I told my doctor I smoked weed

My doctor asked if I smoked so I told him weed and that I know the ups and downs to it and he asked me to name some. I told him I know it doesn't contribute to lung cancer and isn't as bad as the government says. I explained to him how tobacco is grown with radiation in the fertilizer and how a normal person gets about 80 units of radiation a year while someone who smokes a pack and a half a day gets about 80,000 units of radiation a year and how most lung cancer is from radiation or is genetic. He shot me down and said 1 joint is as bad as 5 cigarettes lung-wise and that I wont get cancer now but I will when I get older. I told him I did some decent research online and he just told me don't believe all the stuff you read online. I just agreed with him because I wanted to go home allready, damn doc keeps me waiting for 45 miniutes for a god damned checkup. Although, he asked me if I drink and I told him on occasion and he asked if i smoked weed more and I say yes and he agreed that it's better to smoke weed than drink.

i agrea with everything he said....i have argued for years all the tar/ resin in weed will damage your lungs over a chronic use of a lifetime...look at your pipes. your lungs must get full of resin too.

Yeah...use a vaporizer and you can tell him you are doing NO harm. Maybe put a bunch of research literature in an envelope and deliver it to him...enlighten these doctors! I want to print a bunch of L.E.A.P. (law enforcement against prohibition) cards with some literature and links to their website and put it on cop cars. Spread the truth!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 420izzle

Yeah...use a vaporizer and you can tell him you are doing NO harm.

---

That's not true. A Volcano is the closest vaporizer to one that does no harm, but those are expensive as hell. Vaporizers varry depending on their quality, eliminating combustion-created carcinogens by anywhere from 25% - 98%. And even so, there are still SOME carcinogens in weed that are not created from combustion, but they're in very small quantities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrdevious

That's not true. A Volcano is the closest vaporizer to one that does no harm, but those are expensive as hell. Vaporizers varry depending on their quality, eliminating combustion-created carcinogens by anywhere from 25% - 98%. And even so, there are still SOME carcinogens in weed that are not created from combustion, but they're in very small quantities.

---

Relative to smoking it - vaporizing is doing no harm. This is a harm-reduction issue here. And although the Volcano was the tested instrument, I know that others are very similiar as long as the temps are correct, so one would need a decent vaporizer to control temps and simply make vapors. My Vapolution was a mere 125$ and it works wonders:D .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrdevious

That's not true. A Volcano is the closest vaporizer to one that does no harm, but those are expensive as hell. Vaporizers varry depending on their quality, eliminating combustion-created carcinogens by anywhere from 25% - 98%. And even so, there are still SOME carcinogens in weed that are not created from combustion, but they're in very small quantities.

---

What carcinogens are located in weed that are not created from combustion? I'm curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by graph

What carcinogens are located in weed that are not created from combustion? I'm curious.

---

I honestly can't remember man, it's been a long while. But I'm not saying that weed has special carcinogens, lots of plants and foods do. I konw cyanide is in there though (albeit in much smaller quantities than tobacco).

where did beachguy go anyways.... he'd clear this up.

That's why beachguy was great! You have no idea how much research he's done for me that I've passed off as my own. It's not that I don't believe you, a lot of substances that come into contact with out body contain carcinogens, I was just wondering if you knew which ones. I'll look, but if it ever comes up and you find out, definitely contact me about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlwaysBlazed

He shot me down and said 1 joint is as bad as 5 cigarettes lung-wise and that I wont get cancer now but I will when I get older.

---

What he forgot to mention is that most tobacco smokers will smoke a LOT more than most pot smokers, making the comparisson negligable. When I smoked cigarettes as a full-time smoker, I would smoke two packs a day (40 cigarettes). To get the damage, by this doctor's math, I would have to smoke 8 big joints in a day, every day. Geez, that's a lot of reefer.

If you just smoke a "J" a day, (the equivalent of 5 cigarettes), which is a pretty normal amount for modest smokers, your lungs will repair any damage you make to them pretty quickly.

Even a J a day is a lot for most people......

Yeah, a J a day is a lot for most people. Like I, and a lot of friends of mine, usually smoke about 2 bowls a day. That's probably not even a joint. So suck on that, Doctor.

crispi told his dr. too ,
i got a signed letter w/ his lisc.# and a biz.card for my state for med.m/j use . i luv my dr.
peace
crispi :jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xcrispi

crispi told his dr. too ,
i got a signed letter w/ his lisc.# and a biz.card for my state for med.m/j use . i luv my dr.
peace
crispi :jointsmile:

---

i want your doctor

and your state laws o_0

im guessing illinois will be the last to legalize if it even happens

no full med. use laws in michigan yet . i'm a lucky dog and live in 1 of only 4 cities that overlook med. m/j use . they're pushing for a full med. legal state right now in mich. -n- need 304,000 signatures . my dr. went out on a limb for me as far as contraversy in our state due to my being a burn survivor . he rocks .
peace
your cuz
crispi

damn 4 real what 4 cities are these?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeenYuss

damn 4 real what 4 cities are these?

