MSN.com posts bullshit article on marijuana

[Guest Matt Young]

From MSN.com; more specifically http://content.health.msn.com/content/arti...icle/1685.53652

 

Pot as Tough on Lungs as Tobacco

 

Today's Cannabis Stronger, With More Carcinogens, Than in the 1960s

By Jeanie Davis

Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD

WebMD Medical News

 

Nov. 12, 2002 -- Strong words of warning for those who smoke pot: British researchers have found that smoking pure cannabis harms your lungs as much as tobacco does.

 

 

Smoking three cannabis joints a day causes the same damage to the lining of the airways as 20 cigarettes. In fact, the tar from a joint contains 50% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco, says the report, published by the British Lung Foundation.

 

 

"These statistics will come as a surprise to many people, especially those who choose to smoke cannabis rather than tobacco in the belief that it is 'safer' for them," says Mark Britton, MD, chairman of the British Lung Foundation.

 

 

The report surveys all current medical and scientific research into the direct effects of smoking marijuana -- both alone and with tobacco -- on the smoker's respiratory health.

 

 

Among the findings:

 

 

The cannabis smoked today is much more potent than that smoked in the 1960s -- more than 15 times as potent.

 

People who smoke cannabis have significantly more respiratory symptoms such as chronic cough and mucus production, wheezing, and acute bronchitis.

 

Smoking three or four cannabis cigarettes a day causes the same degree of damage to the lining of the airways as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.

 

Cannabis tends to be smoked in a way that increases the puff volume by two-thirds and the depth of inhalation by one-third. There is an average fourfold longer breath-holding time with cannabis than with tobacco. This means that there is a greater respiratory burden of carbon monoxide and smoke particulates such as tar than when smoking a similar quantity of tobacco.

 

As with tobacco smoking, the research also shows a possible link between cannabis smoking and emphysema.

 

A survey earlier this year showed that 79% of children believe that cannabis was 'safe,' according to the British Lung Foundation's news release. Only 2% understood correctly that there are health risks associated with smoking pot.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

SOURCES: News release, British Lung Foundation • Mark Britton, MD, chairman, British Lung Foundation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This article is flawed in so many ways that it is almost laughable. I will address each point individually. The main source I used was Erowid.org's cannabis vault. Also, the most important and convincing source is my own personal experience, which cannot be questioned. Everything is in my own words, even if the info was acquired from a different source. And so we begin...

 

"The cannabis smoked today is much more potent than that smoked in the 1960s -- more than 15 times as potent."

 

Although I obviously wasn't around in the 60's and can't vouch for the potency of the marijuana of that era, various studies have disproven this myth. For one, each cannabis strain has its own varying potency. Also, each person has their own tolerance and requires a differing amount to achieve similar effects. However, if today's cannabis were indeed more potent than that of the 60's, it would be safer, because people would require less of it to get high. All in all, this claim is basically worthless, as it has been proven that cannabis potency has not changed much at all in hundreds of years.

 

"People who smoke cannabis have significantly more respiratory symptoms such as chronic cough and mucus production, wheezing, and acute bronchitis."

 

This is true if you're comparing cannabis smokers to people who don't smoke anything at all. If someone is a heavy smoker, certain complications may occur. Inhaling any type of smoke is dangerous, but the dangers of cannabis smoking are greatly exaggerated by the media. Also, compared to tobacco, the risks are much less prevalent. People tend to smoke far less cannabis than tobacco, and while it does contain a greater volume of tar than most tobacco, it contains NONE of the over 100 carcinogens (cancer causing elements) that are in tobacco cigarettes.

 

"Smoking three or four cannabis cigarettes a day causes the same degree of damage to the lining of the airways as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day."

 

Right from the start, this claim is flawed. This does not tell you how much marijuana was put into the joints (excuse me, cannabis cigarettes). How are we to compare? Tobacco cigarettes contain a standardized amount of plant material in them. Marijuana cigarettes, on the other hand, are rolled by the smoker personally and can contain various amount of cannabis. The amount varies for each person, and thus it is impossible to make such a claim. Were the people who are alluded to in this study smoking a cigarette sized joint, or were they puffing a fat Cheech and Chong spliff? So many questions, so few answers.

