6 ms·

Regarding the health aspects of marijuana, we of course lack the wealth of knowledge that we now have on the detrimental effects of tobacco on pulmonary functio

Regarding the health aspects of marijuana, we of course lack the wealth of knowledge that we now have on the detrimental effects of tobacco on pulmonary function and lung cancer risk. The experts with whom I have discussed this (a few pulmonologists) usually ask about marijuana smoke in the same breath as tobacco smoke, and consider it a probable carcinogen. Fun somewhat-related fact that I learned last week: a one hour hookah session typically equates to a 5 to 10-pack cigarette equivalent.

maxerickson 13y ago
Your last statement sounded weird to me. The matching figure from here: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/tobacco_industry/hookahs/ http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/tobac... would be the volume of smoke inhaled (hookah session = 150 cigarettes). Equivalent is probably the wrong word to describe that.
- WiseWeasel 13y ago
  Given that hookah smoke feels significantly more mild and moist than cigarette smoke, volume alone is likely a poor measure of health impact. OT: "Hookah is also called [...] hubble-bubble [...]" Citation needed.
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    They provide a citation! There are multiple uses of it in Google search results.
    - WiseWeasel 13y ago
      So they did! Their first citation [1] from the American Lung Association even takes it a step further: "Other common names for waterpipes include [...], and hubbly-bubbly." They even cite a study entitled "Hubble-bubble (water pipe) smoking: levels of nicotine and cotinine in plasma, saliva and urine". [2] This rabbit hole goes deep! [1] http://www.lungusa2.org/embargo/slati/Trendalert_Waterpipes.pdf http://www.lungusa2.org/embargo/slati/Trendalert_Waterpipes.... [2] Shafagoj YA, Mohammed FI, Hadidi.KA., Int J of Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002 Jun; 40(6): 249-55.
- carbocation 13y ago
  > Equivalent is probably the wrong word to describe that. This known carcinogen should be treated with respect, even when taken by alternative routes, until there is data demonstrating that the cooling mechanism actually improves safety.
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    I'm not suggesting otherwise. I have managed to eschew tobacco since forever and plan to continue doing so. My main intent was to save every other person that did a double take the trouble.
nerfhammer 13y ago
The deleterious health effects of cigarette smoke is the burning plant matter and not the nicotine, so it wouldn't be surprising if marijuana were in the same ball park of dangerousness. Related is the danger of smoke from ordinary wood fire, see: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion
- learc83 13y ago
  >The deleterious health effects of cigarette smoke is the burning plant matter... I don't think you can say that at all. Of course burning plant matter produces carcinogens, but studies of marijuana smokers haven't found any conclusive evidence of greatly increased cancer risk. There have been some studies that show that smoking tobacco and marijuana together increases cancer risk beyond that of tobacco alone. Smokeless tobacco causes mouth and throat cancers, so something is going on with tobacco itself (or something else common to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco). There is some evidence that radioactive carcinogens found in tobacco play a part in cancer risk.
  - carbocation 13y ago
    > studies of marijuana smokers haven't found any conclusive evidence of greatly increased cancer risk There is epidemiological evidence that marijuana smoking is associated with lung cancer. "Greatly" is subjective so I can't really comment on that.
    - learc83 13y ago
      http://news.thoracic.org/june-july-2013/annals-ats.php http://news.thoracic.org/june-july-2013/annals-ats.php "findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use," "In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared to the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco." By greatly, I meant as bad as tobacco which dramatically increases the risk of lung cancer. The previous poster was commenting on the health risks of tobacco being caused entirely by burning plant matter. However, the evidence suggests this isn't true.
chimeracoder 13y ago
> Regarding the health aspects of marijuana, we of course lack the wealth of knowledge that we now have on the detrimental effects of tobacco on pulmonary function and lung cancer risk. Knowledge is potentially unbounded, but I wouldn't say we "lack" anything. Marijuana is probably the single most well-studied substance on the planet. Most FDA-approved drugs have gone through only a fraction of the level of study and testing that marijuana has. > The experts with whom I have discussed this (a few pulmonologists) usually ask about marijuana smoke in the same breath as tobacco smoke, and consider it a probable carcinogen. I've done a lot of research on this topic; unfortunately it's on another hard drive at the moment, but thankfully it's a very easy topic to research yourself. Marijuana itself is not carcinogenic - in fact, it has cancer-fighting properties in some cases, and could be used as an aid in treating cancer directly, not just symptomatically. Consuming marijuana in edible or vapor form possesses no risk of cancer. Interestingly, there have been a number of studies on heavy marijuana users (who smoke marijuana), and by and large, they have failed to conclude that even moderately heavy use of (smoked) marijuana can be linked to lung cancer. This phenomenon is well-known enough that it has spawned its own set of associated explanatory theories, and studies investigating those. Obligatory XKCD disclaimer: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/
- carbocation 13y ago
  > Consuming marijuana in edible or vapor form possesses no risk of cancer. I would like to see a citation of a study that is powered to detect population-level effects which demonstrates that claim. As an aside, I'd also like to see solid data on vapor form tobacco. There is not a definitive study at this point to demonstrate safety or clearly delineate the risk. It would be nice the be able to give meaningful guidance to patients on the topic of marijuana and tobacco, but right now I believe the most accurate and responsible thing to say is "I don't know."
  - lugg 13y ago
    I've been in the vapor scene for a while, I'm starting to hear a few horror stories about liquid build up in the lungs. My guess is over use but its something to watch for. Regarding pot not causing lung cancer I can't really argue, emphasima on the other hand is a very real thing. While this is anecdotal, my mother is a nurse in a country town where there are a lot of weed only life long smokers and most of the old boys are starting to show up in hospital with emphasima. My understanding was that there is about 10 cigarettes worth of tar in a similarly sized joint. I have heard the old wives story about weed doesn't cause cancer many times. Never have I found any study pertaining to it. Or have I been shown any proof. The idea that there is no carcinogens created from burning plant material of any kind is laughable to me. The amount is questionable only maybe. As from personal experience, heavy daily usage is certainly detrimental to health and breathing capacity. There is a lot of misinformation out there take my views and others with a grain of salt. Disclosure, ive always been a staunch legalisation supporter. Never been a fan of decriminalization. Edit, and no I dont smoke anymore.
rch 13y ago
Don't forget that edibles are very popular too.

