Thread: Cannabis linked to healthy lung function

The thing about this is technically, if you smoke cigarettes for five years and then stop, your lungs will also be healthier than the average persons.

Because there's nothing in pot tar that will cause it to cling to and damage the lung cells the way that arsenic or butane additives in cigarettes do, it's only logical if you keep yourself limited to one joint a day or give yourself breaks for at least a few days every now an then, you'll have healthier lungs. They're still getting tar, meaning they have to put in more work but the tar doesn't give any lasting side effects so once the lungs can clear it out, they'll be stronger.

I also think pot is a good preventative medicine, but I think the connection to healthy lung function is more at fault because you're working them harder.

It's important to note that other studies suggest that cannabis can be harmful; but the fact it's contentious shows that it's probably not that bad for you, and certainly much better for you than tobacco.

One joint a day is a fairly high amount, isn't it?

edit: plol

Not for chronic smokers.

so pot smokers lungs are more efficient than mine are

Originally Posted by Marvo

One joint a day is pretty much, isn't it?

Not if you really want to feel the effects after a short time of smoking fairly regularly.

Doesn't a bong filter it to almost no harmful effects though? Or is that just something I accepted from Pineapple Express in my naivety?

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

so pot smokers lungs are more efficient than mine are

People who exercise (cardio) regularly have healthier hearts too, eh?

Originally Posted by Marvo

One joint a day is pretty much, isn't it?

Usage patterns vary wildly, but most people who keep the stuff around probably average more like 2-3 "servings" per day. People who smoke less frequently than once per day... well, you wouldn't expect it to have much health impact, would you? Certainly not in comparison to cigarette smokers who measure their daily use by packs of twenty, and tend to maintain that pace more consistently throughout their lifetimes.

Originally Posted by moSh

Not if you really want to feel the effects after a short time of smoking fairly regularly.

Doesn't a bong filter it to almost no harmful effects though? Or is that just something I accepted from Pineapple Express in my naivety?

Water compacts the tar.

I think some of you are missing the mark a bit... The study isn't suggesting that smoking cannabis is good for your lungs at all, its simply better than smoking tobacco.

O rly?

but those who smoked up to one joint a day aced a lung function test: Air flow rate actually slightly increased in the marijuana users, up to a certain level.

My stupidity knows no bounds

Originally Posted by Marvo

One joint a day is pretty much, isn't it?

You must all be high as fuck coz you responded to this and I can't make heads or tails of it. Either that or I am.

Anyway no this is not surprising to me at all. Cannabis expands the lower airways so it makes sense. That also means that none of the tar stays in your lungs, or at least very, very little. And it shows in people who smoke both, they always cough up tar.

The only reason I know of for why cigarette tar sticks to your lungs is because they constrict your upper airways.

For Marvo's edification, a native English speaker wouldn't use "much" that way. We'd say "a lot," "quite a bit," or "a fair amount" (which, while it would literally mean "a moderate, not-excessive quantity," is a figure of speech generally used as understatement). Your construction comes out extra confusing because "pretty much" is also a figure of speech, meaning "just about," or "that's approximately correct," generally used as a hedge against making a more definite statement.

"Much" in reference to quantity is mostly only used to ask "How much?" or to say "too much."

Someone give me ESL job naow.

Clinic Touts Smoking as Cancer Cure
One of the "treatments" calls for the blowing of smoke from "divine cigarettes" infused with "nanotechnology" to remove their cancer-causing "free radicals."

same site

Originally Posted by Taosaur

For Marvo's edification, a native English speaker wouldn't use "much" that way. We'd say "a lot," "quite a bit," or "a fair amount" (which, while it would literally mean "a moderate, not-excessive quantity," is a figure of speech generally used as understatement). Your construction comes out extra confusing because "pretty much" is also a figure of speech, meaning "just about," or "that's approximately correct," generally used as a hedge against making a more definite statement.

"Much" in reference to quantity is mostly only used to ask "How much?" or to say "too much."

Someone give me ESL job naow.

Sorry, in Danish you would say "En joint om dagen er rimelig meget, ikke?" which basically holds no ambiguity to its meaning.

Rimelig meget = pretty much. I do know that "much" can't really be used to say that something is "a lot", I just didn't think of that at the time of writing.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Sorry, in Danish you would say "En joint om dagen er rimelig meget, ikke?" which basically holds no ambiguity to its meaning.

Oh, that sounds so terribly stiff :p

But yeah, it's a Scandinavian thing. I didn't even notice it was wrong, or understand how tommo could be confused.

Important to remember that cannabis can be dangerous. There were a couple of papers published last year which suggested that if you have the genetic predisposition for schizophrenia, smoking cannabis regularly makes it more likely that you will end up contracting the disease.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

How disrespectful of Jesus, calling his dad by his first name

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Important to remember that cannabis can be dangerous. There were a couple of papers published last year which suggested that if you have the genetic predisposition for schizophrenia, smoking cannabis regularly makes it more likely that you will end up contracting the disease.

You're right, that it can give you schizophrenia, (a disorder, not a disease ). But it's usually before the age of 21. And it is usually in people with a family history of it.

Originally Posted by mooseantlers

You're right, that it can give you schizophrenia, (a disorder, not a disease ). But it's usually before the age of 21. And it is usually in people with a family history of it.

Ah thanks for the correction, I'm a neuroscientist so I'm not entirely familiar with the psychiatric terms.

But yes that's what I was saying with 'genetic predisposition'; people with a family history.

That's like saying it's dangerous to eat peanuts if you have an allergy. That doesn't mean no one should get to eat peanut.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

That's like saying it's dangerous to eat peanuts if you have an allergy. That doesn't mean no one should get to eat peanut.

While I agree, I assume Patrick's point was that it's pretty hard to know if you're predisposed.

Actually that's true, making my peanut allergy incorrect because if you're schizophrenic then it'll come out anyway by the time you're 25, whether or not you smoke pot. Psychedelic drugs just make it manifest sooner.