Smokers cough (not cigs)

[Terps]

how many of u get a smokers cough from pot??

latly i have had a cold (going on like 3 weeks, so should be ending soon) and lalty i think i have had a bad case of a smokers cough to cause i cough up flem and just cough for like 15 mins straight in the mornings and maybe 3 other times a day...idk maybe im just sick.

You?

[bucknuts1870]

Couple times a year maybe I'll go through a stretch where I can't really smoke like I usually do(take huge bong rips without hacking up a lung). I also will cough up black phlegm, then it goes away for a few months or so.

[yoda]

Couple times a year maybe I'll go through a stretch where I can't really smoke like I usually do(take huge bong rips without hacking up a lung). I also will cough up black phlegm, then it goes away for a few months or so.

i go through this too, but way more often now that ive been smoking cigs the last 2 yrs

[LIP]

If the phlem is like a yellowy greeny colour it's almost def a chest infection, i get them maybe 2 a year, weed helps me with em, never gives me em.

[yoda]

If the phlem is like a yellowy greeny colour it's almost def a chest infection, i get them maybe 2 a year, weed helps me with em, never gives me em.

gosh that description is so gross sounding, but mine are usually a yellowish color. im more disturbed when its brown though. when my throat really hurts, like i cant even inhale, thats when the brown comes to town. i dont even take meds or anything though, but ill be fine in a week.

[LIP]

Yahhh, i hate it. It's all the shit being coughed up from your lungs... horrible stuff, but if i smoke my weed it gets rid of it in like a week or 2.

[sickstrings420]

Do You smoke a lot of blunts. I smoke blunts every time I smoke, and I smoke everyday. And I've noticed that about once every couple of months, I have to stop smoking blunts for a couple ofdays to let my throat clear up. But I can still smoke pipes and j's, just not blunts.

[Captain Hanks]

Lung Damage Studies

The Hype:

More Harmful Than Tobacco

According to the American Lung Association, cigarettes and tobacco smoking related diseases kill more than 430,000 Americans every year. Fifty million Americans smoke, and 3,000 teens start each day. The Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the late 1970s concluded that "marijuana is one-and-a-half times more carcinogenic than tobacco."

The Fact:

Not One Documented Case of Cancer

There are lung irritants involved in any smoke. Cannabis smoke causes mild irritation to the large airways of the lungs. Symptoms disappear when smoking is discontinued.

However, unlike tobacco smoke, cannabis smoke does not cause any changes in the small airways, the area where tobacco smoke causes long term and permanent damage. Additionally, a tobacco smoker will smoke 20 to 60 cigarettes a day, while a heavy marijuana smoker may smoke five to seven joints a day, even less when potent high-quality flower tops are available.

While tens of millions of Americans smoke pot regularly, cannabis has never caused a known case of lung cancer as of December 1997, according to America's foremost lung expert, Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA. He considers the biggest health risk to the lungs would be a person smoking 16 or more "large" spliffs a day of leaf/bud because of the hypoxia of too much smoke and not enough oxygen.

Tashkin feels there is no danger for anyone to worry about potentiating emphysema "in any way" by the use of marijuana totally the opposite of tobacco.

Cannabis is a complex, highly evolved plant. There are some 400 compounds in its smoke. Of these, 60 are presently known to have therapeutic value.

Cannabis may also be eaten, entirely avoiding the irritating effects of smoke. However, four times more of the active ingredients of smoked cannabis are absorbed by the human body than when the same amount is eaten. And the prohibition inflated price of black market cannabis, combined with harsh penalties for cultivation, prevent most persons from being able to afford the luxury of a less efficient, though healthier, means of ingestion.

Lab Studies Fail to Reflect the Real World

Studies have proven that many of the carcinogens in cannabis can be removed by using a water pipe system. Our government omitted this information and its significance when speaking to the press. At the same time politicians outlawed the sale of water pipes, labeling them "drug paraphernalia."

How Rumors Get Started

In 1976, Dr. Tashkin, M.D., UCLA, sent a written report to Dr. Gabriel Nahas at the Rheims, France, Conference on "Potential Cannabis Medical Dangers." That report became the most sensationalized story to come out of this negative world conference on cannabis.