maxerickson 13y ago

Your last statement sounded weird to me. The matching figure from here: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/tobacco_industry/hookahs/ http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/tobac... would be the volume of smoke inhaled (hookah session = 150 cigarettes). Equivalent is probably the wrong word to describe that.

WiseWeasel 13y ago
Given that hookah smoke feels significantly more mild and moist than cigarette smoke, volume alone is likely a poor measure of health impact. OT: "Hookah is also called [...] hubble-bubble [...]" Citation needed.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  They provide a citation! There are multiple uses of it in Google search results.
  - WiseWeasel 13y ago
    So they did! Their first citation [1] from the American Lung Association even takes it a step further: "Other common names for waterpipes include [...], and hubbly-bubbly." They even cite a study entitled "Hubble-bubble (water pipe) smoking: levels of nicotine and cotinine in plasma, saliva and urine". [2] This rabbit hole goes deep! [1] http://www.lungusa2.org/embargo/slati/Trendalert_Waterpipes.pdf http://www.lungusa2.org/embargo/slati/Trendalert_Waterpipes.... [2] Shafagoj YA, Mohammed FI, Hadidi.KA., Int J of Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002 Jun; 40(6): 249-55.
carbocation 13y ago
> Equivalent is probably the wrong word to describe that. This known carcinogen should be treated with respect, even when taken by alternative routes, until there is data demonstrating that the cooling mechanism actually improves safety.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  I'm not suggesting otherwise. I have managed to eschew tobacco since forever and plan to continue doing so. My main intent was to save every other person that did a double take the trouble.

