Vaporizing Really That Good?

[Jogro]

dude stop spreading misinformation. you don't get a body high from smoke vs vapor because of the destruction of chemicals, its because you simply get something from smoke that you don't from vape,

That's actually what I said, though I think in a more nuanced way than what you posted. Again:

-More "head" high, less "body" high. This has to do with which cannabinoids are extracted in vapor, vs. extracted/destroyed with higher-temperature combustion.

Now to expand a bit, whether you get a "body" high or a "head" high depends not only on which cannabinoids are present in the weed you're smoking/vaping, (eg the strain type), but more important, IN WHAT RATIOS they're actually extracted into the smoke/vapor you inhale.

That ratio bit is critical, and its what explains, for example why sativa strains are more "psychedelic" and indica strains are more "narcotic" even when both are smoked the same way. The former contains mostly pure THC, while the latter has lots of CBD too.

Burning/smoking typically extracts out all the cannabinoids at once, but it also destroys about 20-30% of them (turning them partially into noxious byproducts), and to some minor extent even converting cannabinoids from one type to another. Hence what I wrote above about extraction/destruction.

Vaporizing doesn't destroy the cannabinoids in the same way high-temperature burning does, though by itself that does NOT make vaporization more efficient, since unlike with burning, some cannabinoids will typically remain trapped in spent vaped herb. But either way, this is a relatively minor difference. The main difference is that since different cannabinoids vaporize at different temperatures, what temperature the vaporizer is set at will affect which chemicals appear in the vapor, and by extension the quality of the high.

Specifically, since THC vaporizes at a lower temperature than CBD and many of the other cannabinoids, if you set your vape at a low temp, you'll only get THC and the "head" high. If you want the "body" high, you need to crank your vape temp all the way up, to near burning temperature (roughly 400F) to get out the CBD and other cannabinoids.

Whether this is good or bad, is entirely subjective. Some people want the body high. . .some hate it. Some people like the flexibility of adjusting the temperature to alter the extraction ratios. Some people don't want to tweak knobs or experiment with temperatures, and if they want a different "kind" of high, they'll just choose a different strain of weed.

Its all "good", it just comes down to personal preference.

Accept it already instead of trying to call it a bad thing in the subtlest of ways.

What the hell are you going off about?

Vaping and smoking each have their own plusses and minuses.

The biggest advantages of vaping are that there are no irritating and toxic byproducts of combustion being formed. Even aside from bronchitis and cancer risk, that alone makes it a viable choice of drug delivery for sick individuals who can't tolerate smoking.

 

[poplars]

That's actually what I said, though I think in a more nuanced way than what you posted. Again:



Now to expand a bit, whether you get a "body" high or a "head" high depends not only on which cannabinoids are present in the weed you're smoking/vaping, (eg the strain type), but more important, IN WHAT RATIOS they're actually extracted into the smoke/vapor you inhale.

That ratio bit is critical, and its what explains, for example why sativa strains are more "psychedelic" and indica strains are more "narcotic" even when both are smoked the same way. The former contains mostly pure THC, while the latter has lots of CBD too.

Burning/smoking typically extracts out all the cannabinoids at once, but it also destroys about 20-30% of them (turning them partially into noxious byproducts), and to some minor extent even converting cannabinoids from one type to another. Hence what I wrote above about extraction/destruction.

Vaporizing doesn't destroy the cannabinoids in the same way high-temperature burning does, though by itself that does NOT make vaporization more efficient, since unlike with burning, some cannabinoids will typically remain trapped in spent vaped herb. But either way, this is a relatively minor difference. The main difference is that since different cannabinoids vaporize at different temperatures, what temperature the vaporizer is set at will affect which chemicals appear in the vapor, and by extension the quality of the high.

Specifically, since THC vaporizes at a lower temperature than CBD and many of the other cannabinoids, if you set your vape at a low temp, you'll only get THC and the "head" high. If you want the "body" high, you need to crank your vape temp all the way up, to near burning temperature (roughly 400F) to get out the CBD and other cannabinoids.