This surprised Tashkin, who had sent the report to the Rheims conference as an afterthought.

What Tashkin reported to the Rheims conference was that only one of the 29 pulmonary areas of the human lung studied the large air passageway Did he find marijuana to be more of an irritant (by 15 times) than tobacco. This figure is insignificant, however, since Tashkin also notes that tobacco has almost no effect on this area. Therefore, 15 times almost nothing is still almost nothing. in any event, cannabis has a positive or neutral effect in most other areas of the lung. (See Chapter 7, "Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis.")

(Tashkin, Dr. Donald, UCLA studies, 1969-83; UCLA Pulmonary Studies, 1969-95.)

Afterwards in 1977, the U.S. government resumed funding for ongoing cannabis pulmonary studies which it had cut two years earlier when Tashkin reported encouraging therapeutic results with marijuana/lung studies. But now the government limited funding only to research to the large air passageway.

We have interviewed Dr. Tashkin dozens of times. In 1986 I asked him about an article he was preparing for the New England Journal of Medicine, indicating that cannabis smoke caused as many or more pre-cancerous lesions as tobacco in "equal" amounts.

Most people do not realize, nor are the media told, that any tissue abnormality (abrasion, eruption, or even redness) is called a pre-cancerous lesion. Unlike lesions caused by tobacco, the THC-related lesions contain no radioactivity.

We asked Tashkin how many persons had gone on to get lung cancer in these or any other studies of long-term cannabis-only smokers (Rastas, Coptics, etc.)

Sitting in his UCLA laboratory, Dr. Tashkin looked at me and said, "That's the strange part. So far no one we've studied has gone on to get lung cancer."

"Was this reported to the press?"

"Well, it's in the article," Dr. Tashkin said. "But no one in the press even asked. They just assumed the worst." His answer to us was still that not one single case of lung cancer in someone who only smoked cannabis, has ever been reported. It should be remembered that he and other doctors had predicted 20 years ago, their certainty that hundreds of thousands of marijuana smokers would by now (1997) have developed lung cancer.

Another Fact:

Emphysema Suffers Benefit

During a later interview, Tashkin congratulated me on the tip I'd given him that marijuana used for emphysema produced good results among persons we knew.

He laughed at me originally, because he had presumed that marijuana aggravated emphysema, but after reviewing his evidence found that, except in the rarest of cases, marijuana was actually of great benefit to emphysema suffers due to the opening and dilation of the bronchial passages.

And so the relief reported to us by cannabis smoking emphysema patients was confirmed.

Marijuana smoke is not unique in its benefits to the lungs. Yerba Santa, Colt's foot, Horehound, and other herbs have traditionally been smoked to help the lungs.

Tobacco and its associated dangers have so prejudiced persons against "smoking" that most persons believe cannabis smoking to be as or more dangerous than tobacco. With research banned, these public health and safety facts are not readily available.

In December 1997, we asked Dr. Tashkin again, and he unequivocably stated that "marijuana does not cause or potentiate emphysema in any way." In addition, there has not been one case of lung cancer ever attributed to smoking cannabis.

. . . And So On

Most of the anti-marijuana literature we have examined does not cite as much as one single source for us to review. Others only refer to DEA or NIDA. The few studies we have been able to track down usually end up being anecdotal case histories, artificial groupings of data, or otherwise lacking controls and never replicated.

Reports of breast enlargement, obesity, addiction, and the like all remain unsubstantiated, and are given little credence by the scientific community. Other reports, like the temporary reduction in sperm count, are statistically insignificant to the general public, yet get blown far out of proportion when presented by the media. Still others, like the handful of throat tumors in the Sacramento area and the high rate of injuries reported in a Baltimore trauma unit are isolated clusters that run contrary to all other statistics and have never been replicated.

The spurious results of Heath, Nahas, and the pregnant mice and monkey studies at Temple University and UC Davis (where they injected mice with synthetic third-cousin analogues of THC) are now discredited in the body of scientific and medical literature.