nerfhammer 13y ago

The deleterious health effects of cigarette smoke is the burning plant matter and not the nicotine, so it wouldn't be surprising if marijuana were in the same ball park of dangerousness. Related is the danger of smoke from ordinary wood fire, see: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion

learc83 13y ago
>The deleterious health effects of cigarette smoke is the burning plant matter... I don't think you can say that at all. Of course burning plant matter produces carcinogens, but studies of marijuana smokers haven't found any conclusive evidence of greatly increased cancer risk. There have been some studies that show that smoking tobacco and marijuana together increases cancer risk beyond that of tobacco alone. Smokeless tobacco causes mouth and throat cancers, so something is going on with tobacco itself (or something else common to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco). There is some evidence that radioactive carcinogens found in tobacco play a part in cancer risk.
- carbocation 13y ago
  > studies of marijuana smokers haven't found any conclusive evidence of greatly increased cancer risk There is epidemiological evidence that marijuana smoking is associated with lung cancer. "Greatly" is subjective so I can't really comment on that.
  - learc83 13y ago
    http://news.thoracic.org/june-july-2013/annals-ats.php http://news.thoracic.org/june-july-2013/annals-ats.php "findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use," "In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared to the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco." By greatly, I meant as bad as tobacco which dramatically increases the risk of lung cancer. The previous poster was commenting on the health risks of tobacco being caused entirely by burning plant matter. However, the evidence suggests this isn't true.

chimeracoder 13y ago

> Regarding the health aspects of marijuana, we of course lack the wealth of knowledge that we now have on the detrimental effects of tobacco on pulmonary function and lung cancer risk. Knowledge is potentially unbounded, but I wouldn't say we "lack" anything. Marijuana is probably the single most well-studied substance on the planet. Most FDA-approved drugs have gone through only a fraction of the level of study and testing that marijuana has. > The experts with whom I have discussed this (a few pulmonologists) usually ask about marijuana smoke in the same breath as tobacco smoke, and consider it a probable carcinogen. I've done a lot of research on this topic; unfortunately it's on another hard drive at the moment, but thankfully it's a very easy topic to research yourself. Marijuana itself is not carcinogenic - in fact, it has cancer-fighting properties in some cases, and could be used as an aid in treating cancer directly, not just symptomatically. Consuming marijuana in edible or vapor form possesses no risk of cancer. Interestingly, there have been a number of studies on heavy marijuana users (who smoke marijuana), and by and large, they have failed to conclude that even moderately heavy use of (smoked) marijuana can be linked to lung cancer. This phenomenon is well-known enough that it has spawned its own set of associated explanatory theories, and studies investigating those. Obligatory XKCD disclaimer: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/

carbocation 13y ago
> Consuming marijuana in edible or vapor form possesses no risk of cancer. I would like to see a citation of a study that is powered to detect population-level effects which demonstrates that claim. As an aside, I'd also like to see solid data on vapor form tobacco. There is not a definitive study at this point to demonstrate safety or clearly delineate the risk. It would be nice the be able to give meaningful guidance to patients on the topic of marijuana and tobacco, but right now I believe the most accurate and responsible thing to say is "I don't know."
- lugg 13y ago
  I've been in the vapor scene for a while, I'm starting to hear a few horror stories about liquid build up in the lungs. My guess is over use but its something to watch for. Regarding pot not causing lung cancer I can't really argue, emphasima on the other hand is a very real thing. While this is anecdotal, my mother is a nurse in a country town where there are a lot of weed only life long smokers and most of the old boys are starting to show up in hospital with emphasima. My understanding was that there is about 10 cigarettes worth of tar in a similarly sized joint. I have heard the old wives story about weed doesn't cause cancer many times. Never have I found any study pertaining to it. Or have I been shown any proof. The idea that there is no carcinogens created from burning plant material of any kind is laughable to me. The amount is questionable only maybe. As from personal experience, heavy daily usage is certainly detrimental to health and breathing capacity. There is a lot of misinformation out there take my views and others with a grain of salt. Disclosure, ive always been a staunch legalisation supporter. Never been a fan of decriminalization. Edit, and no I dont smoke anymore.

rch 13y ago

Don't forget that edibles are very popular too.