---

detroit , ann arbor , grand rapids -n- ferndale .
peace
your cuz
crispi
all info on all states is avalible on NORML.COM :jointsmile:

i like how people play up how many carcingegons there are in weed but there isnt a single case of cancer world wide attributed to it there are more cancer cases related to diet coke for christ sake. it can have a million carcinegons in it as far as im concerned if they dont actually give anyone cancer theres no harm.

I smoke quite a bit so I dunno prob 8 bowls a day max depending on how big the bowl is

What your doctor is forgetting is that Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol has been proven to somewhat reverse lung damage, at least damage done from Tobacco. (I'm sure it helps with any damage done from Cannabis smoke as well)

Trust me on this one...

you are not going to get lung cancer from smoking Cannabis. Its been proven that Cannabis use has no affiliation with Lung Cancer.

I'd show some research, but this on-screen keyboard I'm using is starting to annoy me, I might later though

everything causes cancer EVERYTHING lol

There is probably bias on both sides of this issue, I want to get High and I also want to know the truth whether I like it or not.Just the facts.

Well, I read a .pdf file, just some medical report one time...

And they said that, in relation to tar buildup, 1 joint is the equivalent to I think they said 3 cigarettes at the time. But seeing as how the average smoker probably smoked 30 cigarettes a day, that's like saying the average cannabis consumer smokes 10 joints a day. Ludacris.

Since, pot effects your larger... word escapes me right now... paths from your lung into the bloodstream, while tobacco effects the smaller ones. This is why tobacco, not pot, causes emphysema.

And there's no correlation between cannabis use and lung cancer. Sure, there are negative effects, but your doctor seemed unable to specify which. Pathetic.

true, 1 joint has the same amount of tar as about 5 cigarettes or so. and yes, both cigarette and mj tar contain carcinogens. but does this mean that its "bad"? what recent research, has showed though is THC disables an enzyme that deactivates those carcinogens in tar. Thus this is where some hypothesize that marijuana can actually prevent lung cancer. On the other hand, nicotine actively promotes this enzyme so this pathway will eventually lead to cancer.

All of this information is on pubmed if your dr doesn't believe you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmokingPlatypus

Yeah, a J a day is a lot for most people. Like I, and a lot of friends of mine, usually smoke about 2 bowls a day. That's probably not even a joint. So suck on that, Doctor.

---

How much do people smoke on average? 2 bowls a day seems so little... my friends and i usually get an 1/8 or up to a 1/4 a day. then some1 will come with a 2g blunt in addition

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the yeag

i agrea with everything he said....i have argued for years all the tar/ resin in weed will damage your lungs over a chronic use of a lifetime...look at your pipes. your lungs must get full of resin too.

---

I don't believe that marijuana negatively impacts the function of your respiratory system though. I can easily compare it to periods of time when I was smoking cigarettes and couldn't run for shit, but when I don't smoke cigarettes and only weed, I can run just fine.

Marijuana does not cause lung cancer!
http://www.thoracic.org/sections/pub...ng-cancer.html

i havent told my doc yet but when i go in next im sure ill mention it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the yeag

i agrea with everything he said....i have argued for years all the tar/ resin in weed will damage your lungs over a chronic use of a lifetime...look at your pipes. your lungs must get full of resin too.

---

Ehhh......I wouldnt agree with everything he says. For him to say that one joint is as bad as 5 cigarettes is just outrageous. Marijuana has never been directly related to any deaths. Although it can cause respiratory problems such as emphysema. But if your smokin blunts all the time then you are still smoking some tobacco which does increase your chances of getting cancer. Thats why i only smoke blunts on special occasions. I just smoke joints or out of a pipe. Straight marijuana wont give you cancer.

To everyone who makes the absolute statement "marijuana won't give you lung cancer," you need to learn some things about absolutes in medical science. There are none. And so you can't say that absolutely.