Though these studies are not used in scientific discourse, mountains of DEA and pharmaceutical company-sponsored literature about the long-term possible effects of these metabolites on the brain and reproduction still goes to parent groups as if they were brand new studies. This disinformation is still very much alive in U.S. government, DEA, DARE, and PDFA reports.

(Read the 1982 N.I.H.; the National Academy of Science's evaluation on past studies; and the Costa Rica report, 1980.) No Harm to Human Brain or Intelligence Hemp has been used in virtually all societies since time immemorial as a work motivator and to highlight and renew creative energies.

ASTHMA

More than 15 million Americans are affected by asthma. Smoking cannabis (the "raw drug" as the AMA called it) would be beneficial for 80% of them and add 30-a60 million person-years in the aggregate of extended life to current asthmatics over presently legal toxic medicines such as the Theophylline prescribed to children. "Taking a hit of marijuana has been known to stop a full blown asthma attack." (Personal communication with Dr. Donald Tashkin, December 12, 1989 and December 1, 1997.) The use of cannabis for asthmatics goes back thousands of years in literature. American doctors of the last century wrote glowing reports in medical papers that asthma sufferers of the world would "bless" Indian hemp (cannabis) all their lives. Today, of the 16 million American asthma sufferers, only Californians, with a doctor's recommendation, can legally grow and use cannabis medicines, even though it is generally the most effective treatment for asthma.

(Tashkin, Dr. Donald, UCLA Pulmonary Studies (for smoked marijuana), 1969-97; Ibid., asthma studies, 1969-76; Cohen, Sidney & Stillman, Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana, 1976; Life Insurance Actuarial rates; Life shortening effects of childhood asthma, 1983.)

LUNG CLEANER AND EXPECTORANT

Cannabis is the best natural expectorant to clear the human lungs of smog, dust and the phlegm associated with tobacco use. Marijuana smoke effectively dilates the airways of the lungs, the bronchi, opening them to allow more oxygen into the lungs. It is also the best natural dilator of the tiny airways of the lungs, the bronchial tubes - making cannabis the best overall bronchial dilator for 80% of the population (the remaining 20% sometimes show minor negative reactions). (See section on asthma - a disease that closes these passages in spasms - UCLA Tashkin studies, 1969-97; U.S. Costa Rican, 1980-82; Jamaican studies 1969-74, 76.) Statistical evidence - showing up consistently as anomalies in matched populations - indicates that people who smoke tobacco cigarettes are usually better off and will live longer if they smoke cannabis moderately, too. (Jamaicna, Costa Rican studies.) Millions of Americans have given up or avoided smoking tobacco products in favor of cannabis, which is not good news to the powerful tobacco lobby - Senator Jesse Helms and his cohorts. A turn-of-the-century grandfather clause in U.S. tobacco law allows 400 to 6,000 additional chemicals to be added. Additions since then to the average tobacco cigarette are unknown, and the public in the U.S. has no right to know what they are. Many joggers and marathon runners feel cannabis use cleans their lungs, allowing better endurance. The evidence indicates that cannabis use will probably increase these outlaw American marijuana-users' lives by about one to two years - yet they may lose their rights, property, children, state licenses, etc., just for using that safest of substances: cannabis.

THERAPEUTIC EMPHYSEMA POTENTIAL

Medical research indicates that light cannabis smoking might be useful for a majority of mild emphysema victims. It would improve the quality of life for millions of sufferers and extend their life spans. The U.S. government and DEA (since 1976) say the side effect of being "high" is not acceptable, no matter how many years or lives it saves; even though some 90 million Americans have tried marijuana and 25 to 30 million still smoke marijuana relaxationally, or use it responsibly as a form of daily self-medication, without one single death from overdoes - ever! All research into the oxygen blood transfer effects cause by cannabis indicates that the chest (lung) pains, extremity pains, shallowness of breath, and headaches we may experience on heavy smog days are usually alleviated by cannabis smoking throughout the day. Dr. Donald Tashkin, the U.S. government's leading scientist on marijuana pulmonary research, told us in December 1989*, and again in December 1997, that you cannot get or potentiate emphysema with cannabis smoking. * See Tashkin's Marijuana Pulmonary Research, UCLA, 1969-1997. Since 1981, this author has personally taken part in these studies and has continuously interviewed Tashkin on cannabis' medical indications; last personal interview was in December 1997.

Having that given, I really don't know what you guys are talking about. Either your smoking cigs with your herb, or your not being honest. Cannabis only smokers don't cough up black tar. The only time I cough is when I'm sick, in wich I cough up green-yellowish phlegm (as if my lungs were cleaning it out before it reached my nose?)!

[birdgirl73]

Captain, I think you're both irresponsible and annoying. For one thing, you never even attempt to argue using your own words and thoughts. And you're putting a whole lot of stock in that 30-year-old Tashkin study, which is certainly not the only one that's been done. But the most insulting thing, besides the fact that you seem more than anything to simply want to take up vast amounts of thread room with your long, copied blocks of text, is that you're denying the actual first-hand experience of people here. If you'd listen and read what others have said, including me, you'll see that people have indeed reported smokers' coughs, aggravated ashtma and other pulmonary irritation as a result of smoking weed. My husband is a cardio-pulmonary physician, and he's seen countless cases of folks with similar problems, and not only among cigarette smokers. You discount what other studies have revealed and what living, breathing, real-life experienced people, including practicing physicians, have encountered. I think you're doing others a disservice by not accepting that not all experiences are as positive as that study you keep citing.

[Captain Hanks]

Captain, I think you're both irresponsible and annoying. For one thing, you never even attempt to argue using your own words and thoughts. And you're putting a whole lot of stock in that 30-year-old Tashkin study, which is certainly not the only one that's been done. But the most insulting thing, besides the fact that you seem more than anything to simply want to take up vast amounts of thread room with your long, copied blocks of text, is that you're denying the actual first-hand experience of people here. If you'd listen and read what others have said, including me, you'll see that people have indeed reported smokers' coughs, aggravated ashtma and other pulmonary irritation as a result of smoking weed. My husband is a cardio-pulmonary physician, and he's seen countless cases of folks with similar problems, and not only among cigarette smokers. You discount what other studies have revealed and what living, breathing, real-life experienced people, including practicing physicians, have encountered. I think you're doing others a disservice by not accepting that not all experiences are as positive as that study you keep citing.
Even if you are right, (as I also believe cannabis smoking (inhalation of burnt plant matter) does indeed cause irritation to the lungs, but I find it hard to believe that it would go on to such things as pulmonary lung disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema...etc. Again I am talking about cannabis only smokers. (you guys aren't smoking out of metal/paper are you?)

[Captain Hanks]

Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice's lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.

Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn't also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.

Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.

[birdgirl73]

I don't think anyone has claimed it is the organic, original cause of such diseases or conditions, Captain. What most reasonable people know is that it can make situations worse in people with pre-existing pulmonary conditions and can make it easier to pick up bronchitis or other inflammation-aggravated lung conditions. And the truth is, we don't really know what damage cannabis smoke can do. There's not been enough testing, as you know. Why mislead people into believing it may be harmless or even beneficial when no one can accurately say that? I have particular concerns for the members who frequent these boards, many of whom are very young, very eager for unconditional affirmation of weed's medical benefits, and who are not yet fully capable of discriminating what various studies are saying as they will be later when they have more education, maturity, and scientific reading experience.

[khoa]

he's pulling out from jack herer's book which was written around 1990. tashkin was actually hired by our gov to research various effects of cannabisfor a long time now. you would think he would be bias, esp being funded by the gov, and he has found some evidence of cellular damage, etc, but could only suggest that this evidence may be linked to respiratory problems, and other ailments. but recently this year, he presented solid evidence at the american thoracic society that marijuana does NOT cause cancer, even in the heaviest smokers. despite hypothesizing that there would be a positive correlation. in fact the same study managed to provide some weak evidence for a protective effect against lung cancer.

that's my 2c. Ive been working on a marijuana research paper for school, so i'm pretty familar with this guy and his research.

