Smokers cough (not cigs)

[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.

Captain Hanks Reviewed by Captain Hanks on 12-14-2006. Smokers cough (not cigs) 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? Rating: 5

[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!