I told my doctor I smoked weed

[Immolation]

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.

[Bob the Awesome]

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.

[khoa]

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.

[B-Dizzle]

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

[Markass]

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.

[Markass]

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

[robert42]

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

[Antihero867]

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.

[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.

[Markass]

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.