No long term lung damage

[dwiggins]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1
Do I care? Do you? Maybe?
Benefit to risk ratio?

[EasilySuede]

"They measured marijuana use with a methodology called "joint-years," in which one joint-year of exposure would be the equivalent of smoking 365 joints or pipe bowls."

Joint-years!

Thanks for the link

[geekymonkey]

I love "joint-years".

I'm now trying to estimate my age in joint-years.

[winnie]

i wonder how pipe years and bong years compare?

[dwiggins]

Don't want to get technical but the researchers borrowed joint-years from tobacco cigarettes.
Doctors measure cigarette smoking in pack-years.
One pack (20 cigarettes) a day=one pack-year.
I smoked two packs a day for fifteen years before I quit therefore I have a thirty pack-year history of smoking.
I'll never be able to figure out how much pot I've smoked because by circumstance there were long periods of abstinence.
Not to worry, I'm getting caught up

[Uncle Ron]

A natural process of burning is the release of gases, many of which are carcinogens (poisons). Ja, can't get away from mother nature. Try again.

Next...
"People who occasionally smoke marijuana do not suffer long-term lung damage the way cigarette smokers do..."
and further on...
"They measured marijuana use with a methodology called "joint-years," in which one joint-year of exposure would be the equivalent of smoking 365 joints or pipe bowls."
"For those who reported smoking an average of one joint a day for seven years, or one joint/week for 49 years, the study found no harmful lung effects resulted."

What is occasionally, once in a while or every day? Or is the "occasionally" measured in terms of hours of the day, as in... occasionally throughout the day they would light up? Either bad journalism or just another BS article, or both.

Lastly, when are stoners going to STOP comparing cannabis to cigarette tobacco? Both are harmful, arguing semantics. Here's an idea, compare naturally cured tobacco to cannabis. It's AFTER chemicals have been added that makes ciggies so much more dangerous than weed. Before that, it's all Mother Nature...
Another reason why stoners are their own worst enemy. Jump on any bandwagon regardless that it's heading for a cliff...

Laters....

[redeyezman]

A natural process of burning is the release of gases, many of which are carcinogens (poisons). Ja, can't get away from mother nature.

+1

Isn't science great! Lungs are made to clear things out. Thats why not ALL smokers get cancer. Its normal.

[piedpiperofvice]

A natural process of burning is the release of gases, many of which are carcinogens (poisons). Ja, can't get away from mother nature. Try again.

Next...
"People who occasionally smoke marijuana do not suffer long-term lung damage the way cigarette smokers do..."
and further on...
"They measured marijuana use with a methodology called "joint-years," in which one joint-year of exposure would be the equivalent of smoking 365 joints or pipe bowls."
"For those who reported smoking an average of one joint a day for seven years, or one joint/week for 49 years, the study found no harmful lung effects resulted."

What is occasionally, once in a while or every day? Or is the "occasionally" measured in terms of hours of the day, as in... occasionally throughout the day they would light up? Either bad journalism or just another BS article, or both.

Lastly, when are stoners going to STOP comparing cannabis to cigarette tobacco? Both are harmful, arguing semantics. Here's an idea, compare naturally cured tobacco to cannabis. It's AFTER chemicals have been added that makes ciggies so much more dangerous than weed. Before that, it's all Mother Nature...
Another reason why stoners are their own worst enemy. Jump on any bandwagon regardless that it's heading for a cliff...

Laters....

there have been studies showing anti carcinogenic properties in cannabis. not sure if same can be said about tobacco.... there was a study done showing the percentage of weed only smokers who get cancer vs non smokers is about equal. not sure how solid that study is but i can tell you that if they had many studies to the contrary the anti drug crowd would be running it out in front of our faces ,incessantly. copd ....well... that is another matter