My Comments: This review article is 8 pages long – but I’ve given you the reference …. 
Although I understand that druggie websites have tons of bogus studies for you to refer to, and that they seem to contradict the legitimate science, but these doctors, Ph.D.'s, and Research Scientists are not like some of the “doctors and research scientists” who were and currently are drug users themselves, and - therefore have an axe to grind.
So, if you’re not in denial, and interested in the truth, with what I’ve given you, you can look it up. You may even find it on the net …. There are over 20,000 legitimate scientific studies now.
Better yet, I'll post an additional email account in my profile in the next few days for those who want to request the studies which I provide and I’ll email them to you.
= = =
Effects of Marijuana Smoking on Pulmonary Function and Respiratory Complications
A Systematic Review
Jeanette M. Tetrault, MD; Kristina Crothers, MD; Brent A. Moore, PhD; Reena Mehra, MD, MS; John Concato, MD, MS, MPH; David A. Fiellin, MD
Author Affiliations: Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Department of Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven Veterans Affairs Medical Center, West Haven, Conn (Drs Tetrault and Concato); Departments of Medicine (Drs Tetrault, Crothers, Concato, and Fiellin) and Psychiatry (Dr Moore), Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn; and Department of Medicine, Case Western University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio (Dr. Mehra).
Background: The relationship between marijuana smoking and pulmonary function or respiratory complications is poorly understood; therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the impact of marijuana smoking on pulmonary function and respiratory complications.
Methods: Studies that evaluated the effect of marijuana smoking on pulmonary function and respiratory complications were selected from the MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and EMBASE databases according to predefined criteria from January 1, 1966, to October 28, 2005. Two independent reviewers extracted data and evaluated study quality based on established criteria. Study results were critically appraised for clinical applicability and research methods.
Results: Thirty-four publications met selection criteria. Reports were classified as challenge studies if they examined the association between short-term marijuana use and airway response; other reports were classified as studies of long-term marijuana smoking and pulmonary function or respiratory complications. Eleven of 12 challenge studies found an association between short term marijuana administration and bronchodilation (eg, increases of 0.15-0.25 L in forced expiratory volume in 1 second). No consistent association was found between long-term marijuana smoking and airflow obstruction measures. All 14 studies that assessed long-term marijuana smoking and respiratory complications noted an association with increased respiratory symptoms, including cough, phlegm, and wheeze (eg, odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-3.01, for the association between marijuana smoking and cough). Studies were variable in their overall quality (eg, controlling for confounders, including tobacco smoking).
Conclusions: Short-term exposure to marijuana is associated with bronchodilation. Physiologic data were inconclusive regarding an association between long-term marijuana smoking and airflow obstruction measures. Long-term marijuana smoking is associated with increased respiratory symptoms suggestive of obstructive lung disease.
Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:221-228.
Marijuana remains the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States, with 14.6 million people 12 years and older reporting current use. [ 1 ] The prevalence of marijuana abuse and dependence continues to increase and occurs in 18% of past-year marijuana users. [ 2 ] Given the persistently high prevalence of marijuana use, abuse, and dependence in the community, it is important to understand the potential adverse health outcomes that result from both short-term and long-term marijuana smoking.
Marijuana and tobacco smoke share many of the same compounds. Tobacco smoking is associated with numerous adverse pulmonary clinical outcomes, affecting both pulmonary function and respiratory complications. Some of the known tobacco smoking–related adverse effects include cough, chronic bronchitis, impairment of gas exchange, and airway obstruction that leads to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. [ 3,4 ] The adverse impact of marijuana smoking on pulmonary function and respiratory complications has not been systematically assessed.
The purpose of the current review is to determine the association between short-term marijuana smoking and airway response and the association between long-term marijuana smoking and pulmonary function or respiratory complications.
Endnotes:
1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Office of Applied Statistics. Data from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. 2006. http://www.oas.samhsa.gov /NSDUH.htm. Accessed November 9, 2005.
2. Cottler LB, Helzer JE, Mager D, Spitznagel EL, Compton WM. Agreement between DSM-III and III-R substance use disorders. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1991;29:17-25.
3. Tashkin DP. Smoked marijuana as a cause of lung injury. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2005;63:93-100.
4. Wolff AJ, O’Donnell AE. Pulmonary effects of illicit drug use. Clin Chest Med. 2004;25:203-216.
Comments
It's sad really, here you are trying to tell an adult what he/she can and cannot do. All around my place of employment are different types of stores typical of a college town. Almost every one of these stores carries alcohol. Alcohol isn't a drug, it is a TOXIN, a non-chlorinated solvent, and no matter how it's ingested it still has a LOW lethal does. When I say alcohol I don't mean cognac and the like, I'm talking 191 proof, oak-barrel aged pure grain alcohol. Who in their right minds would drink that? College KIDS, that’s who. Well at least you used a somewhat scientific study and not something from the new-age Nazi’s websites.
John, enough already. This study focuses on the delivery system and not the substance being delivered. Inhaling burning plant matter is bad. No s&%t Sherlock.
"Marijuana and tobacco smoke share many of the same compounds", What PAH's? You don't want to go there. Until cannabis smoke is shown to contain isotopes of U-238 and tobacco is prohibited, your argument doesn't hold water.
One of the problems with a lot of the studies, as your abstract above indicates, is that they are of varying quality in regards to their controlling for things such as tobacco.
For example, there have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and a recent study out of UCLA is suggestive of marijuana (THC?) having a protective effect on the lung. In a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society a few years ago, marijuana users were (again) not found to have any increased risk of lung cancer and unlike tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibited no obstruction of the lung's small airway.
What all of this suggests is while tobacco and marijuana are both consumed in a similar manner - ie, smoking - the lung treats them as markedly different substances. Review articles, like the one(s) you are writing about often presume that one smoked plant will have the same or similar effects on the lung as the other. We now know that is not the case.
“Some have written 5 replies in a row! Pot sure makes one mellow, doesn’t it?!” John, 1000 characters (no spaces) is hardly enough room, at times, to comment.
One of the problems that anti-marijuana propagandists such as yourself have is the difficulty demonizing marijuana on its' own. That's why it's always associated with alcohol and tobacco. Because when evaluated on its own merits, marijuana has always been found to be a safe and beneficial natural product.
John, here's my challenge to you. Marijuana (and hemp) were both perfectly legal until 1937. What happened back then that dramatically changed their status - particularly the hemp plant - that made them so reviled?
Let me get you started - follow the money! The fact that marijuana is illegal has nothing to do with its effect on the human body, and everything to do with powerful political interests of a few very wealthy, very powerful men.
John, I have evaluated enough scientific studies to fill a room, in other words; I have years of experience reviewing scientific studies. By your commentary; you know as much about evaluating a scientific study as I know about locks and keys. But if you can, I would still like an explanation about this: Cannabinoid action induces autophagymediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, School of Biology, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
When this news reaches the general public......
If stricken with this deadly disease, don't you dare, or any prohibitionist for that matter, use this treatment, but we all know you/they will. I will type to you later; I have places to be and people to teach…….scary isn’t it? I’m still LOL at “the above druggie that calls himself AqueousChemist…..I am more of an aqueous chemist than you are a lmao, drug policy examiner.
This is not journalism or commentary.
It is cut and paste plagiarism.
John is a fraud, and should be reported.
John,
Do you have permission to copy and paste a full article? This is way beyond fair use - this is plagiarism.
Where does the article come from? Is it from a journal or an anthology?
Do you understand that you are committing fraud? You are stealing from the publishers of the study you are plagiarizing.
You reveal yourself to be immoral and incompetent.
John is not only a misinformed hack, he is also a thief.
The study examines the effect on pulmonary function. A recent study found that when marijuana is smoked with tobacco the risk of COPD doubles. Since the majority of marijuana users also smoke tobacco, they should take heed. There is no question that smoked marijuana causes lung damage.
Re cancer: smoked marijuana contains more carcinogens and tar than tobacco. A recent study claims that cannabis alters DNA like tobacco and may cause cancer. Other studies show increases in head and neck cancer. Studies disagree about the risk of lung cancer.
The Institute of Medicine does not condone smoked marijuana as a safe delivery system for medical use. UCLA's Tashkin stated recently that the presence of carcinogens in marijuana smoke will preclude the FDA from ever approving smoked marijuana as medicine.
Marijuana supporters have 2 legitimate responses: 1. people smoke fewer joints than cigarettes and 2.use a vaporizer. This would reduce the harm to the lungs but not elimina
Marijuana supporters should not deny the harmful effects on the lungs. My parents were life long smokers and denied it was harmful to their health. Both died of lung diseases. Mom's COPD was worse than my dad's lung cancer.
Smoking even one cigarette a day increases health risks, and there are about 140,000 studies of tobacco to show this. Since most marijuana users also use tobacco it is hard to study marijuana alone, but cigarette for cigarette, it is more harmful. And there are heavy users who smoke all day.
Those who advocate vaporizers are tacitly admitting that smoking is harmful. Making another harmful substance legal, which will increase use, is not good public policy.
On this alone, the case for use/legalization is weak. But it is by no means the only problem with marijuana.
How is making fun of a "user" or taunting them ever going to win you over? Aren't you "supposed" to be helping them? Thats like the Bush Administration wanting peace.. yet calling everyone terrorists and unwilling to listen to their side of the story. If you want peace or to convince someone of something, you can't alienate them from you. Would "Drug Watch International" approve of how you interact with the individuals you need to win over most? If they do, then they are just as bogus as you are. Their agenda is "organization that promotes the creation of healthy drug-free cultures in the world and opposes the legalization of drugs" - which basically means they are pushing their beliefs onto everyone else.
I find it funny that you comment on someone writing a few paragraphs in response to you, then you call them a "druggie" without even knowning a single thing about the person. Such a hypocrite you are, you must be blinded by your "crusade" to notice your own behavoir.
You write the SAME CRAP EVERY DAY, but yet you bash someone for writing a few paragraphs in response to you. Perhaps you didn't know we are limited to the space we can respond? I would have loved to included this in my last response, but was cut off. Maybe you are just brain dead from your past addictions.
I wish you would have been jailed during your "rough" times. Then perhaps you would have a different view. Putting people in prison with sex offenders are other violent criminals for smoking MJ would definitely change you for LIFE. Once your record is scared, it gives people little incentive to turn their lives around. Is that what you are really trying to accomplish John? Just because you were irresponsible and maybe couldn't take advice from your family, doesn't mean we are all in the same boat as you.
Please name one peer reviewed credible research saying marijuana is harmless. How do you ensure non abusers not pay the price for abusers? i.e. crashes, health cost, impaired behavior
Name one group or society that have no rules [laws]. Even gangs in and out of prison have rules of conduct. 1%ers very strict rules.
Name one drug that takes a person beyond the normal limits of the brain [a high] and does not cause a negative payback mentally or physically.
FYI, hemp production fell by over 12,000 tons 8 years before the law was in place, only an additional 200 tons after the law. Buggy whips also suffered sales after this time period.
Thank you John for caring taking the heat and using credible information "with footnotes".
I have found a lot of angry people are not angry, but afraid.
It does not matter what our opinions are concerning science, it is what it is. Science is about discovering the truth. Do not be afraid of it.
Ed,
"Science is about discovering the truth. Do not be afraid of it."
Yes, lets wait for this "science" that should have been conducted over 50 years ago at least. You keep waiting and I'll let you know how I am doing in 50 years after you are long gone.
Honestly, I don't care if you want to live your life getting your kicks from the misery of others, by all means its your life to waste. I choose to live my life with my friends and family the way I want and it doesn't interfere with anyone else. I get along with people who smoke and who do not. I do not judge someone based upon their walks of life. I live a peaceful life and am happy I don't know you personally.
I am quite curious how you or John can sleep at night peacfully, knowing the lies you propagandists put out. I guess you are not too different from Hitler or Bernie Madoff. You are willing to pawn off the rest of the world for own sake. If you are not willing to live in peace with all, then you should gtfo of Amer
You know someone who died from tobacco. Therefore, jail pot smokers. (Q.E.D.) What bunk.
re: "3. Tashkin DP. Smoked marijuana as a cause of lung injury." English's own sources here refute the myth that marijuana smoking is on par with or worse than tobacco.
From "Study: Smoking Pot Doesn't Cause Cancer - It May Prevent It!" (2008)
drugsense.org/url/FwcLXchY :
Tashkin and colleagues at UCLA conducted a major study in which they measured lung function of various cohorts over eight years and found that tobacco-only smokers had an accelerated rate of decline, but marijuana smokers -even if they smoked tobacco as well-experienced the same rate of decline as non-smokers."
"The more tobacco smoked, the greater the rate of decline," said Tashkin. "In contrast, no matter how much marijuana was smoked, the rate of decline was similar to normal." Tashkin concluded that his and other studies "do not support the concept that regular smoking of marijuana leads to COPD."
From John English's own cutting edge research on the adverse effects of the Devil's Weed, re: "Physiologic data were INCONCLUSIVE regarding an association between long-term marijuana smoking and airflow obstruction measures."
In other words, from what John posted, researchers were looking mighty hard, especially at the 'long-term marijuana smoker' yet found nothing.
Thank you, Doctor. You didn't find pot causes cancer or COPD. (So no NIDA funding for you!)
[from my book Drug War Propaganda, 2003 cafepress.com/drugpropaganda2 p.71]
Likewise, a British paper proclaimed that "Research Shatters Myth That Cannabis Is Safe . . . In another review published by the journal, [a professor] from the University of Newcastle, pointed out that cannabis affected almost every bodily system. As well as producing severe anxiety, panic, paranoia and psychosis in high doses, it also impaired memory and concentration, and had a number of physical effects. These included heart problems that might be serious for people with preexisting cardiac disease, and suppression of the immune system."[114] No examples of persons suffering from such cannabis-caused disease were offered.
Ever hear of a vaporizer? Keep them coming old man, not a single time have you won an argument.
John is becoming well known for skimming thru his so called evidence and only picking out the parts he wants. Then using multiple sources to try to piece up his theory.
I'm still quite curious how your locksmithing expertise somehow is supposed give you the almighty word to make us believe your own "medical journal" that you "doctored" up from research that is inconclusive and not even yours.
Your job as the "Drug Policy Examiner" should be unbiased, yet you take a clear stance at the matter as a whole. MJ users are the same to you as Meth users. To you they all are "druggies" and should be locked up.
I will be looking into Drug Watch International and seeing if I can find any real background information on John English. I am also quite curious if their methods for interacting with people are bullying tactics like John's, or if they actually try to reach out to the ones they are supposed to be helping.
Profitting from abusing users should be as illegal as using it.
Same old propaganda technique. I wrote a book on it.
[from my book Drug War Propaganda, 2003 cafepress.com/drugpropaganda2 p.70]
"Cannabis No Soft Drug," trumpeted another Australian paper, warning of manifold marijuana miseries. Quoting a "consultant psychophysiologist" the paper cautioned readers: "cannabis was not a soft, recreational drug that should be legitimised. . . . while most people knew of the cancer-causing effects of tobacco, cannabis was 50-70% cent more carcinogenic. Cannabis was also a major cause of schizophrenia . . . From 1993 to 1997 the number of people who presented to psychiatric units as a result of cannabis-induced psychosis rose from 15% to 26%. There needed to be greater focus on the health risks of using cannabis."[112] The paper proceeded to tell of marijuana's dangers to "fat protein cells" in the body: "Cannabis was fat-soluble, sticking like glue to fat protein cells in the brain, liver and reproductive systems."[113]
The more I read about Drug Watch International, the more they sound like a cult.
"You can't take mind altering substances, but drink our kool-aid with all the answers to life"
To Dave:
Your arguments are weak...
"Those who advocate vaporizers are tacitly admitting that smoking is harmful. Making another harmful substance legal, which will increase use, is not good public policy."
So because it burns it is bad for you. Therefore pot is bad? Vaporizing removes the bad part, so now it's not bad?
Your argument is not strong at all... You can bake with it, you can vaporize, you can create sprays and topical agents... All of them will take away the "bad" part that you describe.
People who advocate vaporizing are admitting that combustion of any type creates fumes that are harmful.
Cars put out harmful exhaust, we can all agree on that, should we make them illegal? No, we do things that help reduce emissions. The same thing goes for those of us who vaporize.
Dave: “Re cancer: smoked marijuana contains more carcinogens and tar than tobacco. A recent study claims that cannabis alters DNA like tobacco and may cause cancer.” Substantiate/quantify it. First, it is known tobacco contains isotopes of U-238 and DOES CAUSE CANCER, not may, but DOES. Second, if smoked cannabis contained more carcinogens and tar than tobacco ONDCP would not have pulled the commercials stating this, when in fact, after a reputable medical organization threatened to sue them over this statement, the ads were pulled. If cannabis were as bad as some claim, the airwaves would be plastered with ads by the anti groups including ONDCP outlining these dangers. Why do you think the content of cannabis ads has been reduced to something like: “if you smoke weed, you’ll play video games all day”. So what is the recent study you reference? What peer-reviewed journal was it published in? What’s its title? Who are the researchers and their affiliation?
Ed: the feds claim cannabis a schedule I with no medicinal value, then what the hell is this: US Patent 6630507 - Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants; issued October 7, 2003
This next bit, in and of itself states cannabis should at least legal to be researched in the most technological advanced nation on the planet: Cannabinoid action induces auto-phagymediated
cell death through stimulation
of ER stress in human glioma cells
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, School of Biology, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Now raise your right arm, lock your elbow and repeat after me: Sieg heil
Hey, it's OK. Keep that nasty mess illegal. You are right. Marijuana is bad business. It'll kill ya'. It will do everything you say and more. It must be keep illegal at all costs. We must use every available tool at our disposal to keep that stuff from getting to our children. We need to hit 'em hard every day. We need more police, courts, and jail cells. We need more helicopters with forward looking infrared cameras, more surprise knock and talk investigations, more neighborhood watch programs looking for dope, and more boots in the field pulling up weeds. We need a concerted effort to, once and for all, end the scourge of drugs.
re: "US Patent 6630507 - Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants; issued October 7, 2003"
That's a blatant example of wanting it both ways. An example of prohibitionists talking out of both sides of their mouths.
They'll mouth some excuses about 'the crude plant' (isn't St. John's Wort a crude plant?) - as if we jail people for drinking coffee instead of taking prescription caffeine pills. Or as if we jail people for using a foxglove preparation - instead of taking prescription digitalis.
Heck, even assuming pot were "snake oil" (whole cannabis is of course a most efficacious and safe medicine) - since when do we jail people even for taking "snake oil"?
Even if cannabis caused more cancer than tobacco and caused more COPD than asbestos, none of that justifies jailing people for cannabis.
We don't jail people for growing hops or morning glories. Time to stop jailing people for pot.
John, you're missing the point. Let me make one thing clear: We have never said that marijuana is harmless, we said it's LESS harmful then alcohol and tobacco, which is true. If there were even ONE case of a marijuana-only smoker getting lung cancer from marijuana, the media would be parading it across the news. So you're argument is that we should be put in jail for using something that is harmful to our health? Sense when do we use the criminal justice system to FORCE people to live healthy? If you arrest marijuana users because they are hurting themselves, then you have to arrest the alcohol/tobacco users as well. So answer me this, John, why is alcohol OK to use, but marijuana isn't? Do you think alcohol is less dangerous? Causes less car accidents? Less health problems? Less social problems? NO! It causes FAR more, but it's still legal, why? Because alcohol prohibition failed. I DARE you to show me ONE way in which alcohol prohibition is different from marijuana prohibition.
Smoke causes damage. This should not be surprising. That does not mean that "Marijuana" smoke is anything new or significant. The combustion products of plant matter are not good. There are many other ways to get cannabinoids into your system besides smoking. Just because smoke causes damage, don't assume the product in its natural state causes such damage. Find a study stating that consuming marijuana in other ways besides exposing your throat and lungs to smoke is harmful and I will be more concerned. I doubt you will find much that is worth while, but then again, I'm always willing to be proven wrong.
You want to arrest people for unhealthy choices? Obesity is the number 1 health care cost in this country. It's linked to a myriad of health problems and costs the tax-payers billions every year. Do you think the government has the right to start telling you what kind of food you eat? Should we start arresting overweight people because they live unhealthy lives at the cost of the tax-payer? If you want to live in a dictatorial country, move to China. This is the land of the free, so until I step on YOUR rights, you should have no say in how I live MY life. If marijuana is illegal because of it's adverse health effects, then why is alcohol/tobacco/overeating acceptable? Those 3 things combined kill an estimated 855,000 people annually. Yet all of them are perfectly legal. So saying that marijuana consumers should be arrested because marijuana is bad for their health is illogical, irrational, and above all, hypocritical.
Annual Causes of Death in the United States
Tobacco - 435,000
Poor Diet-Physical Inactivity - 365,000
Alcohol - 85,000
Microbial Agents - 75,000
Toxic Agents - 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes - 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Rx Drugs - 32,000
Suicide - 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms - 29,000
Homicide - 20,308
Sexual Behaviors - 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct/Indirect - 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin - 7,600
Marijuana - 0
So, according to your logic, we should prohibit anything that is unhealthy and/or can lead to death, including: tobacco, unhealthy foods, alcohol, unprotected sex, OTC medications such as diet pills and aspirin, caffeine, etc. Where does it end, John? How much is the government allowed to take away because it's bad for us?
Would you like it if a SWAT team busted down your door to arrest you for drinking a cup of coffee?
Caffeine Side Effects:
"Dizziness, irritability, nausea, nervousness, severe allergic reactions (rash, hives, itching, difficulty breathing, tightness in the chest, swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue), diarrhea, shakiness, and vomiting."
"In general, consumption of higher doses of caffeine (less than 600 mg/day) has been reported to have lead to caffeinism, a syndrome characterized by anxiety, restlessness, and sleep disorders. It has also been reported that chronic, heavy caffeine ingestion may be associated with depression. Caffeine may cause anxiety and panic in panic disorder patients and may aggravate premenstrual syndrome."
"Psychiatric side effects have included confusion and psychotic symptoms."
"Cardiovascular side effects associated with caffeine have included tachycardia, increased left ventricular output, and increased stroke volume."
So, John, how much coffee/caffeinated soda do you drink and do you think you should be put in jail because it's bad for your health? Should we prohibit caffeine now?
You talk a lot about marijuana's side-effects, but you have yet to logically state why marijuana's side-effects are any worse then the side-effects of the thousands of LEGAL substances we already have. Take caffeine for example, even with all the nasty side-effects that I just listed off, it doesn't even have AGE LIMITS. Any 5 year old can go to the convenience store and buy caffeinated soda. If you want to convince people that marijuana should be illegal, then it's side-effects should be the LAST thing that you talk about. Prohibiting a substance because it's unhealthy leaves the door open to prohibit just about anything you want. You say legalizing marijuana is a slippery slope to legalizing all drugs. I say prohibiting it is a slippery slope to prohibiting everything else. So, I ask you again, where does it stop? How much control is the government allowed to have over what we put in our own bodies?
re: "How much control is the government allowed to have over what we put in our own bodies?"
Exactly.
If one does not own one's own body, what meaning can "ownership" have?
If government has veto over what I may or may not do inside of my own body, then who owns me - me, or government?
The Pharmaceutical Industry spends roughly 1.4 million dollars EVERY DAY to support the criminalization of marijuana, they are the biggest lobbyist out there and own our politicians.
John, I would be completely shocked if you were not seeing a penny of that 1.4, because if not, you have no excuse for your wasted efforts except for stupidity.
Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2009. Well John, are you going to hold your breath until your face turns blue?
John, you sad uninformed man. You believe only government funded studies and think that private or university studies don't count? Get real buddy.
Do you know that government funded studies have to be approved and that all studies have to use the same marijuana sample from the government's lab? Every study is done with the same exact MJ. And if they start to find something that shows positive effects, the funding is usually pulled. Only studies that show negative effects are generally accepted.
You dismiss science you don't agree with as "he must be a druggie". Get real.
Marijuana cannabinoids have recently been shown to kill brain cancer,spur neurogenesis, the creation of healthy new cells, kill breast cancer, prevent formation of alzheimers, kill lung cancer, help with hypertension and depression. There are too many to list.
You are an evil man for trying to keep something used as medicine for THOUSANDS of years illegal.
I like that the endnotes reference work by Dr. Donald P. Tashkin of the UCLA Medical Center. Here's the latest (tr.im/sDlU) from Dr. Tashkin, following his thirty years of research, using the largest case-control study of marijuana smokers in history in his attempt to prove a hypothesized link between marijuana and lung cancer:
Tashkin, supported by other research, concluded that the active ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, has an "anti-tumoral effect" in which "cells die earlier before they age enough to develop mutations that might lead to lung cancer."
"Early on, when our research appeared as if there would be a negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects," Tashkin says. "But at this point, I'D BE IN FAVOR OF LEGALIZATION. I wouldn't encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don’t think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance."
Marijuana use, even chronic, heavy use of high-THC strains, does not lead to lung cancer, emphysema, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, period. This has been studied to death.
Heavy use over a lifetime can lead to increased cough, phlegm, and in rare cases, bronchitis.
So, basically, your position is we should put people caught with a joint in a cage to protect them from a cough.
John, it's obvious your personal experience with marijuana was not a good one. You've blamed much of the sadness in your life on pot and you're now on a crusade to save us all.
Well, my dad was an alcoholic. My childhood years were traumatized by his drinking. I drank myself at 16 and was on the same path until I discovered cannabis at 22. But you don't see me advocating repeal of the 21st Amendment and locking up beer drinkers.
Now research shows cannabinoids can help block opiate (heroin) dependence. Legalizing cannabis may actually help the drug problem!
Shoot... I don't even have to comment a word. Look at the responses to your lies and deceptions John. I do have ONE question for you John. Why is it that you do not respond to questions asked of you by the readers of your comments?
I form my opinion of a man by his integrity and honesty.. You sir, do not have either.
You should be ashamed to consider yourself a man, but then again, I don't thing you are.
I challenge you John.. I challenge you to bring forth some kind of proof, that shows cannabis is harmful. I challenge you to provide PROOF of or even confirmed studies from the so called "Non pot smoking crazed addicts that went to medical school so they can spread the evil herb to innocent people, so they may reap the benefits from over priced health care cost. I live with cancer. You live in a world of lies and deception. John,how about 8 rounds of chemo therapy and tell me if the meds they give you help.. then try Cannabis. 'Pathetic little man will not respond to a chall
... Bare in mind folks. 'LIVING' with cancer sucks ass. I don't care what John thinks or says. I will take 20 years of possible bronchitis then 6-8 months of cancer, if you get my drift. You can not imagine how sick you can get from chemo. It sucks the life right out of you,and then to top it off, the meds finish your soul. Don't believe his out right lies! John, you have to stop.
You know what's funny...
One of the doctors you quoted recently came out and said:
“Early on, when our research appeared as if there would be a negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects.” “But at this point, I’d be in favor of legalization. I wouldn’t encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don’t think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm.”
-The NIDA's Donald P. Tashkin of the UCLA Medical Center
After 30 years of studying marijuana and human lungs, trying to come up with as many negative effects as possible, paid for by the US government, Dr. Tashkins can no longer speak negatively about cannabis as a legitimate and respected scientist. Thanks to true scientists like him, the world still has hope.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!