law. Everone knows it makes you a cautious driver and if you haven't noticed, people smoke openly while driving, at least I've seen hundreds of tokers on the freeway and I myself never worried about them as I would if I saw them drinking. Nor will I! If someone is too high to drive, they don't drive do they? Not in my experience. You wait a half hour and then leave. Not with alcohol, as the thousands of annual car accident deaths will testify. That is what my experience has shown me, anyone else? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #23 posted by SWAMPIE on July 09, 2001 at 19:32:22 PT |
| As an avid cannabis smoker for about 25 years,and a cigarette smoker for 35 years,and counting...I have found that the"hold your hit till it's clear"opinion worked best for me,but it has to be real clean,top-quality herb to keep from choking!Certain varieties work well in a doob,but the less paper you use,the better!E-Z widers are the worst!Zig-Zags are ok,butt we use R-S Rolls.They come in 10ft.rolls,and are a narrow width,so you can roll a 2' doob if you want!I think alot of the problem is that many people don't know how to roll,or if the herb is too fresh,they cram more than they need to into the doob.We have made that mistake ourselves.Most of the time,we use a pipe,but only light the edge,and are very careful not to overtoke.I have seen stars from some of the KGB that we have had!Bells and whistles too!Hard to find,and real expensive!But what a high!!!!A great way is to vaporize,but it takes awhile to get it up to temperature,and even though you can use the toasted herb to cook with,it takes alot to get a real rush!All that aside,we have a few female cats,who,when in heat,love to enjoy the smoke as well as we do!I think it helps with the cramps.A couple small shotguns,not forced,and they go lay down and they're happy!My dog Leo(RIP)used to love to do a toke once in awhile.He would actually ask for it!He was a brindle-Lab.He would grab a frisbee,and play for about 20 minutes,then eat and go to sleep!Everyone who knew him called him"Leo The Wonderdog"!!LOL!!He helped me to get off of crack.The truth,plain and simple.I don't smoke everyday now,but when I do,it only takes a small amount.I wonder why?I love pot! SWAMPIE [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #22 posted by lookinside on July 09, 2001 at 18:48:55 PT:
|
| mr gower... that was the most slanted and biased article i have yet read...every claim you quoted is refuted in other research, except the warning about driving... do you have the guts to write a smear article about tobacco? alcohol? i think not...your masters must be very proud of you today...you did their bidding...sir, my assumption is that when you learned journalism, you slept in, rather than attend the ethics class... shame on you, [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #21 posted by YYYY on July 09, 2001 at 18:40:16 PT |
| GCW what bible are you getting this from? Of course i mean no offence just curious:) have a nice daYYYY [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #20 posted by The GCW on July 09, 2001 at 18:20:05 PT |
| "Marijuana is one of the safest drugs ever discovered," Gahlinger says. "It's safer than aspirin." (It is), Our Father gave us cannabis, not asprin, and it is not a drug, it is refered to as plant (in among other places, the 1st page of the Bible). And folks vaporize. (no smoke), That is vapor-eyes. Eterra style for effeciency @ http://www.lightwell.net/. Jose Melendez, quote(#11): "Maybe Marijuana is illegal BECAUSE it is so safe": Our gift is able to help us keep from getting cancer, yet the Power keeps it away from us so we get sick. Then we find it will help us even when we get sick and the Power stops it as best it can. Power is incompassionate. Our Father in apostacy may give thought on this issue on 1 Tim 4 chap. FoM: your link in #10 is in my links. It in perticular has struck me. My son died at the age of 17, 4 years ago on July 4th of Lukemia. This perticular story indicates the potential to help those. If our Father gave us cannabis, who gives us cannabis prohibition? Again 1 Tim. Chapter 4: 1-5 ( all of Ch.4, including :14) [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #19 posted by Rambler on July 09, 2001 at 18:06:01 PT |
| I think you did excellent! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #18 posted by mayan on July 09, 2001 at 18:02:57 PT |
| That's tellin them friggin' bastages! [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #17 posted by Jose Melendez on July 09, 2001 at 17:33:40 PT:
|
| Hello all, I hope this is not too long to post here, but here is the response I got from the author of the above article when I emailed a letter to the editor challenging the position taken. First, I sent: > ----- Original Message ----- To: tgower@mediaone.net Sure, Tim. Read your own reply and think carefully now... You certainly do keep your anecdotal evidence way out in front, it must make for more popular press. But it seems to me Yellow Journalism was over a while back, no? To be very clear: Studies show that heavy smokers when _slightly_ under the influence of marijuana actually perform better in certain driving functions than "sober" folks, not to mention* dramatically better than ANY amount of alcohol. So I guess you are going to pretend that you have never been driven safely by someone who had a beer with lunch an hour or three ago? Or that you will never again get in a car with whose driver is on, say, Prozac? BTW, one of those studies found a slightly higher "verbal intelligence quotient" among marijuana users, but perhaps that bit of information is not relevant to your essays. Not to mention (sorry, it seems relevant to me) that almost