Whether this is good or bad, is entirely subjective. Some people want the body high. . .some hate it. Some people like the flexibility of adjusting the temperature to alter the extraction ratios. Some people don't want to tweak knobs or experiment with temperatures, and if they want a different "kind" of high, they'll just choose a different strain of weed.

Its all "good", it just comes down to personal preference.


What the hell are you going off about?

Vaping and smoking each have their own plusses and minuses.

The biggest advantages of vaping are that there are no irritating and toxic byproducts of combustion being formed. Even aside from bronchitis and cancer risk, that alone makes it a viable choice of drug delivery for sick individuals who can't tolerate smoking.

I like this response and find it very open. I must only elaborate on the LAST point, that there are no irritating byproducts, when vapor itself can be irritating if inhaled too quickly or too big of hits etc... but other than that great response bro.

 

[Jogro]

read it and weap.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/01/11/marijuana-not-bad-your-lungs

and to the post above...

there is NO PROOF of cannabis alone causing chronic bronchitis, or any long term lung conditions such as emphasema, the only things they coudl find were bouts of bronchitis. not CHRONIC bronchitis.

here's the direct link to the study for all of you fools who think that anything linked to that isn't a direct medical journal is bullshit (even though within the article they have a direct link to the supplied study...)

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/307/2/173.short

With due respect, I think you're the one who needs to weep after reading it. It was nice of you to cite this recent article, though its a shame you didn't actually understand what it said. From the author's conclusion:

Conclusion Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function.

How did they define this? Simple:

Marijuana exposure was nearly as common as tobacco exposure but was mostly light (median, 2-3 episodes per month).

In other words, if you're smoking only 2-3 times PER MONTH, then you should expect no significant decrease in lung function after only a few years. And that's what I said above; if you aren't smoking very much, you're not going to have many negative effects.

But what happens if you are a HEAVY smoker? Well, the article DOES address that; its just not mentioned in the vastly oversimplified lay press report you quoted first or in the abstract conclusion:

In contrast, the association between marijuana exposure and pulmonary function was nonlinear (P < .001): at low levels of exposure, FEV[SUB]1[/SUB] increased by 13 mL/joint-year (95% CI, 6.4 to 20; P < .001) and FVC by 20 mL/joint-year (95% CI, 12 to 27; P < .00 1), [In other words, light smoking actually HELPED lung function] but at higher levels of exposure, these associations leveled or even reversed. [But at higher levels of smoking, not only was there no benefit, there was actually damage] The slope for FEV[SUB]1[/SUB] was &#8722;2.2 mL/joint-year (95% CI, &#8722;4.6 to 0.3; P = .0 at more than 10 joint-years and &#8722;3.2 mL per marijuana smoking episode/mo (95% CI, &#8722;5.8 to &#8722;0.6; P = .02) at more than 20 episodes/mo. With very heavy marijuana use, the net association with FEV[SUB]1[/SUB] was not significantly different from baseline, and the net association with FVC remained significantly greater than baseline (eg, at 20 joint-years, 76 mL [95% CI, 34 to 117]; P < .001).

I realize this is heavy statistics-language, but what the author is saying is that if you smoke a LITTLE bit of marijuana (defined as only a few times per month), then you actually IMPROVE your lung function, presumably by exercising your lungs. On the other hand, if you are a HEAVY smoker, you cause lung DAMAGE, averaging a loss of 76 ml of lung capaity after 20 joint-years.

Bottom line is, that this article proves exactly the OPPOSITE of what you claim. Heavy smoking (defined as over 3650 joints smoked in a lifetime) **IS** associated with a decrease in lung function (which is undoubtedly permanent, by the way), and VERY heavy smoking (more than 20x per month) even more so.

 

[Jogro]

I like this response and find it very open. I must only elaborate on the LAST point, that there are no irritating byproducts, when vapor itself can be irritating if inhaled too quickly or too big of hits etc... but other than that great response bro.

Absolutely, vapor can be irritating all by itself, but by definition THC-laden vapor is not a "byproduct" (its the "main product").