 

Also, cannabis contains THC, which is a bronchial dilator. THC opens up (dilates) your lungs, which aids in the clearance of dirt and other harmful particles. Nicotine (the principal chemical in cigarette smoke, which also causes addiction) constricts the lungs and makes it harder to breathe and eliminate debris.

 

"Cannabis tends to be smoked in a way that increases the puff volume by two-thirds and the depth of inhalation by one-third. There is an average fourfold longer breath-holding time with cannabis than with tobacco. This means that there is a greater respiratory burden of carbon monoxide and smoke particulates such as tar than when smoking a similar quantity of tobacco."

 

The first part is a generalization, as every smoker is different, but it is for the most part correct. Most cannabis smokers do inhale more deeply and for a longer period of time than tobacco smokers, in order to absorb as much THC as possible. Cannabis smoke does contain more tar than tobacco smoke, but even low tar cigarettes cause cancer, and marijuana smokers inhale much less smoke compared to tobacco smokers, as stated before, so it really is a non-factor. It is also important to note that NOT ONE case of lung cancer resulting from marijuana use alone has ever been documented. Besides, if one wishes to avoid smoke inhalation, cannabis is edible and you can achieve the effects by ingesting it orally with no damage to your lungs.

 

"As with tobacco smoking, the research also shows a possible link between cannabis smoking and emphysema."

 

If it's only a possible link (which apparently means it's not proven) then there's really no point in trying to disprove it. However, obviously inhaling any kind of smoke is harmful to your lungs, and thus has the potential to cause diseases such as emphysema if used in excess over long periods of time.

 

Well, that about covers every point. As you can see, the majority of it is just the usual bullshit propaganda. It makes me sick to see such things published as "fact". It hurts the cause for cannabis legalization, and really these are all half-truths and/or outright lies that misinform the general public. Hopefully I've educated you a little bit on the reality that lies beyond the veil of media and government propaganda. And don't even get me started on the "marijuana causes brain damage" myth... I think I've disproven that just by writing this.

 

If anyone cared enough to read through all this, I appreciate it. I welcome any and all feedback, whether positive or negative, and any additional thoughts or questions are encouraged.

 

 

Thanks!

-Matt Young

[Guest TJH]

Well Matt, I think you're right on the money.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Joints also aren't filtered. That's signifigant.

 

Smoke is smoke, though, and not good on the lungs. Healthy smoke is an oxymoron.

 

Making brownies does eradicate all those risks, since nothing is inhaled, obviously. Just gotta worry about packing on the pounds from trying to be Tommy Chong and Little Debbie at the same time, though.

 

Either way, I'm still gettin' high.

[Guest J*ingus]

Just legalize the stuff, and we'll be seeing good ol' mass produced preservative-filled Marlboro Greens in no time. (I wonder what a menthol joint would be like?)

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Just add a dash of scope to your bongwater.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Considering the validity of the source, I stopped reading after the actual article, because it's like watching a tobacco smoker rationalize their own behavior even though they know that it's no good for them whatsoever.

 

I mean, it's not like they've got a Truth for marijuana now.

 

Now then, those Anti-Ecstasy adverts just cheese me off.

 

Kotzenjunge

Try Telling The Kids How To Avert It, Why Don't You?

[Guest LooseCannon]

Also, the most important and convincing source is my own personal experience, which cannot be questioned.

You did a pretty good job. I don't have anything new to add, but the quoted sentence isn't true.

[Guest cynicalprofit]

Now then, those Anti-Ecstasy adverts just cheese me off.

 

Yeah, but ecstacy CAN kill you and causes major holes in your brain.

[Guest Some Guy]

Well it didn't kill me and as far as I know there aren't any holes in my brain. But my "E" phase was only about 6 months of reasonably heavy usage in 1999, so maybe I didn't do enough of it.

 

Matt, how is it that we are supposed to believe you and your pro-legalization propaganda is true and that "governmental propaganda" is false?

Just a question.

Personally I don't give a shit what people do as long as they aren't hurting anybody else. So all these stats and whatnot don;t mean anything to me. I think they should legalize pot and regulate it like alcohol.