without exception, each of the studies that purport to have found some damaging effects to humans have: a.) not passed the scrutiny of peer review, and/or b.) are only funded BECAUSE their application for funding was only approved if negative aspects of Cannabis use are suggested. Thanks for the rapid reply, though. You have dismissed my argument on its face without investigating the accuracy of those claims. I heartily encourage, even challenge you to check your "facts" again. Peace, narcosoft.com (202) 777-2644 x7545 - voicemail/fax *I believe "not to mention" is the best choice of words, as in: You chose _not to mention_ that you really are not interested in doing accurate reporting on Cannabis, and are more interested in a quick quote for your article... So, here a quote from me. :) I must thank all of you, even the antis, here on cannabisnews.com Your lively commentary and debate of news articles on marijuana have helped me be more accurate in my own debates, and encouraged me to do my best at fighting this immoral War on Drugs. That being said, how'd I do? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #16 posted by aocp on July 09, 2001 at 16:43:41 PT |
| Thank you dddd, Pontifex, and wondertoker for the info. As long as it's kb, i think i'll stick to holding in one or two hits, just for the economics of it all. I've quit cigarettes and have always been known for my (as my friends call them, "ridiculously") long hits, so .... as for brickweed, i definitely do not like the taste enough to hold it in for long. KB is different. ;) [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #15 posted by dddd on July 09, 2001 at 16:34:30 PT |
| ...I wouldnt dare try to refute your facts Pontifex...You sound like you're not messin around on the topic...I used to hold every toke until it was clear,,but that was in the late 60s/early 70s,back then my lungs were fresh and pink,and it was part of my elaborate technique to cuff the smoke while I still lived with my parents...Now days things are different... ..I smoke to relax,and I can afford to light up a big ol' tuna,and beef away on it as if it were a White Owl,or a Roitan,,but many's the time I've been down to my last nubbin of pipe scrapins and stems,,then I held em till it hurt. ,,,,and there are many factors involved with peace.....dddd [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #14 posted by Pontifex on July 09, 2001 at 15:32:08 PT:
|
| FACT: You can get high from smoke freshly exhaled. FACT: If the smoker "sponges" the hit, absorbing all visible smoke, you can't get high from his exhalations. So the breath-holder is absorbing the THC that would Anyone who can refute this, please do. I don't like to [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #13 posted by wondertoker on July 09, 2001 at 14:35:08 PT |
| > As an aside, i'd like to ask everyone what they'd consider to be an adequate hit-holding period? I'm of the opinion that holding the hit in (esp. in regard to kb) gives "more for the money". In Iran, jailed opium smokers are said to thrash any opium smoking compatriot who exhales visible smoke for wasting the precious commodity. Maybe marginally more efficient to hold in smoke longer, though of dubious (doobie-us?) health value. Do Japanese pearl-divers hold in hits for many minutes? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #12 posted by dddd on July 09, 2001 at 14:05:25 PT |
| ...I have a Masters degree in weed administration,and my specialty is smoke dynamics...After recieving my BA at USC,(University of Smoking Cannabis),,I spent a couple of years at Texas A&M,(Alcohol & Marijuana),,,from there I got my doctorate from MIT,(Marijuana Institute of Toking). Of course there are numerous opinions on these topics,but here 1.The length of time one holds a toke makes less difference 2.Of equal,or greater importance,is the temperature one burns 3.As an ancient hippie,I of course have a soft spot for joints.Here's All in all,,smoking may not be that super good for you,,but I'll bet [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #11 posted by Jose Melendez on July 09, 2001 at 14:01:15 PT:
|
| Thanks, FoM I've got that article on _suppressed studies_ describing the anti-tumoral power of THC, it was exactly what I meant about the question being rhetorical... :) Maybe Marijuana is illegal BECAUSE it is so safe: What if cigarette smokers switched to pot; would the economy be affected negatively by hundreds of thousands of smokers living longer, spending less on taxable but poisonous tobacco AND demanding their social security checks? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #10 posted by FoM on July 09, 2001 at 13:36:25 PT |
| Pot Shrinks Tumors: Government Knew in 74 http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread5972.shtml [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #9 posted by Jose Melendez on July 09, 2001 at 13:33:28 PT:
|
| Hmmm... How is it that two studies on ganja, mice and tumors have such completely opposite results? Secondly, and I guess this question is rhetorical; how is it that both studies are almost never mentioned in the same article? Anyone? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by aocp on July 09, 2001 at 13:12:59 PT |
| Although even regular pot smokers light up only a few times a day, Tashkin points out that joints are loosely packed and don't have filters. Not everyone smokes jays. I prefer glass myself. What's more, pot users inhale deeply and hold As pointed out, this is a direct result of cannabis As an aside, i'd like to ask everyone what they'd [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by FoM on July 09, 2001 at 12:32:33 PT |
| Good to see you! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by observer on July 09, 2001 at 12:28:06 PT |