[birdgirl73]

Yes, I'm quite familiar with Dr. Tashkin and his research, too. It's because of that--and because of the fact that there's evidence of cellular damage (evidence of DNA damage, they believe, too) and the link to respiratory problems--that I think people would be wise to be cautious. I'm fully aware of the apparent protective benefits against lung cancer. It was also not found to be associated wtih any increase in head or neck cancers, which are also common with people who smoke cigarettes. I'm just saying mild evidence of cancer protection--and remember, the Tashkin study was only with 1,600 people--still doesn't necessarily translate into unquestionable pulmonary benefit under all circumstances. No weed smokers ever cite any of the other studies that have been done, and they certainly can't speak for what other people experience first-hand, including doctors who see weed (and other) smokers.

[Captain Hanks]

I don't think anyone has claimed it is the organic, original cause of such diseases or conditions, Captain. What most reasonable people know is that it can make situations worse in people with pre-existing pulmonary conditions and can make it easier to pick up bronchitis or other inflammation-aggravated lung conditions. And the truth is, we don't really know what damage cannabis smoke can do. There's not been enough testing, as you know. Why mislead people into believing it may be harmless or even beneficial when no one can accurately say that? I have particular concerns for the members who frequent these boards, many of whom are very young, very eager for unconditional affirmation of weed's medical benefits, and who are not yet fully capable of discriminating what various studies are saying as they will be later when they have more education, maturity, and scientific reading experience.

But not one case of lung damage from a cannabis only smoker has ever been documented. Researches have been following the heaviest cannabis smokers in the states (rastas, coptics... etc.) and they predicted there would be thousands of cases of lung cancer by now, yet not one as come up. Pretty interesting if you ask me, not to mention the past 3,000 years of recorded medicinal use. Nothing has been documented, why?

[Captain Hanks]

Didn't they use cannabis medicines to treat lung cancers before the 1930's?

[Storm Crow]

The physical part of smoking pot- the inhaled particulate matter- does mess up your lungs! I had one heck of a toker's cough. I coughed up phlem every morning and my lungs felt bad. I got a vaporizer and it went away after 2 weeks. NO MORE MORNING COUGHING!!! Only when I smoke a pipe at night (I like the "heavier" high of actually smoking at night), do I have any cough at all, now. Rather than having a heated debate whether pot smoking hurts your lungs or not, why not just get a vaporizer and stop coughing? Solves the problem. - Granny:stoned:

[birdgirl73]

But not one case of lung damage from a cannabis only smoker has ever been documented. Researches have been following the heaviest cannabis smokers in the states (rastas, coptics... etc.) and they predicted there would be thousands of cases of lung cancer by now, yet not one as come up. Pretty interesting if you ask me, not to mention the past 3,000 years of recorded medicinal use. Nothing has been documented, why?
Doctors who see heavy pot smokers have been documenting cases of lung inflammation and illnesses since they began keeping records, just not documenting higher rates of cancer, as I've already said now, twice. I know--and most well-informed doctors know--that weed's not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer except when people are heavy cigarette users, too, and they get the risk through that exposure.

When I say lung inflammation and illnesses, I'm referring to asthma, bronchitis or pneumonia that's been made worse by weed smoking. Your "no documented casees of cancer" response gives me the feeling that you're not reading or understanding what I'm saying--including understanding the Tashkin study you've been posting and re-posting, Captain. If you're saying that no documentation has been made associating it with higher risks of cancer, you're right. I've already agreed with that twice before and knew that before our discussion here began. I've posted links to that study in numerous places before, in fact, as has our friend Storm Crow. But if you're saying that no documentation has been made associating weed smoking with aggravating other pulmonary conditions than cancer, I think you must mean that no published, documented studies have come out confirming this fact. And to be honest, none need to come out. It's common knowledge. Ask any cardio-pulmonary physician, nurse, or respiratory therapist who's worked in the pulmonary ward of a public or teaching hospital what they've seen in heavy cannabis smokers, and they'll confirm this fact, as weed smokers are confirming here with reports of their symptoms.

