Not too glowing health article on cannabis in BBC..

  • Auteur de la discussion Auteur de la discussion st.bot.32
  • Date de début Date de début

st.bot.32

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7150274.stm

Basically saying smoking it carries a far greater risk of cancer, etc. Just realizing that the increasing restrictions affecting tobacco WILL affect cannabis should it ever be decriminalized.

(But I prefer to do it orally! :lol: )
 
nothing new under the sun

that is why drugs should be taken orally rather than smoked :wink:

besides you get more of it and waste less in fumes dispersed in the air and no one to enjoy it.....
 
Well, stoners like myself didn't spend hundreds of bucks on a vaporizer just because they're too lazy to use a lighter. We know that smoke is harmful to the lungs.

Why did they undertake this study? Or, in other words, who funded it?

Where can we find their research methods and exact findings?
Which brand of tobacco did they use, and was it heavy or mild?

Which type of cannabis did they use?
How was the cannabis dried, and how old was it?
At what stage of the plant's development was it harvested?
How carefully did they take out the stems and the seeds (if at all)?
Did the smoke machine inhale realistic amounts of cannabis?

Did they investigate the difference between vaporized tobacco and vaporized cannabis?
 
"The Canadian government research found"
Oh, I see, that answers at least one of my questions.

The Health Canada team also found five times as much hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides, which are linked to heart and lung damage respectively.
Great, now show us some practical examples of stoners with heart and lung damage.

Previous research has shown cannabis smoke is more harmful to lungs than tobacco as it is inhaled more deeply and held in the lungs for a longer period.
How about the cannaboids? What effect do they have on lung tissue if the user keeps those in a little longer?

However, it has also been acknowledged that the average tobacco user smokes more than a cannabis user.
Great "acknowledgement" for the fact that tobacco is highly addictive. We almost forgot.

Researchers from Health Canada, the government's health research department, used a smoking machine to analyse the composition of the inhaled smoke for nearly 20 harmful chemicals.
Smoking machines are great tools for scientific research. Now plug in the Volcano!

Lead researcher David Moir said: "The consumption of marijuana through smoking remains a reality and among the young seems to be increasing.
It's not marijuana mr. Scientist, it's Cannabis. Marijuana is slang from the 30s used to describe "that evil narcotic" which the Mexicans liked to smoke after a day of hard work.

"The confirmation of the presence of known carcinogens and other chemical is important information for public health."
Yes, so let's make plastic and fossil fuel illegal. And stop putting fluoride and mercury into our bodies.

Dr Richard Russell, a specialist at the Windsor Chest Clinic, said: "The health impact of cannabis is often over-looked amid the legal debate.
No, it's not overlooked. Everybody's talking about...medical cannabis!

"Tobacco from manufacturers has been enhanced and cleaned whereas cannabis is relatively unprocessed and therefore is a much dirtier product.
Unprocessed equals dirtier? Then how about legalizing cannabis, so we can start selling highly processed/purified cannabis? I'm sure many of us can do a much better job than the guys at Lucky Strike.

"These findings do not surprise me. The toxins from cannabis smoke cause lung inflammation, lung damage and cancer."
And so do the toxins in the chair I'm sitting on. Indeed, if I would try to smoke an orange, it probably wouldn't be a very good idea.

Stephen Spiro, of the British Lung Foundation, added the findings were "a great worry".
*cough!*
 
just another propaganda pamphlet i love how these guys publish only what they want the public to think with virtually no evidence. I mean at school anti-drug presentations they show all kinds of examples of people whose lives have been ruined by heroine, tobacco, crack, PCP etc. but then when they get to pot they just say something like smoking 1 joint is equal to smoking 10 cigarettes and they might say something like smoking pot gives you cancer but they don't back it up with anything i mean almost every study done on pot has been drastically and ridiculously set up to make it look like a monster. Scientists once put a chimpanzee in a little metal box and pumped it full of pot-smoke so that there was virtually no oxygen left then claimed that their results told them smoking pot causes brain damage in monkeys..... :shock:
 
this "study" shouldn't bother any stoner, as it's been said smoking has bad consequences but the fault is the mechanism, smoking ANYTHING is bad. We smoke less than tobacco addicts, not just less times but less joints, and we stop from times (if not, you should). I think the evil carcinogens can be kept at bay, smoking with a reasonable limits policy, like we do with other things in life, like junk food or other non extreme "risks" that are normal anyway. We can reduce them but they'll never be zero. AND it's been proven that cannabis has anti-carcinogenic properties, there's a link somewhere, GOD posted it.
 
Well that’s hypocritically duplicitous!

Tobacco is enhanced and cleaned by tobacco manufacturers?
Enhanced with death and cleaned with the blood of thousands, maybe.

Tobacco companies never tell you about the radioactivity of some of their ‘enhancements’. Or the fact that tobacco’s psychoactive constituent is a neurotoxin, while cannabinoid’s have been shown to be neuro-protective.

The comparison of smoke contents of both tobacco and cannabis can be found here.
More information about the health degradation caused by tobacco smoking.

