Quote:
Originally Posted by TSGracchus
I don't think we can conclude that, unless we assume up front that public policy is always made in a way that makes sense. It's entirely possible that the goal IS to improve public health, but also that politicians in Holland are as stupid as the ones we have here. Also, remember that when crafting legislation, competing interests are always weighed against each other and compromised; Holland has been a haven of sensible libertarian drug policy for many years now and to retreat from that even in a way that actually makes sense would be difficult and provoke opposition.
Norrin: if marijuana is less harmful to marijuana smokers than tobacco is to tobacco smokers, the reason is not that the smoke itself is less harmful but simply that far less of it is smoked. No pot smoker inhales 40 joints a day. Not even my ex-wife ever came near that. Use a little common sense; you cannot inhale particulates without risking lung damage. It doesn't matter whether it's tobacco smoke, pot smoke, smog, or wood smoke.
When we are talking about second-hand smoke rather than primary, how much of the stuff people smoke becomes irrelevant. If it's in the air and you're not smoking it yourself, you're going to be affected equally whether that's the only joint the smoker will smoke in that day, or one of 40 cigarettes. It will make a difference to the smoker himself, but not to you.
|
While I agree that no pot smokers smoke 40 joints a day, I do know some very heavy users and have known many heavy users throughout my life.
If marijauna is as dangerous to the lungs as some people want us to believe, it should be rather easy to prove through medical studies.
So, why the conflicting data?
I do not claim that marijuana has no effect on the lungs.
It is common sense that inhaling smoke into the lungs on a daily basis probably isn't good for a person, but most of what we were told about marijuana in the past was all lies, so it is important to be careful when looking at the REAL health effects from marijuana.
Here is a recent study which seems to be pretty decent........
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (HealthDay) -- A single joint of marijuana obstructs the flow of air as much as smoking up to five tobacco cigarettes, but long-term pot use does not increase the risk of developing emphysema, new research suggests.
The study by New Zealand's Medical Research Institute found that longtime pot smokers can develop symptoms of asthma and bronchitis, along with obstruction of the large airways and excessive lung inflation. The paper was released Tuesday ahead of its publication in the journal Thorax.
"The study shows that one cannabis joint causes a similar degree of lung damage as between 2.5 and five tobacco cigarettes," said lead author Sarah Aldington.
However, the researchers found that the progressive chronic lung disease emphysema, often associated with cigarette smoking, was uncommon among marijuana smokers. Only 1.3 percent of the long-term pot smokers were found to have signs of the disease compared to 16.3 percent of those who combined marijuana and tobacco, and 18.9 percent of those who only smoked tobacco.
Marijuana smokers had symptoms that included wheezing, coughing, chest tightness and phlegm — all of which were associated with tobacco smokers, except chest tightness.
The study, which used lung function tests, high-resolution X-rays and questionnaires, also revealed that among marijuana smokers damage occurred to the small, fine airways which are important for taking in oxygen and removing waste gases. The extent of damage rose in proportion to the number of joints smoked.
So, according to this study long time pot smokers can acquire the same symptoms as bronchitis and asthma.
Well, this makes sense and I would say it is likely true.
So, how does the danger from marijuana compare to the dangers of legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol?
Obviously, there is no comparison and marijuana is far safer on health than tobacco and is safer than heavy use of alcohol.
For years we were told marijuana increases the risk of lung cancer, but now it is coming out that there is NO INCREASED RISK OF LUNG CANCER FROM SMOKING POT.
In fact, researchers are now learning that marijuana can help shrink certain types of tumors.
So, why did the government bury their study from 1974?
Why did the government make it very difficult to do marijuana research?
Why does the government only send poor grade marijuana to researchers for their research?
US CA: Medical Marijuana Researchers Bummed About Poor
Lone Patient Quits Marijuana Study
Health Canada may charge more for poor medical cannabis | NORML's Daily Audio Stash
Scientists say they need an alternative partly because the government's marijuana is of such poor quality - too many seeds and stems - and partly because the federal officials are so loath to give it out for research into its medical benefits.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/27/op...27tierney.html
So, why does the government refuse to allow quality pot to be used in studies? Why do the insist on giving out poor quality marijuana?
On Wednesday they made their case at a press conference on the sidewalk outside the headquarters of D.E.A., which still hasn’t followed the recommendation of its own administrative law judge in a medical-marijuana case. In February, as I noted, the judge concluded “that there is currently an inadequate supply of marijuana available for research purposes”
Marc Kaufman of the Post quotes a researcher who joined Dr. Craker on the sidewalk:
“The D.E.A. has an opportunity here to live up to its rhetoric, which has been that marijuana advocates should work on conducting research rather than filing lawsuits,” said Richard Doblin, president of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, which has fought for years for access to government-controlled supplies to test possible medical uses of marijuana.
“It’s become more and more obvious that the D.E.A. has been obstructing potentially beneficial medical research, and now is the time for them to change,” he said.
Researchers hope to do more experiments with vaporizers, but they’re stymied by the limited supply of marijuana available from the only legal source, a federal farm in Mississippi. They’re also frustrated by what they say is the poor quality of that product. They say that a new supply of better marijuana from Dr. Craker would be a boon to research.
Marijuana Researchers Make Progress in the Lab, But Not in Washington - TierneyLab - Science - New York Times Blog
SO, WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT AFRAID OF?
OH YEAH, THEY ARE AFRAID THAT PEOPLE WILL LEARN WHAT THE GOVERNMENT LEARNED BACK IN 1974........
In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.
The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the events in his book, "The Emperor Wears No Clothes." In 1976 President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out -- unsuccessfully -- to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."
Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in '74 | AlterNet