[Captain Hanks]

Doctors who see heavy pot smokers have been documenting cases of lung inflammation and illnesses since they began keeping records, just not documenting higher rates of cancer, as I've already said now, twice. I know--and most well-informed doctors know--that weed's not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer except when people are heavy cigarette users, too, and they get the risk through that exposure.

When I say lung inflammation and illnesses, I'm referring to asthma, bronchitis or pneumonia that's been made worse by weed smoking. Your "no documented casees of cancer" response gives me the feeling that you're not reading or understanding what I'm saying--including understanding the Tashkin study you've been posting and re-posting, Captain. If you're saying that no documentation has been made associating it with higher risks of cancer, you're right. I've already agreed with that twice before and knew that before our discussion here began. I've posted links to that study in numerous places before, in fact, as has our friend Storm Crow. But if you're saying that no documentation has been made associating weed smoking with aggravating other pulmonary conditions than cancer, I think you must mean that no published, documented studies have come out confirming this fact. And to be honest, none need to come out. It's common knowledge. Ask any cardio-pulmonary physician, nurse, or respiratory therapist who's worked in the pulmonary ward of a public or teaching hospital what they've seen in heavy cannabis smokers, and they'll confirm this fact, as weed smokers are confirming here with reports of their symptoms.

Sorry to be a nuisance, this reply clears up what you are saying to me. I did some further research (searched what you recommended) and although respirtory problems caused by heavy cannabis smoking do exist. Symptoms dissapear when smoking is discontinued. I can't find any research/examples of permanent symptoms. Do you know any (concerned about my own health)?

I smoke everyday when I can find time and haven't had any lung problems that are noticable. Just today I ran a mile in 5:57 (not that this is scientific research by no means). I believe and allways have believed that cannabis is "hard on the lungs" but know that it won't lead to cancer (may even have a protective affect). But whatever syptoms people do seem to receive are gone when smoking is discontinued?...

[birdgirl73]

No, I've not seen any research on permanent symptoms, either. Except that if people already have, say, asthma or a tendency toward bronchitis and they find weed smoking makes those particular conditions worse, the asthma and/or bronchitis themselves tend to be permanent problems, if you see what I mean. That is, people with those conditions tend to have ongoing or recurring trouble with them. So weed smoking, while it's occuring in conjunction with asthma or bronchitis, tends to add fuel to an already burning fire, at least while it's happening.

If you don't have any existing pulmonary concerns and you successfully handle cardiovascular exercise, you're probably in good shape. I still maintain that it's the THC and other cannbinoids that are the beneficial compounds on the lungs, however. Most of what I've read says it's the THC that has the protective effect where cancer is concerned. And there's a lot of other stuff in burning cannabis in addition to cannabinoids. We've left out the whole area of potential cardiac complications (do another Google search on cannabis and heart attack risk), which, of course, has pulmonary implications, too. But you're young and probably aren't at increased risk of heart attack right now.

If you're concerned about your pulmonary health, it'd be interesting, especially if you know a respiratory therapist or some sort of physician who deals with pulmonary matters, to periodically measure your vital (lung) capacity. They have you blow into a spirometer machine, and it tests your lung volume, basically. We all tend to lose lung volume as we age, and cigarette-smoking, pulmonary inflammation and infections, and allergies can cause that to happen faster. Sounds like you don't have any of those things. It'd be interesting, as a regular weed smoker, for you to see whether you personally experienced any diminishment in your pulmonary capacity over a period of years. Then you would have studied yourself and could write up those results!

[Captain Hanks]

No, I've not seen any research on permanent symptoms, either. Except that if people already have, say, asthma or a tendency toward bronchitis and they find weed smoking makes those particular conditions worse, the asthma and/or bronchitis themselves tend to be permanent problems, if you see what I mean. That is, people with those conditions tend to have ongoing or recurring trouble with them. So weed smoking, while it's occuring in conjunction with asthma or bronchitis, tends to add fuel to an already burning fire, at least while it's happening.