 

[poplars]

Absolutely, vapor can be irritating all by itself, but by definition THC-laden vapor is not a "byproduct" (its the "main product").

ah ah ah


dude you're awesome at discussion I'm leaving this very pleased with the conclusion.

 

[Jogro]

Is there medical evidence that cannabis causes chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema?

Yup, though like the above article from JAMA, this one from the British Medical Journal also finds less of an effect than smoking. The authors here conclude that every marijuana cigarette is roughly 16-40% as harmful as a conventional tobacco cigarette. Interestingly, they found that cannabis smoking alone poses a relatively low risk of causing emphysema, though the risk is greater than zero:

http://thorax.bmj.com/content/early/2007/07/31/thx.2006.077081.abstract

Background: Cannabis is the most widely used illegal drug worldwide. Long term use of cannabis is known to cause chronic bronchitis and airflow obstruction, however the frequency of macroscopic emphysema, the dose-response relationship and the dose equivalence of cannabis with tobacco has not been determined.

Conclusions: Smoking cannabis was associated with a dose-related impairment of large airways function resulting in airflow obstruction and hyperinflation. [That's chronic bronchitis, FYI] In contrast, cannabis smoking was seldom associated with macroscopic emphysema. The 1:2.5 to 6 dose equivalence between cannabis joints and tobacco cigarettes for adverse effects on lung function is of major public health significance.

 

[Medical420MI]

I personally dislike electronic vaporizers, but i'll vape off my TI nail all day....

Yup, but I have a TI skillet.

 

[poplars]

With due respect, I think you're the one who needs to weep after reading it. It was nice of you to cite this recent article, though its a shame you didn't actually understand what it said. From the author's conclusion:



How did they define this? Simple:



In other words, if you're smoking only 2-3 times PER MONTH, then you should expect no significant decrease in lung function after only a few years. And that's what I said above; if you aren't smoking very much, you're not going to have many negative effects.

But what happens if you are a HEAVY smoker? Well, the article DOES address that; its just not mentioned in the vastly oversimplified lay press report you quoted first or in the abstract conclusion:



I realize this is heavy statistics-language, but what the author is saying is that if you smoke a LITTLE bit of marijuana (defined as only a few times per month), then you actually IMPROVE your lung function, presumably by exercising your lungs. On the other hand, if you are a HEAVY smoker, you cause lung DAMAGE, averaging a loss of 76 ml of lung capaity after 20 joint-years.

Bottom line is, that this article proves exactly the OPPOSITE of what you claim. Heavy smoking (defined as over 3650 joints smoked in a lifetime) **IS** associated with a decrease in lung function (which is undoubtedly permanent, by the way), and VERY heavy smoking (more than 20x per month) even more so.

well while I do believe that when you are a heavy smoker there is more risk of bronchitis and pneumonia (if you take too big of rips and aren't moderate in yoru techniques. ) I do not believe there is long term lung damage that would lead to emphasema or chronic bronchitis such as what happens with ciggarette smokers (and there is pretty much no direct statistical evidence showing a direct link between just cannabis smoke and emphasema or chronic bronchitis.)

however, I of all people believe that if you take too big of rips, smoke too much when you're sick, ignore the signs your body is trying to tell you when it's telling you it's had too much, then YES, you will do some damage, possbily SERIOUS damage.

I think it's only fair to try my best to explain the full scope of this issue.

 

[mantiszn]

Do you honestly believe that smoking cannabis is not harmful in anyway?

 

[Jogro]

well while I do believe that when you are a heavy smoker there is more risk of bronchitis and pneumonia (if you take too big of rips and aren't moderate in yoru techniques. ) I do not believe there is long term lung damage that would lead to emphasema or chronic bronchitis such as what happens with ciggarette smokers (and there is pretty much no direct statistical evidence showing a direct link between just cannabis smoke and emphasema or chronic bronchitis.)

Please.

There is a well conducted controlled clinical study published in JAMA that YOU YOURSELF linked to, showing (as you put it) "direct statistical evidence" of lung damage in chronic cannabis smokers.

If you don't want to believe this data, that's your "right", but don't say there is "no evidence" when you yourself posted a link documenting plenty of it from one of the most reputable medical journals in the world!

I posted another link from the British Medical Journal, again, a top tier medical journal, documenting the same and more.

And there is **PLENTY** more documentary evidence that cannabis smoking causes throat irritation, acute bronchitis, laryngitis, etc, etc, etc. I'm not going to bother to post links to them, because the point has been made: Smoking can be bad for you, yes, even smoking weed.

How bad depends mostly on how much you smoke (and again, there is plenty of evidence there too).

 

[Jogro]

Since I've opened the box of medical literature, here's a good one. This clinical study from the UCLA shows a decrease in chronic bronchitis in marijuana smokers who quit smoking:

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15412555.2012.671868

And the money quote:

We found that continuing smokers of either marijuana or tobacco had a significantly increased likelihood of having chronic bronchitis at follow-up compared to both never smokers and former smokers.

Yup, more evidence that smoking cannabis is associated with chronic bronchitis. They did show that long term quitting does cause the bronchitis to reverse in most cases. . .so that's something.

Now, how about something a little more positive and relevant to this thread? This article from the University of Albany demonstrates that vaporizing can reduce lung complications from smoking cannabis:

http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/4/1/11

Yup, its an actual study using actual smokers seeing reduced lung symptoms after switching to vaporizers.


Bottom line:

There is *LOTS* of published medical literature showing negative pulmonary effects from long term marijuana smoking.
There is some published medical literature showing reduction of lung symptoms in smokers who switch to vaporizers.

 

[mantiszn]

Quiet in here.. Did someone just get pwn'd?

 

[poplars]

Please.

There is a well conducted controlled clinical study published in JAMA that YOU YOURSELF linked to, showing (as you put it) "direct statistical evidence" of lung damage in chronic cannabis smokers.

you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say it doesn't cause lung damage, I do believe it does when you smoke incorrectly (I also believe if you smoke very lightly the damage caused is lighter than that of walking into a polluted city.)

my point was, there is no direct evidence that smoking of cannabis alone even in high amounts causes CHRONIC bronchitis and CHRONIC LUNG CONDITIONS SUCH AS EMPHYSEMA.

do you understand what I'm saying now?


and you quoted a study that doesn't directly rule out that they had ever smoked tobacco in their life. I do fully agree that when you combine cannabis and tobacco (and there is proof of this) that it increases your likelyhood of developing chronic lung conditions dramatically.

but my point is, CANNABIS ALONE, will not cause chronic bronchitis or emphysema(assuming it is organic bud and free of pesticides.)

to sum it up for people who have a hard time reading long posts... I DO NOT THINK CANNABIS IS HARM FREE ON THE LUNGS, I JUST DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS AS EVEN REMOTELY AS HARMFUL AS TOBACCO SMOKE ON THE LUNGS.

 

[Jogro]

my point was, there is no direct evidence that smoking of cannabis alone even in high amounts causes CHRONIC bronchitis and CHRONIC LUNG CONDITIONS SUCH AS EMPHYSEMA.

. . .and you quoted a study that doesn't directly rule out that they had ever smoked tobacco in their life.

Did you actually read what I just posted? One more time, with a little more detail:

Impact of Changes in Regular Use of Marijuana and/or Tobacco On Chronic Bronchitis

Donald P. Tashkin[SUP]1[/SUP], Michael S. Simmons[SUP]1[/SUP], and Chi-Hong Tseng[SUP]2[/SUP]

Abstract

We sought to evaluate possible changes in the prevalence of chronic bronchitis in relation to continuing or changing smoking status for marijuana and/or tobacco. For this purpose we followed 299 participants in a longitudinal cohort study of the impact of heavy habitual use of marijuana alone or with tobacco on respiratory symptoms over a mean of 9.8 years during which subjects underwent repeated administration of a detailed drug use and respiratory questionnaire at intervals of &#8805;1 yr. Using logistic regression, we calculated odds ratios to assess the relationship between chronic bronchitic symptoms and smoking status for marijuana and tobacco at the first visit (current smoking versus never smoking) and at the last follow-up visit (continuing smoking versus, separately, never smoking and former smoking). We found that continuing smokers of either marijuana or tobacco had a SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED LIKELIHOOD OF HAVING CHRONIC BRONCHITIS at follow-up COMPARED TO BOTH NEVER SMOKERS AND FORMER SMOKERS. On the other hand, former smokers of either substance were no more likely to have chronic respiratory symptoms at follow-up than never smokers. These findings demonstrate the benefit of marijuana smoking cessation in resolving pre-existing symptoms of chronic bronchitis.