[Guest Matt Young]

Well, I admit that I worded my statement about my experience incorrectly. You have no reason to believe my opinions over the anti-drug propaganda. However, what I meant is that I could vouch for everything I posted with my own personal experience. While it was written in my own words, everything I posted in response to the article is backed up by facts from various legitimate studies on the subject.

 

Also, Kotzenjunge... I'm not attempting to pick a fight, because I enjoy your posts and have no problem with you, but do you have any idea what you are talking about? You immediately dismissed my opinions (which once again, are backed up by legitimate sources) without even reading them. Have you ever tried marijuana? It's fine if you don't want to... it's your decision. However, if you have not, then you are in no position to say that what I stated has no merit.

 

Also, I don't know if this is what you were implying by your statement regarding the anti-ecstacy commercials, but are you saying you support ecstacy? Don't get me wrong... Although I've never tried it, I have nothing against ecstacy. I am all for allowing people to make their own decisions regarding what they put in their bodies. However, ecstacy is FAR more dangerous than marijuana. Do you drink alcohol? That, too, is far more hazardous to your health than marijuana.

 

Once again, I'm not trying to pick a fight... I just don't really see what logic was put behind your statements. Also, if you don't do ecstacy or drink alcohol, you may disregard the things I said relating to those. I wasn't sure whether you did them or not, but just in case, I figured I'd address the subjects.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Ecstasy kills if you don't take the proper precautions (eat beforehand and drink LOTS of water for one), and puts holes in your brain if you go on something like a weeklong binge where you're on it CONSTANTLY. I'm not saying it isn't wrong to tell about the dangers, but they could at least say how to avoid them because they ARE avoidable, unlike marijuana, which even if you use responsibly and stuff, still has lots of smoke and such involved.

 

Kotzenjunge

Knows A Lot Of E-Tards

[Guest TJH]

What everyone seems to miss, is that practically no-one smokes enough pot to cause lung cancer.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Do you drink alcohol? That, too, is far more hazardous to your health than marijuana.

 

Not if you don't drink yourself stupid.

[Guest Retro Rob]

Ecstatsy kills when a person doesn't drink water before or during the high. Reason being, E dehydrates you, thus raises your body temperature to deadly levels. Your body temperature can be so high that even hours after you die it will still be in the 100's.

 

As for the holes in the brain, I don't know a lot about it. You probably wouldn't know about the holes anyway unless you used E very heavily for a long time. If you are curious, go get a CAT scan.

[Guest NoCalMike]

What everyone seems to miss, is that practically no-one smokes enough pot to cause lung cancer.

Exactly. Your "average" pot smoker does not smoke everyday, or even every other day. The ads and propogandha against marijuana are just ridiculous and should be paid no attention to. Just treat drugs like a health problem, not a criminal problem.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The point you're missing here is that if it was legalized and you didn't have to buy it off a dealer, the prices would be lowered to the point where you COULD smoke it every day, and you would have people smoking a pack, two packs a day.

[Guest snuffbox]

Note- The findings are by the Brittish Medical Board, they are currently promoting several medicinal uses of marijuana, and only posted these sites so that people can make their own determinations. The findings are not propaganda.

 

However, they only used these 'three cannabis cigarettes' to analyze their findings. They fail to mention the size, or the quality of the herb in question. Also, the comparison is one pack (20) of cigareetes to three joints. Hour many people across the globe smoke a good pack a day? Compared to the number who will smoke 3 joints to themselves? This is seriously getting close to the million to one ratio!

And joints are probably among the more dangerous means of smoking, due to the increased ammount os resins, and the lack of a filter.

 

When I smoked cigarettes I smoked a pack of unfiltered cigarettes a day...and quit with the appearance of the 'black vomit'. I have yet to puke ebony from a joint.

 

The only legit reason that marijuana remains illegal is because the polititians refuse to admit when they are wrong. And thats is why so many problems in these 'civilized nations' continue to regress, not move forward. Our leaders cant admit an error and correct their mistakes.

 

The legalization of marijuana will remain a long, long road. But at the very least, the British board is not merely propagandizing, and are seriously weighing the benefits of legalization.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

A lot more people than you think smoke a pack a day.

[Guest snuffbox]

"A lot more people than you think smoke a pack a day. "

 

Exactly! And the mumber of people smoking 3 joints, entirely to themselves, in a day is very very small. Thus the comparison shouldnt even be made!