If you don't have any existing pulmonary concerns and you successfully handle cardiovascular exercise, you're probably in good shape. I still maintain that it's the THC and other cannbinoids that are the beneficial compounds on the lungs, however. Most of what I've read says it's the THC that has the protective effect where cancer is concerned. And there's a lot of other stuff in burning cannabis in addition to cannabinoids. We've left out the whole area of potential cardiac complications (do another Google search on cannabis and heart attack risk), which, of course, has pulmonary implications, too. But you're young and probably aren't at increased risk of heart attack right now.

If you're concerned about your pulmonary health, it'd be interesting, especially if you know a respiratory therapist or some sort of physician who deals with pulmonary matters, to periodically measure your vital (lung) capacity. They have you blow into a spirometer machine, and it tests your lung volume, basically. We all tend to lose lung volume as we age, and cigarette-smoking, pulmonary inflammation and infections, and allergies can cause that to happen faster. Sounds like you don't have any of those things. It'd be interesting, as a regular weed smoker, for you to see whether you personally experienced any diminishment in your pulmonary capacity over a period of years. Then you would have studied yourself and could write up those results!
Question, when you say "add fuel to the fire" (making syptoms worse), do you mean it brought their symptoms to a higher level permanentally? Or untill smoking was disscontinued?

Also, when you saying that smoking causes lung capacity to shrink faster through our aging process, do you mean permanentally or just untill smoking is disscontinued (in wich your lung capacity would return to normal).

Funny you mention lung capacity. I was watching the Montel William "Medical Marijuana" episode in wich Montel invited one of the six patients in the U.S. who are legal cannabis users (I assume you know these people in whom I am speaking of). The guy has been smoking 10 pre-rolled cannabis cigarettes everyday for the past 30 years. He and a few other patients were curious as to why none of the negative affects the feds said would occur were happening and decided to get checked up. Allow me to quote: Rosenfeld put in, "I've been getting this medicine for 22 years from the federal government, and they don't want to research me. They don't even want to know what's happening with me." A few years ago he and three other patients went, at private expense, to the University of Montana for complete medical evaluations. "And we all came out normal," he said. "My lung capacity was 108 percent of normal." Nor is he lacking in energy and motivation, Rosenfeld pointed out over footage of him at his desk in a brokerage firm, dealing with five matters at once.:rasta:

[birdgirl73]

That's interesting to know! I wish I'd seen that Montel show. I like what Montel has done for this substance, and I'm glad he's helping educate folks.

I don't know whether smoking causes lung capacity to shrink permanently or just until smoking is discontinued. That's why we need you to test this!! What we really need is for thousands to test this. Then we could draw some real conclusions.

My reference to adding fuel to the fire of making those pulmonary conditions worse referred to the time while smoking was occurring. Again, though, this is a slippery semantic slope to be on. Because certainly bronchitis tends to be a progressive disease anyway. Asthma can hold steady or even improve over time. But bronchitis and even regular colds can diminish respiratory capacity, so there's not a good way to know how weed smoking, even for brief periods, might factor in. Aging is an annoying bugger, too, since vital capacity shrinks inexorably over time, unless people work very hard for that not to happen (with regular cardio-exercise and intentional deep-breathing lung-expanding exercises).

[Captain Hanks]

I got you. So, unless you allready have these symptoms, you won't develop them permanentally basically?

[Captain Hanks]

oh yeah, and you can still watch the episode on the pot tv website

[birdgirl73]

I got you. So, unless you allready have these symptoms, you won't develop them permanentally basically?
I don't know that we have any way of knowing this definitively since every body is different. But my guess is that this is a fairly safe conclusion.

I'll check out that pot TV and find that show!

[LIP]

My personal experience with cannabis and Asthma.

Well, i used to smoke cigs, and i've recently quit. When i was smoking cigs my breathing would be bad, and i'd weeze, but with weed i didnt, it stopped the weezing. And with a mate of mine, who has asthma, he said it can stop him having an attack, almost instantly after the first hit.

They're just my personal experiences with it.