So, what you're saying then, is that this controlled study, conducted at UCLA, showing that individuals who smoke ONLY MARIJUANA are much more likely to have chronic bronchitis than non smokers, and that quitting smoking makes their chronic bronchitis go away is NOT "evidence" that marijuana causes chronic bronchitis?

I'm not trying to be an ass here, but do you know what the word "evidence" means? I think one can argue about whether or not this study provides definitive proof that smoking cannabis causes chronic bronchitis, but I don't think any reasonable person can say that it doesn't provide EVIDENCE that it does!

Also, contrary to what you posted above, the bit in green shows that these researchers did control for past smoking history.

Now maybe you are just trying to make a nuanced argument that mere correlation doesn't prove causation? (IE just because cannabis smokers are much more likely to get chronic bronchitis than non-smokers, and just because that bronchitis goes away when they stop smoking, that doesn't "prove" that the bronchitis is caused by the smoking). In my opinion, that is starting to get into tobacco-industry type denial, but OK, lets look at something else.

Here is DIRECT evidence that smoking cannabis causes bronchial injury:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9266864
Fligiel SE, Roth MD, Kleerup EC et al. Tracheobronchial histopathology in habitual smokers of cocaine, marijuana, and/or tobacco. Chest 112(2), 319—326 (1997).

SUBJECTS:

Fifty-three nonsmoking control subjects (NS), 14 current, habitual smokers of crack cocaine only (CS), 40 current, regular smokers of marijuana only (MS), 31 regular smokers of tobacco only (TS), 16 current smokers of both cocaine and marijuana (CMS), 12 current smokers of both cocaine and tobacco (CTS), 44 current smokers of both marijuana and tobacco (MTS), and 31 current smokers of cocaine, marijuana, and tobacco (CMTS).

RESULTS:
Smokers of cocaine, marijuana, or tobacco alone all exhibited more frequent abnormalities than NS in 10 (CS) or all 11 (MS and TS) of the histopathologic features assessed.

CONCLUSION:
Marijuana and tobacco smoking each produces significant bronchial mucosal histopathology

Again, for those who don't speak medicalese, these researchers actually took BIOPSIES from the bronchi of cannabis, tobacco, and crack cocaine smokers, plus individuals who smoked various combinations of the above, and compared them to non-smokers to see what kind of damage they saw and what the differences were. In a nutshell, smoking marijuana alone caused the same sorts of microscopic changes that smoking tobacco alone does.

Again, without going into too much detail, I'd say this is DIRECT EVIDENCE that smoking cannabis is potentially harmful in the same way that tobacco is.

 

[Jogro]

my point was, there is no direct evidence that smoking of cannabis alone even in high amounts causes CHRONIC bronchitis and CHRONIC LUNG CONDITIONS SUCH AS EMPHYSEMA.

do you understand what I'm saying now?

I understand what you're saying; its just demonstrably false. Each of the studies I've cited shows evidence that:

a. Smoking cannabis alone is associated with increased risk for chronic bronchitis, in particular long-term heavy smoking,
b. Smoking cannabis alone is associated with increased risk for emphysema (though admittedly only a very small increased risk), and
c. Smoking cannabis alone is associated with the same sorts of microscopic cellular changes seen with tobacco smoking.

Again, you might not believe that this evidence is conclusive, but you can't claim with a straight face that there is no evidence!

And speaking of lack of evidence, you made an assertion above implying that pesticides and inorganically grown cannabis pose increased risk for emphysema and bronchitis.

Do you have even a SHRED of evidence to back up this assertion?

