smoke and damage to your lungs?

[MyMARYJANE]

okay we all know that obviously any smoke that we put into our lungs cant be good for them(wouldnt it be amzing if it was good for you:dance: )
today i was just thinking and wondering how badly do you guys think smoking pot damages your lungs? I kno it all depends on how often you smoke, but i was wondering how many smoking sessions do you think it takes to start causing (permanant) damage to your lungs. and lung damage is permanant right?
so basically what i'm saying is how much do you think it takes to damage your lungs. do you guys think that everytime you smoke more damage is done or do you think it takes time to build up(and how long do you think). i've also heard that like one joint or blunt is like 7 or 20 cigarettes?, but dont cigs cause cancer more easily than marijuana? these are the types of questions we dont really like to think about, but i'm just curious if anyone knows anything about this kinda stuff
well damage or no damage.. keep tokin :rasta:

[sharpezor]

a few years of heavy smoking = permanant

[Wishville]

Don't hold the smoke in your lungs for a really long time like a lot of smokers like to do. Most of the THC is absorbed on contact with your lungs so it will not get you sugnificantly more high if you hold the smoke in for an extended period of time. just inhale deeply and let it out.

Well at least that's what I read.:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[MyMARYJANE]

yea thats what i think too.. and as far as damage goes.. how does it effect you (ie-breathing) and if you have lung damage from weed does that increase or lead to (the risk of) cancer or w/e? sorry i sound dumb :)

[graph]

Lung damage isn't permanent. Brain damage is permanent. Well, that depends.

The dust-collecting hairs on in your lungs called cilia are damaged by smoking. They will heal in time, but will take years. If you contract a disease such as emphysema or chronic bronchitis, you will have this condition for life. Quitting smoking will improve this condition, but it will never completely heal.

Cigarettes are usually more harmful then cigarettes for many reasons. First of all, cigarettes are physically addictive. Who do you know that smokes 10-12 joints a day? Plus, industry tobacco contains a lot of chemicals, including polonium 210 (which is used to grow tobacco), which may be harmful if smoked. There's a lot of propaganda that says smoking one joint is equal to [insert imaginary number here] cigarettes. There's been no scientific research that has concluded that that is the case.

The short answer is, you may have some long-term problems if you smoke heavily every day, but you may not develop these problems if you don't. Switching to a vaporizer and ingesting cannabis rather than smoking it will almost completely remove the chances of developing any conditions, though, so maybe you should put down the joint and open up the butter!

Has anyone ever been reported of developing lung cancer from cannabis? No. Does that mean it can't happen, or that someone is lying? Perhaps, and I'm somewhat inclined to believe that it could happen. Just not to someone who smokes 2 or 3 bowls from a bong a day.

I already exited out of the site, so sorry. All of this can be found at webmd if you're willing to spend the time, though.

[Lethal G]

Actually, the studies done only point to an increased risk of bronchitis. As far as cancer goes, the studies point to negative correlations between marijuana and cancer. There was a study done not too long ago (if you search the boards you would be able to find it) that concluded that even heavy smokers are not at a risk for lung cancer. The reason tobacco causes cancer so easily is due to the additives from the tobacco companies.

[LIP]

Cannabis has been found to have no direct link with lung cancer or any cancer within living cells. It was also observed that mice given THC lived a significant amount longer than the non treated mice.

Interesting.

[crudemood]

Cigarettes are usually more harmful then cigarettes for many reasons.
oops!

but you make a valid point. i would have to agree with you there. seeing as i smoke marijuana more often than cigarettes.

[1234abcd]

Marijuana does NOT cause lung cancer, however smoking tobacco will increase your chances 10 fold, so what I say is STICK TO THE GOOD SHIT :STONED:

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1106/a09.html

[willystylle]

Maybe I'm talking shit through my ass here but if pot smoke leaves a resin everywhere wouldn't it leave a resin in your lungs too?

Anyway smoking pot isn't any healthier than smoking cigs thats a myth.

[Lethal G]

smoking pot isn't any healthier than smoking cigs thats a myth.

I beg to differ on that one.

[graph]

oops!

but you make a valid point. i would have to agree with you there. seeing as i smoke marijuana more often than cigarettes.
hahahah... argh. If you look closely, most big posts I make have a lot of errors. Luckily, nobody really bothers to read them, so it averages out pretty nicely.

10+ for that one. Made me chuckle.

[birdgirl73]

My guess is that pot smoking does damage the lungs. Maybe not as badly as cigarettes. But you won't find anybody in any area of the medical field who'll tell you that inhaling burning vegetable matter of any kind into your lungs is healthy. You'll get an occasional pot fan telling you, "No, no, it's good for you and won't hurt you at all," but they don't know that for certain. That, to me, is just about as silly as the "pot-cures-all-ills" attitude.