The research shows that THC and the other cannabinoids have good anti-cancer protective effects. But there haven't been any in-depth, lasting studies done over decades with thousands of subjects to prove there's absolutely no cancer risk. You don't know, for instance, that cannabis doesn't set in motion DNA changes in folks who, say, had earlier exposure to chemicals or particles like radon, asbestos, pollution, or second-hand smoke which may hasten the later development of pulmonary cancers in those people. You don't know that the other carcinogens in cannabis smoke won't cause cancers in certain elements of the population. You can't say for sure that people who've spent an entire lifetime smoking pesticide-laced Mexican schwag won't develop lung cancer. You can't say that inadequately flushed hydroponic cannabis won't cause cancer in certain groups.

The bottom line is you don't know how different bodies will respond to cannabis smoke because every single body is unique and responds differently to different substances.

So as nice as it sounds to make those absolute statements, the only people you're fooling is yourselves and some of the very gullible, uninformed, non-scientifically inclined kids out there who want to believe the black-and-white it's-all-good health absolutes. By doing that, you're doing yourselves and others a great disservice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

To everyone who makes the absolute statement "marijuana won't give you lung cancer," you need to learn some things about absolutes in medical science. There are none. And so you can't say that absolutely.

The research shows that THC and the other cannabinoids have good anti-cancer protective effects. But there haven't been any in-depth, lasting studies done over decades with thousands of subjects to prove there's absolutely no cancer risk. You don't know, for instance, that cannabis doesn't set in motion DNA changes in folks who, say, had earlier exposure to chemicals or particles like radon, asbestos, pollution, or second-hand smoke which may hasten the later development of pulmonary cancers in those people. You don't know that the other carcinogens in cannabis smoke won't cause cancers in certain elements of the population. You can't say for sure that people who've spent an entire lifetime smoking pesticide-laced Mexican schwag won't develop lung cancer. You can't say that inadequately flushed hydroponic cannabis won't cause cancer in certain groups.

The bottom line is you don't know how different bodies will respond to cannabis smoke because every single body is unique and responds differently to different substances.

So as nice as it sounds to make those absolute statements, the only people you're fooling is yourselves and some of the very gullible, uninformed, non-scientifically inclined kids out there who want to believe the black-and-white it's-all-good health absolutes. By doing that, you're doing yourselves and others a great disservice.

---

You know what, you're absolutely right. But something you're overlooking is that unfortunately, there's not evidence to point the cause of lung cancer in any instance to marijuana. It simply cannot happen, and has been proven in Dr. Tashakin's study..."The heaviest smokers in the study had smoked more than 22,000 marijuana cigarettes, or joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 to 22,000 joints. Even these smokers did not have an increased risk of developing cancer. People who smoked more marijuana were not at any increased risk compared with those who smoked less marijuana or none at all." And if you're referring to me as a non-scientifically inclined kid, you're entitled to your opinion. However, anything that I say/post about marijuana anywhere is based on a scientific study/scientific research. Bottom line, I know way too many people that are in just as good if not better health as normal people...yet they have smoked marijuana the entirity of their lives. And something you said about nasty laced schwagg weed might give someone cancer, or inadequately flushed hydro might...that's not marijuana causing cancer in any way...it's environmental factors..whatever's in the mexican weed, and the chemicals in the hydro cause the cancers if any, not any chemical that's naturally in cannabis. Once again, the ABSOLUTE is that I know ten to fifteen people who have smoked since their young years and are absolutely fine.

To me, an absolute is that they haven't found one documented case of cancer SOLELY attributed to marijuana use. Anyone know people who regularly smoke weed and have cancer??? If you do, please come out and post.

Sure, studies aren't an exact science, but we base many pharmaceutical laws on these studies, and they have as much credibility as current marijuana studies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markass

You know what, you're absolutely right. But something you're overlooking is that unfortunately, there's not evidence to point the cause of lung cancer in any instance to marijuana. It simply cannot happen, and has been proven in Dr. Tashakin's study..."The heaviest smokers in the study had smoked more than 22,000 marijuana cigarettes, or joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 to 22,000 joints. Even these smokers did not have an increased risk of developing cancer. People who smoked more marijuana were not at any increased risk compared with those who smoked less marijuana or none at all." And if you're referring to me as a non-scientifically inclined kid, you're entitled to your opinion. However, anything that I say/post about marijuana anywhere is based on a scientific study/scientific research. Bottom line, I know way too many people that are in just as good if not better health as normal people...yet they have smoked marijuana the entirity of their lives. And something you said about nasty laced schwagg weed might give someone cancer, or inadequately flushed hydro might...that's not marijuana causing cancer in any way...it's environmental factors..whatever's in the mexican weed, and the chemicals in the hydro cause the cancers if any, not any chemical that's naturally in cannabis. Once again, the ABSOLUTE is that I know ten to fifteen people who have smoked since their young years and are absolutely fine.