 

"The point you're missing here is that if it was legalized and you didn't have to buy it off a dealer, the prices would be lowered to the point where you COULD smoke it every day, and you would have people smoking a pack, two packs a day. "

 

Riiiight. People will be able to smoke joints by the pack....son, you ever heard of passing out? A nap? But that is kinda funny though. You should be in politics!

[Guest Kingpk]

Riiiight. People will be able to smoke joints by the pack....son, you ever heard of passing out? A nap? But that is kinda funny though. You should be in politics!

Where there's a will (and a lack of brain cells), there's a way.

[Guest LooseCannon]

The point you're missing here is that if it was legalized and you didn't have to buy it off a dealer, the prices would be lowered to the point where you COULD smoke it every day, and you would have people smoking a pack, two packs a day.

This statement is pretty ridiculous. I'm not certain prices would fall if it were legalized any more than they would rise for one thing. In fact, I might be inclined to think they would rise. Though it's illegal, there's a plentiful supply of marijuana about. Unlike other drugs, it's damn near impossible for the government to cut the supply, and the market is probably oversaturated if anything. But once legalized, and the government can regulate it head on, then it would be easier to influence the price.

 

Also, there's just no way anybody could smoke a pack of joints in one day. Anybody that's ever smoked marijuana can tell you that.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Fine, if the comparison was 3 joints a day, you don't think people will smoke MORE if it's readily available than if it isn't? Of course they won't be able to handle a pack a day, but if you figure people will smoke more as it becomes more socially acceptable (THEY AREN'T CONFINED TO SMOKING IT IN THEIR BEDROOM AWAY FROM SOCIETY), you think they'll still smoke it only once every three days?

 

That's not only incredibly hopefull, it's also against any possible logic.

 

If 3 joints compares to a pack of cigarettes a day, I am positive people will do at least that and the cancerous effects will be the exact same, if these studies are correct. You make pot out to be this completely harmless, completely independant entity that nobody is ever addicted to and nobody can possibly smoke more than one joint a day. You're nothing more than a pot apologist who is GRASPING for a reason to get it legalized.

 

It's not a fucking miracle drug that has no influence on humanity at all, it is as bad as any other drug (alcohol, smoking, etc). Go ahead, make the argument, "Then why don't we ban that too, then?"

 

I couldn't care less. I don't do either because I'm not a fucking tool who needs that to be happy. Legalization of marijuana is just another example of how humanity is weak. It's just showing everyone that we need something else to affect our brains because we can't be content with living our lives without any outside influence. People, in a toolish manner, need to cloud their brains and sedate themselves in order to 'be themselves' or some fucked up logic. Go ahead, legalize it. It's not like people have let that phase them in the past, might as well make some money off of it.

 

That being said, the prices will go down because of the simple fact that it will be available en masse. You're not gonna have to go to a dealer, who gets his product fourth-hand from some drug lord in Columbia, they'll be harvesting the product in great supply everywhere the product can grow. Thus, the already "oversaturated market" will become even more oversaturated, reducing costs due to the sheer fact that every Quik-E-Mart has a pack of weed.

 

Yes, I would make a good politician.

[Guest LooseCannon]

I certainly don't believe it's a miracle drug either, as some might have you believe. 3 joints a day is possible, but more than that is starting to stretch it, I think. I know people who smoke everyday now, but not a joint everyday by themselves, though I'm sure on occasion they do smoke that much. You're right that it'd probably be done more by some because it'll be more socially acceptable. I was only disagreeing with the idea that people would smoke a pack a day. That'd be an insane amount of marijauna to smoke in a day. But I think I misinterpeted your saying a pack. I guess you meant a pack in the sense that 3 joints is comparable to a pack of cigarettes.

 

That being said, the prices will go down because of the simple fact that it will be available en masse. You're not gonna have to go to a dealer, who gets his product fourth-hand from some drug lord in Columbia, they'll be harvesting the product in great supply everywhere the product can grow. Thus, the already "oversaturated market" will become even more oversaturated, reducing costs due to the sheer fact that every Quik-E-Mart has a pack of weed.