The thing is that, even in the few studies that have been done, large numbers of people haven't been studied over the long term. And the fact that weed's illegal makes it hard to conduct really good, objective studies. There's another problem, too. That's that it's expensive and difficult to examine lungs. A chest x-ray, CT scan or MRI give you some basic details, but a lung biopsy is what really details damage precisely. Lung biopsies are painful and invasive, and they require people to be anesthetized. The most definitive way to assess lung damage is through a close post-mortem examination.

I'm sure grass is very much like cigarettes in that it affects different people different ways--and with varying degrees of severity at different times. Permananent damage may occur for some people after a year, and for others it may not occur until after five years or longer. Just depends on a whole host of other factors like age, gender, physical condition, pre-existing lung health, genetic tendencies, etc.

[beachguy in thongs]

These findings do not support an association between regular marijuana smoking and chronic COPD



Whereas regular smoking of tobacco alone or with other substances increases alveolar epithelial permeability, habitual smoking of cocaine and/or marijuana has no measurable effect on alveolar permeability in the absence of tobacco nor any additive effect to that of tobacco alone.


We conclude that smoking marijuana (13 to 27 mg THC) has no acute effect on central or peripheral ventilatory drive or metabolic rate in habitual marijuana smokers.


Based on the results of this study, pulmonary alveolar macrophages of marijuana-only smokers do not produce increased amounts of oxidants when compared to macrophages of non-smoking subjects.


Because these effects were transient and remained within the range of reported normal values, these data indicate that long-term, experimental exposure to MJ smoke is feasible and does not compromise the general health of the rhesus monkey.


These observations suggest that customary social use of marijuana may not produce abnormalities in airway function detectable by spirometry or bronchoprovocation.


A 20-day study of daily delta 9-THC (20 mg), CBN (600 mg), and CBD (1200 mg) did not indicate tolerance or reverse tolerance to any drug. We conclude that delta 9-THC and, to a lesser extent, delta 8-THC, have acute bronchodilator activity but that CBN, CBD, and their combinations do not provide effective bronchodilation. The daily use of delta 9-THC was not associated with clinical tolerance.


A group of regular marijuana smokers was given expired air carbon monoxide (CO) tests before and after smoking low-dose, high-dose, and placebo marijuana cigarettes. Expired air CO doubled following smoking. There were no significant differences in CO levels in the different dose categories.


The existence of a sizeable number of marijuana smokers in this sample of adolescents did not alter the correlation between CO and self-reports of cigarette smoking. However, in adult samples, where marijuana and cigarette smoking are less highly correlated, marijuana smoking could affect the relationship between CO and self-reported cigarette smoking. Carbon monoxide predicted self-reported cigarette smoking better than did saliva thiocyanate. There was an interaction between grade and the CO/cigarette smoking correlation. The correlations were generally higher in upper grades.

http://www.ukcia.org/research/medline/1.htm

[austwelk]

Maybe I'm talking shit through my ass here but if pot smoke leaves a resin everywhere wouldn't it leave a resin in your lungs too?

Anyway smoking pot isn't any healthier than smoking cigs thats a myth.



Why do u think u cough and expel larger amounts of phlegm when you smoke weed? your lungs rid themselves of the resin via the mucus, so no, your lungs probably aren't caked with resin.

Whether a cigarette and a joint have more or less harmful chemicals than the other is irrelevant. Who passes a tobacco cigarette to 4 or 5 other friends yielding satisfactory results? Who loads a bowl with a thumbnail sized amount of tobacco and expects to not need more for a couple of hours? you know chocolate is worse for you than chicken, but you can still get fat from eating large amounts of chicken and trace amounts of chocolate. The volume of smoke is inhaled is more of an issue than the contents of the smoke.

[Ganjasaurusrex]

I have been smoking for about 23 years. Not heavy though. Sometimes I take 30 day breaks or longer.

I recently had a CT scan for clearance to work abroad.

I was very curious what it would reveal.

After reveiwing the films taken with the Radiologist he assured me my lungs appeared in good health as they showed complete white. He said they look normal and wondered why I was concerned when I told him I dont smoke cigarettes.

But this is not to say there is no residue there.

I think the body has the ability to absorb these tars and process them through the liver. It is a very, very slow process however.

If you smoke anything it is imperative to increase your vitamin c intake to protect the linings of the lungs. Enter (ascorbic acid smoking) in your search box. There is a ton of support for this.

Ascorbic acid will promote strong collagen bonds in the lungs/skin as well as arterial strength.

The usrda of 60mg of ascorbic is ridiculuous. People who smoke anything definently need to supplement higher than this threshold-of-scurvy amount.

I would say a minimum of 2 grams of ascorbic per day, divided 4 times a day.

Moderation is the key when smoking.

Of course if you smoke a ton of weed your likely to get some adverse effect in the lungs and you probably will see results on a lung scan.

