Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Oprah's Iffy Adventure | Microsoft Packages iPod »

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Healthy Pot Smokers

Posted by on May 24 at 15:52 PM

I don’t understand why this headline would come as surprise to anyone: Pot’s Low Cancer Risk a Surprise Finding. I mean, isn’t it pretty obvious why pot smokers would be at less of a cancer risk? Apparently not…

The findings are a surprise because marijuana smoke has some of the same cancer-causing substances as tobacco smoke, often in higher concentrations, said the senior researcher, Donald Tashkin, a professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California-Los Angeles.

One possible explanation is that THC, a key ingredient in marijuana not present in tobacco, may inhibit tumor growth, he said in an interview.

Here’s another possible explanation: Pot smokers don’t smoke pot the same way cigarette smoke tobacco. Pot heads don’t walk into taverns, toss packs of joints on bars, and then sit there for three or four hours, drinking and chain-smoking pot cigarettes. For a pot smoker, pot smoke is a means to the end—and the end, of course, is getting high. The point isn’t to sit there inhaling and exhaling pot smoke all night long. No one chain-smokes joints. With pot, you take three or four puffs, you’re high, you’re done. Put the pot away and break out the chips and salsa. (Or, in my case, a box of See’s Candies.)

Contrast pot smokers to cigarette smokers: For most cigarette smokers, smoking is the point. It’s the means and the end. Cigarette smokers smoke to smoke. Smoking passes the time, gives them something to do with their hands, or make `em look, er, cool. In, out, in out, one cigarette after another. Smoke, smoke, smoke. Some smoke to maintain the feeble buzz tobacco cigarettes provide, or to depress their appetites, or to briefly sate their nicotine cravings. But these pharmacological “benefits” are brief, so cigarette smokers keep lighting up, again and again, and smoke and smoke and smoke some more.

So when anti-pot scare-mongers write things like, “…one marijuana cigarette can deliver four times as much cancer-causing tar as one tobacco cigarette,” all they’re proving is that they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. One marijuana cigarette may very well deliver four times as much cancer-causing tar as one tobacco cigarette, but a casual pot smokers will smoke one or two joints a month, not one, two, or three packs in a day. Which means they inhale far less more smoke, are exposed to far fewer carcinogens, and are therefore at lower risk of contracting lung, mouth, or throat cancer.

Hello, Professor Tashkin? Like, duh?

And not only do pot smokers inhale far less smoke than cigarette smokers, today’s pot smokers can get high smoking far less pot than pot smokers did in previous decades. Don’t take my word for it—here’s what the same scaremonger had to say:

Marijuana today is more than twice as powerful on average as it was 20 years ago. It contains twice the concentration of THC, the chemical that affects the brain.

Yup, it sure does. It’s a point that anti-pot scaremongers can’t resist hammering away at. When U.S. Drug Czar John Walters hosted an installment of “Ask the Whitehouse,” a regular live web chat with not-yet-indicted Bush administration officials, Walters delivered this urgent warning to Peter from Bloomington: “Today’s marijuana is also twice as strong as it was in the mid 80’s.”

Psst? Peter from Bloomington? Just between you and me, it’s a good thing that today’s marijuana is twice as strong as it was in the mid 80s. If you’re lucky enough to be smoking pot in 2005 and not 1985, you can smoke half as much pot and get just as high! Isn’t that great! Instead of bitching about this happy development the federal government should be thanking modern pot farmers for cutting in half the amount of smoke pot users are exposed to on our way to getting high.

Hm. Now where were those chips?


CommentsRSS icon

You may also want to throw in the fact that pot isn't intentionally laced with hundred of deadly & addictive chemicals, like tobacco is. Now, those same scaremongers may dredge up the urban myths of "this one guy, in the 70's, got ahold of this pot that was laced with PCP, and then jumped out of a window..." and so on. No modern pot grower adds anything to their plants other than fertilizer: why taint your product? 30+ years ago, you laced ditch-weed because it had almost no THC. Today's stuff needs no such masking or enhancing. (It also shouldn't be wrapped in paper! Please, use some glass and clean water! Don't believe the scaremongers who say it doesn't filter anything: look at the water when you're done and draw your own conclusions.)

My mom used to warn me about buying pot on the street cuz they'd slip PCP into it. I told her they'd charge extra for that.

On topic, if THC is as bad as assholes like John Waters (office of National Drug Control Propoganda) say it is, where are the hospital wards filled with all of those pot smokers (mostly around the age of my parents) from the 1960's and 70's? T

I have no idea why those researchers why surprised either. This isn't even close to the first study to show this. It might be possible that the researchers were operating specifically from the assumption that those earlier tests were flawed and were surprised that they were not.

Then again, I'm surprised they didn't just lie to cover up their findings like the jackasses in France who claimed that pot doubles your risk of causing a fatal crash (but intentionally didn't correct for alcohol).

It's a lot safer than any drug your doctor could prescribe you, but there's that one nagging side effect that politicians don't want you to experience: it opens your mind.

Stay blind and be a good citizen.

I don't know Dan... I think you're kind of a light-weight compared to most weed smokers. Lots of pot heads I know are daily smokers and smoke several bowls or a couple joints in one session. I've been cutting back because it seems like that's got to be bad for the lungs and such, but this makes me worry less.

Even if you smoked two joints a day, and a joint, according to the anti-pot idjits (who would never, ever exaggerate the risks involved) has four times the carcinogens, that’s equal to eight cigarettes a day. That’s bad, but that’s still less than half the carcinogens that a pack-a-day smoker would be exposed to; a pack has 20 cigarettes in it.

Hell, if you're worried about combustion by-products impacting your lungs, there is always the option of ingestion. Brownies, anyone?

The only study I've seen recently that both looked like real science and provided a clear risk from marijuana was a study that showed that people who smoked it long term (25+ years) were at greater risk for emphysema. But it's pretty clear right now that it doesn't cause cancer. Either way, a vaporizer is a good idea.

The stuff's so good now all youse needs is a hit or two. Hell, the paper around ciggies gots WAY more bad stuff in it than the herb. Legalize it.

I smoke two joints before I smoke two joints, and then I smoke two more.

a few other medical implications in the study that might have affected the results:

1. stress - most pot smokers have lower stress, which is a risk factor.

2. diet - many pot smokers are vegans, vegetarians, raw foodies, or have less meat-based diets, tending to buy organic non-pesticide produce, which impacts risk factors.

3. exercise - many pot smokers bike to/from work, walk, and get exercise. now, that doesn't mean all of them, but the higher incidence level would skew risk factors.

I'm not saying the results aren't correct, but I'd always want to see more controlled studies that dealt with those issues. General rule is first study doesn't count, you need at least two confirming studies.

Why are these studies always done using joints? That is the dirtiest, most wasteful, and really, old-fashion way of smoking. Kind of kitsch, nothing more. What would be the conclusion? That a joint with 1.5 grams of BC shared with friends is not as health as .25g bowl run through 350ml of water? And running with a stick is better for poking your eyes out then walking with a stick? Almost every study looks at joints, but every pot-smoker with an eye towards long-term health or cares about making the 40 sack last doesn't smoke joints. Therefore, this study isn't helpful.

Thanks, Dan, for bringing up a good point: the frequency of usage of pot compared to cigarettes. Pot may pack more punch, but you're not smoking a joint every hour or two. This is why pot isn't the health hazard that pack a day smoking is.

Why can't hemp be patriotic anymore? Decriminalize it and use the biomass that doesn't get smoked to create some engergy independence: methane! 10,000 uses!

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).