 

What I believe you're overlooking in this paragraph is that it is available en masse now. Most of the marijuana in this country wasn't grown in Columbia. A lot of it was made in the U.S. It's a very durable plant that can grow and thrive under many different conditions. And the fact is, it is very plentiful here, probably even at the point where increasing the supply in the market will have a neglible effect on prices. The supply curve only goes so low for any product. I think the fact that the government as well as for profit corporations will be getting involved would lead to the price rising rather than dropping.

 

Anyway, I don't paticularly care about the legalization movement. It's not my cause, whether you believe it or not. I've smoked it in the past, but I really don't like it much. I find it kind've boring actually. I am in favor of it being legalized, because I believe the cost of prohibiting it outweigh any benefits. It's not a big deal to me though.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The cost will still go down initially, though. It'll be like cigarettes: sometimes, they're ridiculously overpriced and sometimes they're not.

 

If the government regulates growth of marijuana, production will STILL go up because the cost of producing it (and finding places to produce it) will be much easier to bear. It'll likely be produced like tobacco is now; massive fields on plantation-like farms.

 

Make no mistake, I'm not saying it will be cheap to buy at any rate. However, the sheer fact that it's widely available (even moreso; you can't deny that putting it on shelves will make it even more available than it is now) will drive prices down.

[Guest LooseCannon]

If we made cigarettes illegal, the prices would probably go down. Similiarly, I think putting marijuana on the shelves of stores would make the price go up. You're adding quite a bit of overhead not to mention taxes to the cost. I'm not really convinced that the supply of marijuana would increase either. There is no evidence that the government has been successful at all in restricting the supply of marijuana on the market. People that are in the business of making a product, as would be the case if marijuana is ever legalized, just do not oversaturate the market. Professionals are just too smart to be that stupid.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

*ACTUALLY*, I know for a fact that in some southern states, people go so far as to put signs in their fields saying they do not plant marijuana because the government has been busting farmers who have marijuana in their fields.

 

The sheer fact that they no longer need to hide their crops would tend to make the overhead less, as they can mass-produce the crop much moreso than they already have.

 

Again, I'm not saying it's gonna be a cheap product. However, I doubt the price would go UP, of all things. Overhead would decrease because farming methods would become much easier with the lack of a need to hide their crop. That is what common logic would say, but then again, I'm not an expert on the harvesting of marijuana.

 

I guess we'll see who is right in a few years, though.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Most people who smoke marijuana, do it when they want to right now anyway. Just because it is in a store does mean they are going to magically feel the need to smoke it everyday. Just the same as alcohol is right now. If you have any sense in your mind, you use it in moderation and when appropriate.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Oh, I'm sorry, I haven't seen the masses of people walking around outside smoking a joint.

 

Forgive me.

[Guest LooseCannon]

I guess we'll see who is right in a few years, though.

 

I rather doubt it.

 

 

But overhead would increase, in my opinion, if only because the packaging is likely to cost more than the crop itself and there will be taxes on top of it. My argument is that the supply is already at the point where increasing the supply will not cause the price to drop. Supply curves are not linear. There is inevitably a point where increasing the supply does not cause a drop in prices. The government's efforts, valiant as they are, to restrict the supply has had an effect in the miniscule percentages. Frankly, it seems to be a waste of time and resources. Also once legalized the supply will be controlled by either the government or by a few for-profit corporations, rather than uncontrolled entirely and entirely open. But you could be right. The thing is, from my point of view, you can't really make assumptions about how prices will be affected when something goes from the black market to the legal market. There are a lot of factors involved, and neither one of us is probably considering all of them to make this kind of assessment.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

You're absolutely right. Neither one of us has all the facts, it's simply a matter of opinion right now. Either one of us could be right, and I'm sorry if I came off as sounding like I know something about which I probably don't have a great grasp. No, i wasn't a Columbian drug lord in my past life

 

However, I think even getting the initiative on the ballot was a major step towards legalization and very soon, it will come up on more than just one ballot... and eventually, when the public is informed of the potential profit resulting from legalization, they will go for it.

 

Frankly, I stated my views on it... I, by no means, support the consumption of marijuana. However, if no government regulation is gonna curtail the use anyway and the consequences of legalization is minimal (the product only harms people as much as drinking and smoking tobacco combined, really), you might as well make a profit off of the God-forsaken habit.