I think if there was a cancer connection it would have been known by now with the 60s generation of those who smoked weed only and not cigarettes.

There is a link on this section, "MSNBC no link to cancer and marijuana".

[Nullific]

God damn you people and your inability to search these boards or Google extensively enough on your own to answer your own questions. (Except Beachguy and I suppose 1234abcd)

Graph you're on the right track too. I believe the polonium 210 and lead 210 in tobacco smoke plays a major role in the development of cancers. These are both radioactive, they emit alpha particles and it is no surprise that long-term exposure to alpha particles internally will cause tissue damage. Above all polonium 210 is the only component of tobacco smoke demonstrated to cause cancer alone when inhaled in lab tests.

[Ganjasaurusrex]

God damn you people and your inability to search these boards or Google extensively enough on your own to answer your own questions. (Except Beachguy and I suppose 1234abcd)

Graph you're on the right track too. I believe the polonium 210 and lead 210 in tobacco smoke plays a major role in the development of cancers. These are both radioactive, they emit alpha particles and it is no surprise that long-term exposure to alpha particles internally will cause tissue damage. Above all polonium 210 is the only component of tobacco smoke demonstrated to cause cancer alone when inhaled in lab tests.




True. Plus 43 other known cancer causing additives and 556 other chemical additives.

I just reviewed a three pages of chemicals added to the tobacco process.

It was revealed in a 60 minutes interview years ago with a Scientist for Phillip Morris, the tobacco giant, that when ordinary refined sugar was added to the process it greatly enhanced the nicotone molecule making the addiction cravings stronger.

This scientist later turned whistle blower after feeling guilty about what he did.

Chemical list:

quit smoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm

[Ganjasaurusrex]

better link for chemical list.

whyquit.com/whyquit/A_Tobacco_Additives.html

[MyMARYJANE]

thanks for all the info guys.. really helped :)

[willystylle]

I beg to differ on that one.

You got a link? I do:

http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/113/110884.htm

The cancer-causing effects of cigarettes are significantly more than that of marijuana due to compounds found in tobacco, such as nicotine.

BUT

Marijuana has the same amount of carinogens than cigarettes, and may even contain more than cigarettes, depending on what part of the plant is smoked.

Therefore, marijuana is NOT healthier to smoke than cigarettes.

[beachguy in thongs]

Most of the carcinogens (what they don't tell you) are not in the bud (the smokeable part).

[beachguy in thongs]

You got a link? I do:

http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/113/110884.htm

The cancer-causing effects of cigarettes are significantly more than that of marijuana due to compounds found in tobacco, such as nicotine.

BUT

Marijuana has the same amount of carinogens than cigarettes, and may even contain more than cigarettes, depending on what part of the plant is smoked.

Therefore, marijuana is NOT healthier to smoke than cigarettes.
Here's my link:


On peer review all the claims in these "reports" have been refuted.
For a start the claim that cannabis is "five times more carcinogenic than
tobacco" has been shown to be from incorrect data. the original study
(Berkley carcinogenic tar) use the leaves of the two plants and as everyone
knows it is not the leaves of the cannabis plant that is used. And the study
said "tar" the propagandists turned it into "carcinogen". Cannabis tars have
very few carcinogens compared to tobacco. In fact cannabis has cured
cancers.
http://www.medscitalk.com/post-1815.html

[willystylle]

Well done, my son.

[MrGreenFingaz]

Whatup my chronic brothers in arms? Yea, i've been starting up running again after a break from intense daily physical activity in months, The things i hate are the flem (the fuckin worst when your running), and it kinda feels like i cant take in as much air with my lungs, it could be that i havnt been runnin lately but im usually in shape, oh yea when i was a lil younger i used to box, i noticed that i never got tired really (only the lungs) so id say it does damage your lungs, but i dont give a fuck either so there.

[MrGreenFingaz]

So yea if you dont want it to effect you as much balance you cronic habits with excercising habits :thumbsup:

[beachguy in thongs]

Does everyone hold in their phlegm? And let it build until they work they stress their lungs, again?

That's what coughing's for. :glugglug:

[suhl]

ive always looked at it like this no one has ever died or gotten cancer from weed and millions have from tobacco. i dont really care what the studies say, those numbers dont lie. except maybe the cancer one im not 100% sure on that

[bigsmokin]

I read recently that anti-cancer properties in certain cannabinoids cancel out the long term effects of smoking. I found the article on this website, so I am assuming that it is relatively true...

It is recommended that people under 21 do not smoke, but I think that they may have suggested that for legal reasons...panzies....

[bigsmokin]

ive always looked at it like this no one has ever died or gotten cancer from weed and millions have from tobacco. i dont really care what the studies say, those numbers dont lie. except maybe the cancer one im not 100% sure on that


it's true. no healthy (excercise regularly, not a fatass) has gotten lung cancer from pot.