Because so far as I know nobody has done any sort of controlled study examining the effect of organic vs inorganically grown cannabis on lung function. You're saying there is no evidence to back up my claims (even though I've provided plenty). Have you got any evidence you can cite to prove yours?

Why do you believe this to be true?

to sum it up for people who have a hard time reading long posts... I DO NOT THINK CANNABIS IS HARM FREE ON THE LUNGS, I JUST DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS AS EVEN REMOTELY AS HARMFUL AS TOBACCO SMOKE ON THE LUNGS.

I agree with that, but that's a totally different argument.

Its like saying being hit with a hammer isn't "remotely as harmful" as being hit with a bullet.

In this case, nobody is saying that smoking marijuana is just as harmful as smoking cigarettes. We all know smoking cigarettes is worse. The question is just how harmful is smoking marijuana, and can that harm be reduced by vaporizing instead?

Relevant to this thread, I'd say that there is EVIDENCE (!) that vaporizing DOES reduce lung injury compared to smoking, and that's the point. If you're concerned about lung function, there are plenty of evidence based reasons to think that vaping is a preferable alternative to smoking. Of course EATING the cannabis is even better yet, but that's for a different thread!

More?

This is more of a review article than a direct research piece, but it does highlight some of the medically documented findings associated with long term marijuana only smoking. In short, there is EVIDENCE that smoking cannabis alone causes chronic bronchitis, that smoking cannabis alone causes the same kinds of pre-cancerous changes in bronchial tissue that are associated with tobacco smoking, and even statistical evidence showing an increased prevalence of cancer among young people who smoke marijuana.

Again mere correlation doesn't prove causation, and evidence isn't the same thing as proof, but you'd have to really be in Tobacco-industry type denial not to think that inhaling the exact same carcinogens in marijuana smoke that are found in tobacco smoke CAN'T increase the risk for cancer, particularly in light of evidence that it causes some of the same sorts of changes in actual lung tissue!

http://jcp.sagepub.com/content/42/11_suppl/71S.abstract
Respiratory and immunologic consequences of marijuana smoking

• DR Tashkin, GC Baldwin T Sarafian S Dubinett MD Roth

Abstract

Habitual smoking of marijuana has a number of effects on the respiratory and immune systems that may be clinically relevant. These include alterations in lung function ranging from no to mild airflow obstruction without evidence of diffusion impairment, an increased prevalence of acute and chronic bronchitis, striking endoscopic findings of airway injury (erythema, edema, and increased secretions) that correlate with histopathological alterations in bronchial biopsies, and dysregulated growth of the bronchial epithelium associated with altered expression of nuclear and cytoplasmic proteins involved in the pathogenesis of bronchogenic carcinoma. Other consequences of regular marijuana use include ultrastructual abnormalities in human alveolar macrophages along with impairment of their cytokine production, antimicrobial activity, and tumoricidal function.

Cannabinoid receptor expression is altered in leukocytes collected from the blood of chronic smokers, and experimental models support a role for delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol in suppressing T cell function and cell-mediated immunity. The potential for marijuana smoking to predispose to the development of respiratory malignancy is suggested by several lines of evidence, including the presence of potent carcinogens in marijuana smoke and their resulting deposition in the lung, the occurrence of premalignant changes in bronchial biopsies obtained from smokers of marijuana in the absence of tobacco, impairment of antitumor immune defenses by delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, and several clinical case series in which marijuana smokers were disproportionately over represented among young individuals who developed upper or lower respiratory tract cancer. Additional well designed epidemiological and immune monitoring studies are required to determine the potential causal relationship between marijuana use and the development of respiratory infection and/or cancer.

 

[poplars]

you are a master statistician, that's all sir. you can make anything appear true through statistics if you are smart enough, which apparently you are. you will dismiss me in any way you see fit to make it look like I'm an idiot to the public, but it doesn't really matter to me anymore you have plenty of vapor elitists to back up your obvious bias.

you see I don't need to type out a whole book just to make my point, I don't feel the need to throw excess information at someone with intention to overwealm them and make myself look good.