---

I think you must be very scientifically naive. Or very young. Or both. You keep putting absolute faith in the Tashkin study, which was a statistically very small sampling (2,052 people). Compared to the population in question, even the larger Kaiser study was comparatively insignificant in comparison to the studies and tracking that have been done with tobacco. Tashkin himself in his reports uses the term "does not appear to increase. . . " because he's intelligent enough to know that while those findings are very hopeful, they're not yet a sweeping, it's-perfectly-safe endorsement. You'll notice, too, that Tashkin and his researchers are only just beginning to look into the DNA changes cannabis smoking seems to set inot motion. And there are still at least two credible studies that have established a positive link between cannabis and increased lung cancer risk. Whether it's directly from cannabis chemicals themselves or one of the accompanying environmental factors like pesticides or hydroponic solutions, cancer is cancer. And I will forever maintain that there's still plenty of chance that, in certain people, it can increase cancer risk.

Here's the other thing. I've lived a good bit longer than most of you guys. So I've known folks who've smoked weed a lot longer. One of my oldest friend's best chums died last year from lung cancer that had spread all over. He was 49. He'd been a heavy pot smoker since his teenage years. Never cigarettes. Only weed. And yes, he died of lung cancer. (A different kind of lung cancer, by the way, from the one that's seen most often in cigarette smokers.) I also have a former colleague, a guy I've known for nearly 30 years, who's just been moved into a hospice facility in my hometown. He was never a cigarette smoker. Hated cigarettes, in fact, and felt no one should smoke anything else but pot. He was a very heavy, heavy cannabis smoker. Lost several jobs because of it and was one of my hometown's most notorious potheads and supplier of a large percentage of the university population in my college days. He's 57 and is now within three months of dying of large cell lung cancer.

So keep thinking the absolutes are absolutely true. I know they're not. Ask cardiopulmonary physicians like my husband and his colleagues about the cancers they see, and they'll tell you, too, that they see instances as well in people who are/were heavy cannabis smokers. They're not nearly as frequent as what they see in cigarette smokers, but in some people, whether it's from DNA changes or other environmental factors or just surprisingly bad health luck, lung cancer can occur. Until in-depth, large-scale studies over periods of decades are conducted, which isn't likely to happen in this country anytime soon, "does not appear to increase. . . " doesn't yet mean "absolutely does not increase."

Man...I'm depressed now.

Birdgirl is right - but don't get depressed people! All things in moderation eh?

Alcohol in small quantities can be beneficial - it can (e.g. red wine) help with your heart and reduce stress etc etc - doesn't mean you have to get wrecked drunk 24/7 though does it? As most of us accept, that will do you serious damage.

MJ smoke contains some of the same types of compounds as cigarette smoke (PAH's) and their interaction is unclear. It seems THC may well prevent these PAH's causing DNA damage (that they do when facilitated by nicotine in tobacco smoke) but this is far from absolutely conclusive. We need a huge study group and at the moment girls and boys - that's US.

The problem (in my mind) is that the governments have lied so much over time (cough - Reefer Madness) that some people just don't know what to beleive.

Then there are those who know what they 'want' to beleive ;)

lol when i had glandular fever the doctor was like 'have you got any painkillers at home?' and i was like 'ummm... no, but i got some weed' and he just laughed and said 'ok then, that should do fine' lol my doctor is well sound.. when i was really little and i had to get an injection, he let me sit in his chair and eat loads of smarties lol, he had a big fat box of them :)

My grandmother was the perfect minister's wife- she did not drink, she did not smoke, she didn't even swear! She raised 6 kids on mostly what they grew in their garden. A tiny, sturdy woman, she canned food (I remember her cellar with shelves full of jars) and lived modestly. She never worked outside of the church or home. She died of lung cancer. Some people are just unlucky. By the odds, she should never have gotten lung cancer, but she did. The fact that so few cannabis smokers are showing up with any sort of lung cancer is encouraging. I wonder if those few are just unlucky, like my grandmother. Anyway, kids, keep an open mind about possible harmful effects that cannabis may have. NOTHING is perfect or completely harmless in this world. Not even our favorite herb.-Granny:stoned:

Tetrahydrocannabinol prevents cancer

yeah, i understand birdgirl's arguments that science is not absolute. I also understand the risk involved with smoking weed. In my mind weed appears to have more pros then cons, but i cant say for sure, o well, you only live once right? Weed has opened my mind, and thats all that really matters.

If you are going to freak out about smoking a bowl or 2 once a day, you'd better start worrying about eating processed foods, fast food, precooked food, any food that you didn't raise yourself, all food. You'd better start worrying about driving your car, leaving your house, living in your house- fire!!!, living in general. Using a public restroom, breathing in public places, not breathing in public places, riding a bike, walking down the street, talking, sitting, sleeping, ANY and EVERYTHING!

