Smoking Weed. A Question.

NirvAnamation

Well-Known Member
Has anyone here had any bad lung problems due to smoking weed? I'm just curious, because I have always been told that weed smoke is safer than tobacco. I have been smoking weed for a while and I dont have any problems.

Anyways, Do you guys have any weed smoke related health problems?
(I dont know if this is the right forum to post this in)
bongsmilie
 

ruderalis88

Well-Known Member
Has anyone here had any bad lung problems due to smoking weed? I'm just curious, because I have always been told that weed smoke is safer than tobacco. I have been smoking weed for a while and I dont have any problems.

Anyways, Do you guys have any weed smoke related health problems?
(I dont know if this is the right forum to post this in)
bongsmilie
i've actually heard the opposite, that weed smoke is worse than tobacco, but i dunno for sure. in any case, there's not much of a difference in it.

negatory on the weed smoke-related ailments, just my brain is slow when i smoke a lot and not so much when i don't
 

TwinTigerz

Well-Known Member
No health problems at all.

hell I would go so far to say I feel physically and mentally better for weeks after ive had a good smoke.

Especialy since I dont drink or smoke tobacco, just smoke the good old weed and got no problems.
 

Pumert

Well-Known Member
This should help lemme noe if you want the full article






Cancer

Smoking marijuana has the potential to cause both bronchitis and cancer of the lungs, throat, and neck, but this is generally no different than inhaling any other burnt carbon-containing matter since they all increase the number of lesions (and therefore possible infections) in your airways. There are a couple of studies that claim on the basis of carcinogens that smoking marijuana is worse for your body than smoking a cigarette, but these are rather simplified. There are actually some very convincing reasons to believe that smoking cigarettes is relatively more dangerous to the body than smoking marijuana on more than one count: (1) It is accepted by a growing number of scientists today that all American cigarettes contain significant levels of polonium-210, the same sort of radiation given off by the plutonium of atom bombs (ionizing alpha radiation). It just so happens that the tobacco plant's roots and leaves are especially good at absorbing radioactive elements from uranium-containing phosphate fertilizers that are required by U.S. law, and from naturally occurring radiation in the soil, air, and water. It is the opinion of C. Everette Koop that this radioactivity, not tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking-related lung cancer. Other estimates that have been made are, about 50% according to Dr. Joseph R. DiFranza of the Univ. of Mass. Medical Center and according to Dr. Edward Martell, a radiochemist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, 95%. Dr. R.T. Ravenholt, former director of World Health Surveys at the Centers for Disease Control, agrees with the risk, asserting that "Americans are exposed to far more radiation from tobacco smoke than from any other source". Supporting the radioactivity notion is the finding that (a) Relatively high levels of polonium-210 have been found in both cigarette smoke and the lungs of both smokers and nonsmokers alike [60]; ( Smokers of low-tar-and-nicotine cigarettes die of lung cancer just as much as smokers of other cigarettes; and also, © Even the most potent carcinogen that has been found in cigarettes, benzopyrene, is only present in quantities sufficient to account for about 1% of the lung cancer cases that occur from smoking.
 

bigwheel

Well-Known Member
Great thread. I was listening to a Doctor on the radio the other night. Seen him on TV numerous times and goes by the name Denna Dell or close to that. At any rate folks calling in to his show and some stoner told the good Doc he had chronic brohnchitis, copd etc. and was wondering if smoking a little killer weed would aggravate his condition. The Doc say no...loco weed is very good for the lungs, works as an anti inflammatory. Then the Doc went on to tell the guy to get with the program except dont smoke it, vape it. Thats why I got my new vaporizer. That thing is discretely kicking my ass as we speak:)
 

four2zerOallday

Well-Known Member
I once took a Drug class (Through Gateway-rehab and DTesting) that told us that the average joint is equivalent to 10 cigs. They also told us a blunt is equivalent to something like 3 cigs lol. Not a professional but would imagine these numbers are exaggerated. I would think a cig would be much worse with all the bull shit they add to them. Must have been trying to scare us?
 

619SixFour

Well-Known Member
NO! SMOKING WEED DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER! You guys need to do your homework and stop listening to what one guys said that someone told him since he heard it from his cousins friends best sister friend. Go to Norml.com and you will read all the newest scientific studies from prestegious universities that all conclude that MJ smoke is actually good for you. It has be found to fight cancer, not promote it. A recent study found that people that smoke both weed and cigs had less cancer than people that just smoked cigs. Watch the youtube documentary called "Running From the Cure". It is about a man that supports the scientific claims with true, healed patients. But yea, Weed does not cause cancer in anyway. The only thing that has been related to it is the ocasional Bronchitis infection and possible weight gain if your already lazy. Siriously guys, read up on NORML.COM and spread the truth. Owe, I challenge anyone on RIU to find me the names of people that have directly died from smoking weed. I'd bet my 64 Impala that you wont find any!
 

tnrtinr

Well-Known Member
Go to Norml.com and you will read all the newest scientific studies from prestegious universities that all conclude that MJ smoke is actually good for you. It has be found to fight cancer, not promote it. A recent study found that people that smoke both weed and cigs had less cancer than people that just smoked cigs.
Chronic cannabis users actually have a LOWER rate of lung cancer than NON-Smokers.
 

SarcasticHobbes

Well-Known Member
[SIZE=+2]Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006
[/SIZE]

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.
They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.
"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."
Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.
While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.
The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html
 

Don Gin and Ton

Well-Known Member

agreed no link to cancer but my original post still stands the body is not meant to ingest smoke. and carcinogens do give you cancer.

to qoute your link

“We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD. “But we did not find any evidence for an increase in cancer risk for even heavy marijuana smokingCarcinogens are substances that cause cancer.
 
Top