| While researchers try to clear the haze over marijuana's impact onhealth, a few things aren't up for debate. Driving while high is aterrible idea. "Don't do it," says Gahlinger. "You're intoxicated." "a few things aren't up for debate"? Prohibitionists would like that, wouldn't they? Cannabis/Driving Studies UK: Cannabis May Make You A Safer Driver (2000) University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents (1999) Australia: Cannabis Crash Risk Less: Study (1998) Australia: Study Goes to Pot (1998) [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by Doug on July 09, 2001 at 11:38:38 PT |
| I've always maintained that the joint is the worst possible way to consume marijuana. The paper causes the material to burn hotter than necessary. Burning paper gives off carbon monoxide. A lot of the THC is lost in the smoke, great for people that happen to be in the same closet but not smoking (I'm sure you've all tried that trick) but a real waste otherwise. And in some places (I've experienced this in Amsterdam and on the East Coast) they mix the marijuna with tobacco for a real kick-ass experience, and I don't mean this in a positive sense. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by Kickaha on July 09, 2001 at 11:15:43 PT |
| I agree 100% that holding the smoke is unnecessary. I read this on Richard Cowan's Marijuana News a couple of years ago, tried it and never looked back. In my experience, holding the smoke makes absolutely no difference in terms of effect. Here's a real health issue produced by prohibition. That's the kind of thing those PSA's should address instead of the disconnected metaphors about danger they usually present. On a related note, bongs have always been my preferred method of ingestion, so I was disappointed to see the study done by (Kaiser?) indicating that bongs do not filter particulates effectively, and may even increase exposure by filtering out some THC as well, causing more material to be smoked to achieve the desired effect. However, if I smoke out of anything but a bong, I soon develop an annoying 'catch' in my throat. The study did not address the gas phase of Cannabis, so it is possible that some of the combustion nasties like CO and Benzene are being diminished through water filtration. It could simply be the cooling effect, as well. As the anti's say, "More study is needed" [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by dddd on July 09, 2001 at 11:11:03 PT |
| ....golly,,,,that's the first time I've heard of the saggy mans breast theory,,,,,it's obviously a pile of CRAP!...If that was true, I know alot of guys who would have breasts down to their knees... ...I guess it could be possible,that mens breasts could get stretched out from taking huge tokes,and holding them for a really long time, causing the skin on their ribs to stretch??...absurd,,,,,indeed!.. ...If you eat five doughnuts every day for several years,,you might [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by Doug on July 09, 2001 at 10:55:21 PT |
| What's more, pot users inhale deeply and hold smoke in their lungs far longer than tobacco users. As a result, smoking a marijuana cigarette exposes the lungs to three to four times more tar than smoking a butt. Almost all these articles quote Dr. Tashkin, but they report him out of context, without looking at the full study. This has been documented here before, with links. As has been proved (see 'Marijuan Myths, Marihuana Facts') inhaling deeply and holding the smoke longer is unnecessary, and will only result in hyperventilation. The necessity of doing these things comes about because pot is so expensive and hard to get (it's not like you can run down to the 7-11 when you run out late at night) and people like to think they can increase the effects. And of course there are other ways of "smoking" pot, smoking being the safest and fastest way of geting the drug into the bloodstream, but development of these methods is hindered by the illegality of the whole thing. The whole question of driving and marijuana is treated badly in this article. There have been a number of studies, and the best summary of them all is that yes, it does have an effect, but it is smilar to many over the counter drugs or talking on a cell phone. Obviously the effects are different if someone is not used to either driving or being high. But it is certainly not a problem of the same magnitude as alcohol and driving. I know several people who prefer marijuan to coffee for long distance freeway driving. So once again we see how making something illegal makes it more harmful. This is true of marijuana as well as all other illegal drugs, as weel as other illegal, victimless crimes like prostitution. When will they ever learn.... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by Offspring on July 09, 2001 at 10:30:02 PT |
| Finally, no pot smoker on the planet would deny the existence of a phenomenon universally known as the munchies. Another study published in June, by researchers at the State University of New York at Buffalo, found that marijuana users eat more salty snacks and cheese than nonusers. They also eat fewer fruits and vegetables, consume greater amounts of beer and soda, and smoke more cigarettes. Whatever you think about marijuana, you're kidding yourself if you believe that the path to better health runs through the chips-and-dip aisle at 7-Eleven So what he is saying is people with Aids who don't have an appetite is not to eat. He 's saying its better to not eat than it is to smoke marijuana and eat a bag of chips. I'm sorry if I'm wrong but I don't think its healthy to waste away. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |