Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Comparing cannabis with tobacco- cannabis, like smoking tobacco, can be major public health hazard
bmj ^

Posted on 05/01/2003 11:23:59 PM PDT by chance33_98

< snip >
We already know that regular use of cannabis is associated with an increased incidence of mental illnesses, most notably schizophrenia and depression
< / snip >

Comparing cannabis with tobacco

Smoking cannabis, like smoking tobacco, can be a major public health hazard

Britain now has 13 million tobacco smokers. This number has been steadily decreasing due to public awareness of the harm caused by tobacco smoking. At the same time the number of cannabis smokers is increasing. Between 1999 and 2001, the number of 14-15 year olds who had tried cannabis rose from 19% to 29% in boys and 18% to 25% in girls, and a Home Office document estimates that 3.2 million people in Britain smoke cannabis. 1 2 However, the harmful effects of smoking cannabis are widely known and have recently been highlighted. 3 4 Although the active ingredients of the cannabis plant differ from those of the tobacco plant, each produces about 4000 chemicals when smoked and these are largely identical. Although cannabis cigarettes are smoked less frequently than nicotine cigarettes, their mode of inhalation is very different. Compared with smoking tobacco, smoking cannabis entails a two thirds larger puff volume, a one third larger inhaled volume, a fourfold longer time holding the breath, and a fivefold increase in concentrations of carboxyhaemoglobin.5 The products of combustion from cannabis are thus retained to a much higher degree. How is this likely to translate into adverse effects on health?

We already know that regular use of cannabis is associated with an increased incidence of mental illnesses, most notably schizophrenia and depression,4 but it is also worth examining its potential to cause other illnesses, especially those of the heart and respiratory system.

At present, there is an understandable dearth of epidemiological evidence of cardiopulmonary harm from cannabis, because its use is a relatively new phenomenon and its potency is changing. The amount of the main active constituent, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), in cannabis has increased from about 0.5% 20 years ago to nearer 5% at present in Britain, whereas "Nederweed" (the variety smoked in the Netherlands) has an average of 10-11% tetrahydrocannabinol. At the same time little study has been undertaken of any concomitant change in the content of tar. Case-control studies are difficult to perform since cannabis cigarettes do not come in standard sizes, which makes dose-response relations difficult to establish. Furthermore, most users of cannabis also smoke tobacco, which makes it difficult to dissect out individual risks. As with tobacco, there will be a latent period between the onset of smoking and the development of lung damage, cardiovascular disease, or malignant change.

Tobacco smoking is responsible for 120 000 excess deaths each year in Britain, 46 000 from cancers, 34 000 from chronic respiratory disorders, and 40 000 from diseases of the heart and circulation. However, there are indications that smoked cannabis may cause similar effects to smoking tobacco, with many of them appearing at a younger age. Smoking cannabis causes chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and other lung disorders, which were recently summarised in a review released by the British Lung Foundation.3 A striking feature of cannabis smoking is that it is associated with bullous lung disease in young people.6 Inflammatory lung changes, chronic cough, and chest infections are similar to those in cigarette smokers, but may also be commoner in younger people.7-9 Premalignant changes have been shown in the pulmonary epithelium, and there are reports of lung, tongue, and other cancers in cannabis smokers.

Tetrahydrocannabinol has cardiovascular effects, and sudden deaths have been attributed to smoking cannabis.10 Myocardial infarction is 4.2 times more likely to occur within an hour of smoking cannabis.11 However, despite these alarming facts, there is no evidence at present on whether smoking cannabis contributes to the progression of coronary artery disease, as smoking cigarettes does. More studies of the cardiovascular and pulmonary effects of cannabis are essential.

It may be argued that the extrapolation from small numbers of individual studies to potential large scale effects amounts to scaremongering. For example, one could calculate that if cigarettes cause an annual excess of 120 000 deaths among 13 million smokers, the corresponding figure for deaths among 3.2 million cannabis smokers would be 30 000, assuming equality of effect. Even if the number of deaths attributable to cannabis turned out to be a fraction of that figure, smoking cannabis would still be a major public health hazard. However, when the likely mental health burden is added to the potential for morbidity and premature death from cardiopulmonary disease, these signals cannot be ignored. A recent comment said that prevention and cessation are the two principal strategies in the battle against tobacco.12 At present, there is no battle against cannabis and no clear public health message.

John A Henry, professor.

Academic Department of Accident and Emergency Medicine, Imperial College School of Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, London W2 1NY (j.a.henry@ic.ac.uk)

William L G Oldfield, specialist registrar. Onn Min Kon, consultant.

