As if this week couldn't get any better, Marijuana doesn't harm lung function.

[kwame k]

CHICAGO (AP) — Smoking a joint once a week or a bit more apparently doesn't harm the lungs, suggests a 20-year study that bolsters evidence that marijuana doesn't do the kind of damage tobacco does.

The results, from one of the largest and longest studies on the health effects of marijuana, are hazier for heavy users — those who smoke two or more joints daily for several years. The data suggest that using marijuana that often might cause a decline in lung function, but there weren't enough heavy users among the 5,000 young adults in the study to draw firm conclusions.

Rest here

[kwame k]

It does say that it didn't have data on heavy user but I have to imagine that the tar or resin in weed has to adversely affect your lungs.

This is just one of a long list why the shit should be legalized.

Not addictive.

Better for you than pills.

and now this!!!!!!

[qikgts]

but there weren't enough heavy users among the 5,000 young adults in the study to draw firm conclusions.

I don't get it... They couldn't find 5,000 "young adults" that smoke two fatty's a day? They weren't looking in the right places...

[kwame k]

[qikgts]

"THC causes the "high" that users feel. It also helps fight inflammation and may counteract the effects of more irritating chemicals in the drug"

So it's the cause and the cure... lol

[hambon4lif]

CHICAGO (AP) — The results, from one of the largest and longest studies on the health effects of marijuana, are hazier for heavy users — those who smoke two or more joints daily for several years. The data suggest that using marijuana that often might cause a decline in lung function, but there weren't enough heavy users among the 5,000 young adults in the study to draw firm conclusions.

.....I must've been out of town that day.

[kwame k]

"THC causes the "high" that users feel. It also helps fight inflammation and may counteract the effects of more irritating chemicals in the drug"

So it's the cause and the cure... lol

Wow.....let me get stoned and think aboot that one!

[kwame k]

.....I must've been out of town that day.

I know.....hell, I have plenty, I would of donated some for the cause!

[Hardrock69]

THC also kills cancer cells. There was a rather lengthy thread I began some months back that I kept adding to with tons of reefer-related stuff.

[kwame k]

i know but.......I got stoned and forgot where it was

[FORD]

Moderation is definitely the qualifier when it comes to pot and lung damage. I know there was one week back in 1989 or 90 when I was really depressed, and so I went through quite a lot of it that week. My lungs physically hurt. That's when I knew I should cut back.

All the evidence I have seen suggests that smoking dope doesn't do anywhere near the damage that smoking tobacco does. But common sense also tells you that sticking something into your face and lighting it on fire is probably going to have some negative effects somewhere down the line.

But then, that's why God made brownies & vaporizers.

[Nitro Express]

Cheech and Chong are still alive so apparently weed won't kill you.

[Hardrock69]

@ Kwame

[Angel]

Not addictive.

Bullshit, I'm living proof it is. Actually, it is addictive, but because it is stored in fat cells rather than the blood stream, it takes longer to leave your system...resulting in milder withdrawal. I've been smoking on an almost daily basis for over 35 years...you DON'T want to see me if I don't have a toke, worse than any PMS you've ever encountered.

[kwame k]

Bullshit, I'm living proof it is. Actually, it is addictive, but because it is stored in fat cells rather than the blood stream, it takes longer to leave your system...resulting in milder withdrawal. I've been smoking on an almost daily basis for over 35 years...you DON'T want to see me if I don't have a toke, worse than any PMS you've ever encountered.

I guess I have a different meaning of addiction.....I look at, say as a hard core alcoholic, if they were to quit drinking they could going into DT's and die, same as a pill addict or heroin addict.....withdrawl from pot is more psychological than physical.........you're not going to die if you don't smoke a joint.....you may want to kill someone but you can not die from pot withdrawal.....here's a good answer that's along my line of thinking.


"In order to answer this question, we first need a definition of the word, "Addicted". Not too long ago, an addictive substance was something that, when taken long enough, produced gross phsyiogical changes in the way the body worked, so that normal operation of the body was impossible without that substance being injested. And as the substance must, by definition, form a tolerance, higher and higher dosages (up to a point) were needed. This is the definition of "additictive" I'm going to use for this explanation. Addictive is not the same as "habituating". Habituatingsubstances, using this definition, are things you crave, may even come to need, but do not create a gross physiological change in the way your body works (trace neurological/neurochemical changes can and do happen but, they're quite minor, and they aren't always substance-related: stroking a pet for instance, can cause such trace effects).

In the cases of alcohol and barbituates, the addiction, in the sense I describe, is very strong. Stopping these drugs suddenly for extreme addictions usually will require hospitalization, additional medication to treat symptoms of withdrawal and, especially, in the case of barbituates, may result in death. Lesser addictions like heroin or opioids can also cause withdrawl syndromes, although not as strongly as ethanol or barbituates, and opiate withdrawal is not fatal (barring the existence of other factors).

The active ingredient in Cannibis sativa is THC (delta 1 tetrahydrocannibinol). THC is active in very low dosages. Therapeutic THC is typically delivered 5mg tid (three times a day). As addiction in the sense I mean it is a gross process, tiny dosages typically don't generate the large-scale physiological changes a true addiction needs to get revved up (neurological yes; physio no). So most people, scientists and street-users, think of marijuana as non-addictive. A recent study at Columbia University offers potentially contradictory evidence, but it's still only one study and not accepted as universal fact at this time. As such, if you say THC is not clinically addictive, most of the world will agree with you.

Can marijuana be habituating? Absolutely -- but not universally. Just as some people definitely use Marijuana in a manner that can only be described as a habit, some have used marijuana for years but not in a habitual pattern. While the same can be said for alcohol, it seems that alcoholics really do set up a regular pattern of extensive use that I personally don't see nearly as frequently in marijuana users.

In cases of marijuana habituation, I think the causal factors are obscure. With addictive drugs, we can see clear, obvious, repeatable effects in terms of addiction. With marijuana, we see far less predictable results. And why these results are not as predictable is not clear.
The basic fact is that most marijunana uses (maybe all marijuana users) do not display signs of addiction (as defined above)."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_marijuana_addictive#ixzz1jA427LCf