Oh My Science!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

I think you must be very scientifically naive. Or very young. Or both. You keep putting absolute faith in the Tashkin study, which was a statistically very small sampling (2,052 people). Compared to the population in question, even the larger Kaiser study was comparatively insignificant in comparison to the studies and tracking that have been done with tobacco. Tashkin himself in his reports uses the term "does not appear to increase. . . " because he's intelligent enough to know that while those findings are very hopeful, they're not yet a sweeping, it's-perfectly-safe endorsement. You'll notice, too, that Tashkin and his researchers are only just beginning to look into the DNA changes cannabis smoking seems to set inot motion. And there are still at least two credible studies that have established a positive link between cannabis and increased lung cancer risk. Whether it's directly from cannabis chemicals themselves or one of the accompanying environmental factors like pesticides or hydroponic solutions, cancer is cancer. And I will forever maintain that there's still plenty of chance that, in certain people, it can increase cancer risk.

Here's the other thing. I've lived a good bit longer than most of you guys. So I've known folks who've smoked weed a lot longer. One of my oldest friend's best chums died last year from lung cancer that had spread all over. He was 49. He'd been a heavy pot smoker since his teenage years. Never cigarettes. Only weed. And yes, he died of lung cancer. (A different kind of lung cancer, by the way, from the one that's seen most often in cigarette smokers.) I also have a former colleague, a guy I've known for nearly 30 years, who's just been moved into a hospice facility in my hometown. He was never a cigarette smoker. Hated cigarettes, in fact, and felt no one should smoke anything else but pot. He was a very heavy, heavy cannabis smoker. Lost several jobs because of it and was one of my hometown's most notorious potheads and supplier of a large percentage of the university population in my college days. He's 57 and is now within three months of dying of large cell lung cancer.

So keep thinking the absolutes are absolutely true. I know they're not. Ask cardiopulmonary physicians like my husband and his colleagues about the cancers they see, and they'll tell you, too, that they see instances as well in people who are/were heavy cannabis smokers. They're not nearly as frequent as what they see in cigarette smokers, but in some people, whether it's from DNA changes or other environmental factors or just surprisingly bad health luck, lung cancer can occur. Until in-depth, large-scale studies over periods of decades are conducted, which isn't likely to happen in this country anytime soon, "does not appear to increase. . . " doesn't yet mean "absolutely does not increase."

---

I'm anticipating Tashakin to conclude his study regarding genetic susceptability of cancer. On another note...

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.

For the record, I'm seventeen. And as I said, I've based my view of marijuana on scientific studies/reports and people that I personally know.

Have a good day :greenthumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mafyew

yeah, i understand birdgirl's arguments that science is not absolute. I also understand the risk involved with smoking weed. In my mind weed appears to have more pros then cons, but i cant say for sure, o well, you only live once right? Weed has opened my mind, and thats all that really matters.

If you are going to freak out about smoking a bowl or 2 once a day, you'd better start worrying about eating processed foods, fast food, precooked food, any food that you didn't raise yourself, all food. You'd better start worrying about driving your car, leaving your house, living in your house- fire!!!, living in general. Using a public restroom, breathing in public places, not breathing in public places, riding a bike, walking down the street, talking, sitting, sleeping, ANY and EVERYTHING!

Oh My Science!

---

I completely agree with this, and more than anything, I'm just trying to get people to see that nothing's 100% safe and that a sweeping you-won't-get-cancer statement is risky because we simply don't know that. Do I still think cannabis is relatively harmless to the casual/recreational user? Heck yeah. A heck of a lot safer than alcohol, too, except possibly for people with heart disease. And it clearly has some amazingly positive healing properties in preventing cancers in many people and treating other diseases and symptoms. It worked wonders for my older sister's nausea and lack of appetite when she was in chemotherapy. If we could test it on people with brain and other types of cancers, I think we'd see amazing results, and it makes me very sad that active testing involving administered cannabis isn't allowed in this country. It makes me even sadder that Big Pharma will likely do everything in its power to prevent that testing from occurring within my lifetime.

It's true there are lots of other things to be more worried about than developing cancer from smoking weed. Chemical and hormones in food. Over-enthusiastically prescribed antibiotics leading to resistant super-bacteriae. Bird flu. Not wearing seatbelts in cars or helmets on bikes and cycles. Nuclear war. There are plenty of far greater dangers. The worst health crisis facing our current adult population and their children, at least in America and in much of northern Europe, is obesity.