Peace.
 
the first of the sites buffachino posted a dit:
Many people think smoking marijuana is just as harmful as
smoking tobacco, but this is not true. Those who hold that
marijuana is equivalent to tobacco are misinformed. Due to the
efforts of various federal agencies to discourage use of
marijuana in the 1970's the government, in a fit of "reefer
madness," conducted several biased studies designed to return
results that would equate marijuana smoking with tobacco smoking,
or worse.
For example the Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the
late 1970's concluded that "marijuana is one-and-a-half times as
carcinogenic as tobacco." This finding was based solely on the
tar content of cannabis leaves compared to that of tobacco, and
did not take radioactivity into consideration. (Cannabis tars do
not contain radioactive materials.) In addition, it was not
considered that:
1) Most marijuana smokers smoke the bud, not the leaf, of
the plant. The bud contains only 33% as much tar as tobacco.
2) Marijuana smokers do not smoke anywhere near as much as
tobacco smokers, due to the psychoactive effects of cannabis.
3) Not one case of lung cancer has ever been successfully
linked to marijuana use.
4) Cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not cause any narrowing of
the small air passageways in the lungs.
In fact, marijuana has been shown to be an expectorant and
actually dilates the air channels it comes in contact with. This
is why many asthma sufferers look to marijuana to provide relief.
Doctors have postulated that marijuana may, in this respect, be
more effective than all of the prescription drugs on the market.

thanks for spreading the good info man
 
Tobacco from manufacturers has been enhanced and cleaned whereas cannabis is relatively unprocessed and therefore is a much dirtier product.

And the 100 additives in a regular cigarette are totally harmless, of course.
 
March 10, 2008, Vienna, Austria. The United Nations is coming together to discuss the results of the last 10 years of their stupid war on drugs. And make plans for the future...

They need some bashing on cannabis again to justify what they're doing and want to continue. I expect some more articles like this in the upcoming months.

Or am I paranoia?
 
I havent wasted my time reading the web article , i did hear about it and thought that its just an old story warmed up . Yes cannabis does contain more carcinogens than tobaco , but it doesnt contain the things that are responsible for lung cancer = smoking anything causes leasions in the lumgs ( = small cuts ) , with tobaco the nikotin , wich is a nerve poison , gets in the leasions , paralises the cells around it then the radioactivity that comes from the fertiliser that they put on tobaco plants fucks the cells up and then the carcinogens have a free ride and cause cancer .

" Or am I paranoia? "

No .
 
GOD a dit:
the radioactivity that comes from the fertiliser that they put on tobaco plants

:shock: please give some more information...
why does fertiliser have radiation levels above natural radioactivity?

i thought the cancer is caused by the tar, which is a mitoticum
 
If you look at the post above by Buff and press the blue underlined " radioactivity" link it explains it very well .
 
GOD a dit:
If you look at the post above by Buff and press the blue underlined " radioactivity" link it explains it very well .

ok sorry, my bad... :oops:
 
Yet another follow-up article, worse this time around:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7217601.stm

Basically saying that cannabis smokers run into certain lung problems 20 years earlier than tobacco smokers.

And yeah, interesting how these articles never mention vaporizers or other ways of taking MJ.. (although this one sort of mentions something in passing with no detail at the end of the article).
 
"Many people don't know that smoking a joint is more harmful to the lungs than smoking a cigarette, as marijuana is often inhaled more deeply and held for longer," said Dr Noemi Eiser, honorary medical director of the British Lung Foundation.

THis is the first thing I want to address, especially the bold part which is IMHO not a real fact nor a real danger. You can choose how long/deep to inhale but for me I usually don't inhale that deep or hold the smoke especially long.

One study found a higher risk of lung cancer for those who smoked one joint a day compared with those who smoked 20 cigarettes a day over the same period.

1 Joint a day? I don't know what y'all think but to my ears this is MAJOR cannabis abuse. I wouldn't be able to function properly smoking this ammount. For me it's once or twice a week max.

He added that inhaling smoke from any burning object was intrinsically harmful, and that policy should focus more on educating people about the risks of taking the drug - which can be taken using other methods - in this way.

I guess this isn't too bad. For me the ritual of rolling a joint, and the way it's smoked is a way of keeping it special, but it should be clear to everyone that for example vaping IS alot less harmful.
(though I tend to inhale quite extremely deep on those, and keep it longer in my lungs)[/b]
 
Like you I try to keep it to twice a week (sometimes less, sometimes more) but a joint just won't do it for me.. i need to smoke a lot to get the effect I want. But not too often, either.

I have other friends besides myself whom have started doing cannabis orally.... and it basically makes us do it less (which is fine) and the buzz I'm starting to like even more than smoking..

Hoping that articles like this won't add new somewhat legitimate scientific fodder to the prohibitionists' arsenal.. oh wells!
 
st.bot.32 a dit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7150274.stm

Basically saying smoking it carries a far greater risk of cancer, etc. Just realizing that the increasing restrictions affecting tobacco WILL affect cannabis should it ever be decriminalized.

(But I prefer to do it orally! :lol: )

This is old news.
We know for years that smoking cannabis give you a greater risk of cancer.

(If you smoke it like this):

joint.jpg
 
Nice one :D
 
Retour
Haut