 

[Jogro]

Originally Posted by poplars
you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say it doesn't cause lung damage, I do believe it does when you smoke incorrectly (I also believe if you smoke very lightly the damage caused is lighter than that of walking into a polluted city.)

These are also "interesting" assertions.

Do you have any evidence to back up THESE assertions? Specifically that lung damage is purely a function of incorrect smoking technique, or what the relative risks are of smoking cannabis vs exposure to envirnomental pollution?

Also, would you care to explain what the "correct" way to smoke is?

 

[Jogro]

you are a master statistician, that's all sir. you can make anything appear true through statistics if you are smart enough, which apparently you are. you will dismiss me in any way you see fit to make it look like I'm an idiot to the public, but it doesn't really matter to me anymore you have plenty of vapor elitists to back up your obvious bias.

In other words, you have no response to anything I've posted except name-calling.

In reponse to your name calling, I would just add that I didn't conduct any of the studies I cited (or YOU cited), so I can't take any of the credit (or blame) for any of the associated statistics.

Now, bluntly, if you don't want to believe a body of peer-reviewed published medical studies that contradict, well, pretty much everything you've asserted, that's your right, but are you at least willing to concede that these studies EXIST?

In other words, are you mature enough to admit that there are a whole bunch of doctors and professional researchers who disagree with you?

 

[poplars]

In other words, you have no response to anything I've posted except name-calling.

In reponse to your name calling, I would just add that I didn't conduct any of the studies I cited (or YOU cited), so I can't take any of the credit (or blame) for any of the associated statistics.

Now, bluntly, if you don't want to believe a body of peer-reviewed published medical studies that contradict, well, pretty much everything you've asserted, that's your right, but are you at least willing to concede that these studies EXIST?

In other words, are you mature enough to admit that there are a whole bunch of doctors and professional researchers who disagree with you?

they do what the money tels them to, where is the majority of the money for such research coming from? I guarantee you the majority of this money funding such studies do NOT have the benefits of cannabis in mind when they are supporting such studies.

I don't take much stock in the doctors and professionals when they are so flip floppy about this whole medical cannabis issue they are literally a bunch of tools (besides a very small percentage. )

I'm done here, you can generalize my statements in any way you like, teh fact is you're using biased studies that are likely funded with money that was intended to make cannabis look bad, not good.

 

[Jogro]

they do what the money tels them to, where is the majority of the money for such research coming from? I guarantee you the majority of this money funding such studies do NOT have the benefits of cannabis in mind when they are supporting such studies.

The financial support for most of this research comes from your tax dollars (or it would if you actually had a job and were paying Federal income taxes). Some comes from independent foundations.

Are you actually claiming that its impossible for any medical study on cannabis to be taken seriously, unless its conducted by people who are biased TOWARDS cannabis?

That's an "interesting" position.

I guess you don't believe all that malarkey about cigarettes causing cancer or emphysema either, since all those studies were conducted by biased gov't and privately funded anti-tobacco researchers. The only research one should believe about smoking is that published by the tobacco industry, correct? Although, I have to say, at this point even THEY say you should trust the "biased" literature!

I don't take much stock in the doctors and professionals when they are so flip floppy about this whole medical cannabis issue they are literally a bunch of tools (besides a very small percentage. )

At least these researchers are publishing actual data they've collected doing actual tests on actual smokers.

All you're "publishing" is hot air and invective, and you've got the nerve to accuse THEM of professional misrepresentation?

These doctors have undoubtedly forgotten more about lung disease than you'll ever know!

I'm done here, you can generalize my statements in any way you like, teh fact is you're using biased studies that are likely funded with money that was intended to make cannabis look bad, not good.

You mean, YOU'RE using "biased studies" since YOU were the one who started by posting that article from JAMA! (IE, the one you didn't read or understand).

But I get it now. Cannabis studies are only "biased" when they find health risks associated with smoking cannabis. If they show no risk, then by definition they're fine.

Let me ask you one more question (that you probably also won't answer).

Do you believe that using a vaporizer instead of smoking can help reduce the risk of lung injury from cannabis?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.