Department of Respiratory Medicine, St Mary's Hospital


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: addiction; braincellloss; cheetos; wodlist
We already know that regular use of cannabis is associated with an increased incidence of mental illnesses, most notably schizophrenia and depression

Well, that explains the WOD threads ;)

1 posted on 05/01/2003 11:23:59 PM PDT by chance33_98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Wod_list
Puff-n-Ping
2 posted on 05/01/2003 11:24:13 PM PDT by chance33_98 (www.hannahmore.com -- Shepherd Of Salisbury Plain is online, more to come! (my website))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
Wow, 30,000 deaths. One would assume there is at least one per year now. Surely the good doctor can cite the case.
3 posted on 05/02/2003 4:29:10 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98; jmc813
Smoking cannabis, like smoking tobacco, can be a major public health hazard

So either both should be illegal or both legal (for adults). It's clear which the author wants; which do conservatives want?

regular use of cannabis is associated with an increased incidence of mental illnesses, most notably schizophrenia and depression

"Association" does not imply causation; is the author too stupid to know this or too dishonest to say it?

4 posted on 05/02/2003 6:32:20 AM PDT by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; vin-one; WindMinstrel; philman_36; Beach_Babe; jenny65; AUgrad; Xenalyte; Bill D. Berger; ..
WOD Ping
5 posted on 05/02/2003 6:45:59 AM PDT by jmc813 (The average citizen in Baghdad,right now, has more firearm rights than anyone in our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
It seems to me that the sh*t squeezed out of these socialist ninnies' heads is a major health hazard. The science is bad; the philosophy is evil.

Especially since so many otherwise sensible people pick this sh*t up and eat it.

Warning! Believing Socialist Public Service claims is dangerous to your health.
6 posted on 05/02/2003 6:47:14 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
Has anyone figured out why so much of this horse shiite is coming out of GB right now? There has to be a reason.
7 posted on 05/02/2003 7:12:11 AM PDT by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jayef
the reason is they are about to go full scale legalization.
some busy body has to speak up, someone out there is having fun and we need to put a stop to it right now.
So much of this article has been debunked hundreds of times.....
makes me laugh.....
8 posted on 05/02/2003 7:20:08 AM PDT by vin-one (I wish i had something clever to put in this tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
Warning! Believing Socialist Public Service claims is dangerous to your health.

LOL! Is that available as a bumper sticker?

9 posted on 05/02/2003 7:25:44 AM PDT by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vin-one
That's what I thought was happening. What about the claim that smoked cannabis causes emphysema? I have NEVER seen that claimed before. As a matter of fact, what I've read has claimed that smoked cannabis is actually beneficial to emphysema patients, this due to the fact that smoked cannabis affects the large passageways of the lung only and dilates the small passageways. Does anyone have another source?
10 posted on 05/02/2003 7:41:46 AM PDT by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
I was going to post a reply, but I'm feeling depressed and out of touch with reality this morning.
11 posted on 05/02/2003 7:45:19 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jayef
I have also heard the same for emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma.
not sure of the reasons, My little brother who is a double threat smoker, cigs, and other stuff, says it is because it makes you cough.
his reasoning maybe a little off.
just ask Dane, he will tell ya. it is the cure for everything, ha ha ha
12 posted on 05/02/2003 8:00:20 AM PDT by vin-one (I wish i had something clever to put in this tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jayef
"Since 1982, UCLA researchers have evaluated pulmonary function and bronchial cell characteristics in marijuana-only smokers, tobacco-only smokers, smokers of both, and non-smokers. Although they have found changes in marijuana-only smokers, the changes are much less pronounced than those found in tobacco smokers.

"The nature of the marijuana-induced changes were also different, occurring primarily in the lung's large airways - not the small peripheral airways affected by tobacco smoke. Since it is small-airway inflammation that causes chronic bronchitis and emphysema, marijuana smokers may not develop these diseases."

- Tashkin, D.P. et al, "Longitudinal Changes in Respiratory Symptoms and Lung Function in Non-smokers, Tobacco Smokers, and Heavy, Habitual Smokers of Marijuana With or Without Tobacco," pp 25-36 in G. Chesher et al (eds), Marijuana: an International Research Report, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service (1988)
13 posted on 05/02/2003 8:01:02 AM PDT by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jayef
For a competing view, and a good laugh, see http://www.cyc-net.org/Newsdesk/newsdesk-000327-e.html. Note how the author waits till the last sentence to admit this "science" is cr@p.
14 posted on 05/02/2003 8:04:31 AM PDT by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jayef; MrLeRoy; vin-one; headsonpikes
Much of what is in this article is a distortion of a British Lung Foundation review from the mid 80's. Note, its a review, no new studies were done. The fallacies are well documented here.
15 posted on 05/02/2003 8:11:11 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Well, technically speaking then, this paper IS 'science'; in that it is certainly falsifiable.
16 posted on 05/02/2003 8:27:24 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
this paper IS 'science'; in that it is certainly falsifiable.

"There's a turd on my lawn" is falsifiable, but it's not science.

17 posted on 05/02/2003 8:51:58 AM PDT by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"...but it's not science."

Well, it's not rocket science, but nonetheless, it is a falsifiable empirical statement, the lowest hurdle a piece of 'scientific claim' assertion must leap.
18 posted on 05/02/2003 9:07:54 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson