cannabisnews.com: Smoke Wisdom 





Smoke Wisdom 
Posted by CN Staff on November 11, 2002 at 22:56:10 PT
Leader
Source: Guardian Unlimited
Bill Clinton - "I puffed, but I didn't inhale" - was wiser than he knew. A new report from the British Lung Foundation, based on 90 published research studies, suggests that three cannabis joints a day can cause the same damage to the lining of the lungs as 20 cigarettes; and that cannabis cigarettes contain 50% more cancer-causing carcinogens than tobacco, depositing four times as much tar on the respiratory tract as unfiltered cigarettes of the same weight. 
The new report says research studies carried out in the 1960s and 1970s showing the relative harmlessness of cannabis have been overtaken by the more potent forms of cannabis smoked today. The typical joint now has 15 times as much THC, the ingredient which accounts for the psychoactive properties of the drug, than 30 years ago. We also know more about the differences between smoking cannabis and tobacco: the puff volume is two thirds as high; inhalation one third as high; and breath-holding four times as long. So where does this leave the government's plan to downgrade cannabis from a B to a C category of harmfulness? Unchanged - for three reasons. First, because the new research ignores the pattern of use. For the majority, cannabis use remains recreational and irregular. Most users do not smoke three joints a day. Second, the drug's current level of illegality (and price) dictates its consumption method: mixed with tobacco to make it look like a normal smoke. The new approach - a caution rather than arrest - would encourage more use of hookahs, which would reduce many of the drug's dangers. Third, the social reasons for the reclassification still stand up: it remains far less dangerous than heroin, cocaine and crack; it diverts enormous amounts of police time; and it threatens its 2.5 million young users with a criminal record. Serious reformers never denied the drug was risk-free. Let the new risks be widely publicised, but not prompt a new war on its users. Note: Stay cool about cannabis dangers. Special Report: Drugs in Britain: http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/0,2759,178206,00.html Source: Guardian Unlimited, The (UK)Published: Tuesday, November 12, 2002Copyright: 2002 Guardian Newspapers LimitedContact: letters guardian.co.ukWebsite: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Related Articles & Web Sites:BLF - Report on Cannabishttp://www.lunguk.org/news/index.htmlBLF - Report on Cannabis - PDF Formathttp://www.lunguk.org/news/a_smoking_gun.pdfCancer from Cannabis? http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14724.shtmlCancer Warning Put on Smoking Joints http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14720.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by canaman on November 12, 2002 at 17:29:45 PT
It's all about relative harm
It wouldn't make any differance if it where proven cannabis were 100 times more carcinogenic than tabacco. It still doesn't justify ruining peoples lives over. I remember those clove cigarettes that where supposed to be much more carcinogenic than regular cigs. They weren't taken off the shelves but a media blitz helped to cut use. Maybe that's the problem it's just to damn simple for some people to understand.....I doubt it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Craiggoth on November 12, 2002 at 10:17:39 PT
THC?
--The new report says research studies carried out in the 1960s and 1970s showing the relative harmlessness of cannabis have been overtaken by the more potent forms of cannabis smoked today. The typical joint now has 15 times as much THC, the ingredient which accounts for the psychoactive properties of the drug, than 30 years ago.--According to THIS website THC does NOT cause cancer? Are we always being fed false information? All of this cannabis-cancer has be ever so confused, and I would ask that cannabis.com keep us updated on this all of the time...as I am sure they will. ALSO...LETS STAY OPEN MINDED ABOUT THIS POT HEADS, LETS NOT BE BIASED BECAUSE WE SMOKE THIS STUFF.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Ethan Russo MD on November 12, 2002 at 07:35:02 PT:
Smoking
It is absurd to equate cannabis smoking with that of tobacco. Anyone should bear in mind that most of these studies were done with NIDA cannabis that was low-grade and contained seeds and stems. It is not a real world comparison. Please see: http://www.montananorml.org/docs/ChronicCannabisUseStudy.pdfVaporization of cannabis should reduce any pulmonary risk considerably. Alternative delivery systems, such as oral use, sublingual sprays of tinctures, etc, should eliminate it completely.I believe in science, not propaganda.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by goneposthole on November 12, 2002 at 07:01:01 PT
outlaw tobacco
Those blokes should be hat-whipped for mixing tobacco with cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on November 12, 2002 at 04:39:02 PT
Hookahs
If you smoke it out of a hookah, the assumption is that you would use pure cannabis. The problem is the current system encourages Europeans to combine it with tobacco.Of course, there's no mention of vaporization, or the fact that once the price goes down, people could afford to eat it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by CorvallisEric on November 12, 2002 at 01:02:51 PT
Trivial gripes
The new approach - a caution rather than arrest - would encourage more use of hookahs, which would reduce many of the drug's dangers.Not likely so, according to research connected with MAPS and California NORML which concludes that water pipes filter out more THC than tars, but leaves unanswered the question about volatile substances and the effects of smoke temperature. If one percent of all the money spent on "proving" the harm of cannabis would go into harm reduction studies ...Serious reformers never denied the drug was risk-free.Freudian slip? How about "Serious reformers never claimed the drug was risk-free?"
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment