For those purposes, do you know how smoking marijuana maps to smoking cigarette? E.g. is 1 "dose" of pot = 1 cigarette? 10 cigarettes? Or does it not map at all?
What about electronic cigarettes?
What about electronic cigarettes?
Current thinking is the body repairs that damage with clots and cholesterol. But, these repairs accumulate over time to occlude a blood vessel (atherosclerosis). If red blood cells can't get through, oxygen can't either, and heart cells downstream to the occlusion will die in minutes to hours.
Marijuana most likely generates a significant amount of toxins as well. However, marijuana smokers generally smoke less than cigarette smokers. Given that heart disease and cancer risk increases with the amount smoked, it would be reasonable to assume marijuana smokers are much less at risk (though the risk is nonzero). But, we don't have a clear conversion between marijuana and cigarette smoke yet. You may also consider that marijuana may be contaminated with other plants or chemicals.
Electronic cigarettes are possibly more safe than non-e cigarettes in terms of cancer risk (this is theoretical as no significant study has been done yet). However, some in vitro (cellular) research suggests nicotine may play a role in atherosclerosis discussed above. Also, nicotine can precipitate a heart attack if a heart is already diseased.
Are these are thing again? I was under the impression that it was 80's nonsense that's been debunked.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_(chemistry) for more detail
does this imply that if there's very little damage (due to inflammation or substance abuse) elevated cholesterol doesn't really matter?
Unless it contributes to increased addiction, the manufacturers generally try and reduce the unhealthy components of the cigarettes - making them more palatable and keeping the addicts alive for longer so they can make more money off of them. There's really no such effort with marijuana as it stands today.
I'm totally unqualified to make this statement, but I'd venture a guess that most of the 'toxins' that are natural byproducts of combustion - not just the tar - are present in significantly higher amounts in marijuana.
Sticking to the 4:1 ratio, someone who smokes 5 joints a day is basically a pack a day smoker.
And, of course, blood pressure is one of the four numbers.
(However if someone already have low blood pressure it might be dangerous for them)
Why not? Also, aren't marijuana cigarettes unfiltered, unlike tobacco?
I'm confused by the answer: Cigarette filters don't filter toxins? And they do reduce temperature?
You can't say this. There's a possibility that cannabis causes mental health problems in some people who don't have underlying disease. There's a stronger possibility that cannabis triggers mental illness in people who do have underlying disease but who would not otherwise have had an episode.
It is irresponsible to suggest that cannabis is harm free.
People like you do great harm to campaigns that aim to legalise drugs. Please stop.
I did not suggest that cannabis is harm free. I stated we cannot explicitly identified marijuana as the cause of illness.
How am I doing "great harm" to campaigns aiming to legalize drugs? (That's an honest question, I'm not quite processing your viewpoint on my argument, and am actually interested in your response.)
Yes you did - using phrases like "there are no known health risks" you dismiss all the evidence we have that cannabis can cause harm.
Here's just one link, but there are many other reputable sources. This one discusses lung health.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/06june/Pages/cannabis-lung-healt...
> The report says that the constituents of cannabis smoke are similar to those of tobacco smoke apart from the presence of THC (which is only in cannabis) or nicotine (which is only in tobacco). This means that cannabis smoke has the same carcinogens (substances that cause cancer) as tobacco smoke, although concentrations of these may be up to 50% higher. Like tobacco, cannabis also contains toxic carbon monoxide
Saying that this is equivalent to "no known health risks" is intellectually dishonest.
The phrase used was "no known health detriments", by which I believe he meant a direct causal link, such as with cigarettes and lung cancer.
Besides the patronizing of the parent post, I do think your argument is valid. Mostly since you use the phrases "stronger possibility." But again, without clinical proof, your argument is only as good as parent's.
http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2013/12/marij...
"Teens who were heavy marijuana users -- smoking it daily for about three years -- had abnormal changes in their brain structures related to working memory and performed poorly on memory tasks, reports a new Northwestern Medicine® study."
"The brain abnormalities and memory problems were observed during the individuals’ early twenties, two years after they stopped smoking marijuana, which could indicate the long-term effects of chronic use. Memory-related structures in their brains appeared to shrink and collapse inward, possibly reflecting a decrease in neurons."