PDA

View Full Version : News Does methodology matter to no one.


Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 11:55 AM
Saw this all over the net today and finally clicked on it.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/10/144978033/study-a-joint-may-be-easier-on-lungs-than-a-cigarette?ft=1&f=1128&sc=tw

Smoking a joint a week for up to seven years doesn't hurt lung function, according to researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. They came up with that number after following more than 5,000 people for 20 years. The results were just published in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association.


In fact, those occasional pot smokers actually had improvements in some measurements of lung function. That may be due in part to the stretching involved in the deep tokes typical of marijuana use. By contrast, both past and present cigarette smokers had impaired lung function.

But the pot smokers didn't get a completely clean bill of health. Heavy marijuana users, which the study defined as smoking more than 20 times a month, did see a decline in lung capacity. But that's after exposure to more than 10 "joint-years," which the scientists calculated as a joint a day for a decade. That's a fair amount of weed.

WTF - I don't know a thing about pot use, ie how strong your reaction is or how often the average person consumes. But this comparison to smoking is REDICKULUS. Doctors measure cigarette smoking density in PACK years, ie, '20 cigarette' years. They're talking about heavy use of marijuana being measured in joint years, and moderate use as a joint per week.

You're talking, for a 2PPD smoker, a 40x to 280x consumption density. I'd submit that people who consume 280 ounces of soda, heck water, per day would have more health problems than those who consumed 1 ounce of Everclear per day.

loochy
01-11-2012, 11:56 AM
Saw this all over the net today and finally clicked on it.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/10/144978033/study-a-joint-may-be-easier-on-lungs-than-a-cigarette?ft=1&f=1128&sc=tw



WTF - I don't know a thing about pot use, ie how strong your reaction is or how often the average person consumes. But this comparison to smoking is REDICKULUS. Doctors measure cigarette smoking density in PACK years, ie, '20 cigarette' years. They're talking about heavy use of marijuana being measured in joint years, and moderate use as a joint per week.

You're talking, for a 2PPD smoker, a 40x to 280x consumption density. I'd submit that people who consume 280 ounces of soda, heck water, per day would have more health problems than those who consumed 1 ounce of Everclear per day.

What's your point? Every sane person knows that inhaling any kind of smoke is a bad thing. Marijuana users just look for a reason to justify using, so they say it's better than smoking. Well, maybe it is, but inhaling smoke is not good, period.

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 12:04 PM
What's your point? Every sane person knows that inhaling any kind of smoke is a bad thing. Marijuana users just look for a reason to justify using, so they say it's better than smoking. Well, maybe it is, but inhaling smoke is not good, period.

Do you think that's remotely the point the authors of this at NPR and JAMA are trying to make.

loochy
01-11-2012, 12:31 PM
Do you think that's remotely the point the authors of this at NPR and JAMA are trying to make.

I don't know...or care. I just saw this as an outlet to air my annoyance with the whole thing.

tooge
01-11-2012, 12:33 PM
I'm missing where they stated what the "pack years" were for the smokers they compared to? BL, if they did in fact simply go by pack years vrs joint years (which they did define), then you are correct, as there are 20 cigs in a pack

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 12:38 PM
I'm missing where they stated what the "pack years" were for the smokers they compared to? BL, if they did in fact simply go by pack years vrs joint years (which they did define), then you are correct, as there are 20 cigs in a pack

I know this from working Coal Worker's Pneumoconiosis [Black Lung] cases. Deposed dozens of doctors in 3 states who all reliably phrase their intake history in terms of how many 'pack years' workers reported smoking. ie, 3 PPD for 20 years = 60 PYs, 1 PPD for 30 years = 30 PYs.

But even then, common sense tells you that they are making this comparison knowing that cigarette smokes normally consume in terms of PPD, and joint smokers consume in terms of joints per week or month.

ForeverChiefs58
01-11-2012, 12:45 PM
5,000 people for 20 years. I wonder if anyone ever tried to use this excuse?

"It's ok officer, that bag of weed is for a medical research study."

Garcia Bronco
01-11-2012, 12:47 PM
What's your point? Every sane person knows that inhaling any kind of smoke is a bad thing. Marijuana users just look for a reason to justify using, so they say it's better than smoking. Well, maybe it is, but inhaling smoke is not good, period.

Making the study a complete waste of time and pointless. And I'll bet you'll find it's tax payer funded.

ClevelandBronco
01-11-2012, 01:06 PM
Is it just me or does JAMA sound like a great name for a strain of killer weed?

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 01:09 PM
Is it just me or does JAMA sound like a great name for a strain of killer weed?

That or Michael Jackson exclaiming flambouyantly as he plunges his junk into a baby boy booty hole.

DaFace
01-11-2012, 01:42 PM
I guess I don't see the issue. If someone were to smoke 20 joints in a day, I don't think they'd be functional enough to light up a 21st. One per day sounds like pretty heavy use to me.

DaFace
01-11-2012, 01:44 PM
After clicking on the link to see the story's headline (A joint may be easier on the lungs than a cigarette), I'd agree that THAT part is taking it too far, though that headline wasn't mentioned in the OP.

tooge
01-11-2012, 01:50 PM
I know this from working Coal Worker's Pneumoconiosis [Black Lung] cases. Deposed dozens of doctors in 3 states who all reliably phrase their intake history in terms of how many 'pack years' workers reported smoking. ie, 3 PPD for 20 years = 60 PYs, 1 PPD for 30 years = 30 PYs.

But even then, common sense tells you that they are making this comparison knowing that cigarette smokes normally consume in terms of PPD, and joint smokers consume in terms of joints per week or month.

I think you missed my point. I know what pack years refer to and figured you did as well. It seems that there wasn't a number of pack years they compared to the moderate and heavy pot smokers "joint years" is what I was getting at. For instance, if a person smoked for 10 pack years and had less function than a person that smoked what they are calling 10 joint years, then yes, that is about 20 times more cigs than joints. The other thing is that most people dont smoke but a partial joint at a time. I agree that the metholdology is full of shit however.

pr_capone
01-11-2012, 01:51 PM
I wonder if they will ever do a study on bowl years.

Until then... meh

chasedude
01-11-2012, 02:06 PM
One word... Vaporizer!

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 02:10 PM
The other thing is that most people dont smoke but a partial joint at a time.

Says who?

alnorth
01-11-2012, 02:19 PM
I had this EXACT same line of thought this morning. Saw a story with a startling headline, clicked it, read it, saw the glaring obvious problem.

They are basically comparing several packs to one joint. WTF, really?

Aside from the obvious reason why its not comparable, its also not reasonable to assume that several-joint MJ smokers wont exist if MJ is legal. They don't exist now because its not legal and its not cheap.

This study is worthless. I understand the difficulty of finding incredibly-heavy MJ-users, but if they cant find those, then they should only compare what they've got to very light cigarette smokers who only light up a few times a month.

ct
01-11-2012, 03:18 PM
Is there an exponential factor for those exercising both PYs & JYs concurrently?

Not that I need to know or anything...

sedated
01-11-2012, 03:38 PM
They are basically comparing several packs to one joint. WTF, really?

The difficulty is finding a decent comparison. A pot user doesnít light up and smoke an entire joint every hour or so like a smoker does. They may smoke once or twice a day (and thatís a pretty serious user, assuming they have a job).

And who are these idiots who think that a joint is the universal form of smoking pot? Of all the regular smokers I know, Iíd guess less than 1% use joints as their main form of consumption, and those are generally the people who smoke the least overall, since a joint is a social thing.

alnorth
01-11-2012, 03:47 PM
They may smoke once or twice a day (and that’s a pretty serious user, assuming they have a job).

In that case, they can easily find a good comparison. They need to cull out all the heavy tobacco smokers, since people smoking several packs a day are in another world by themselves.

Take 1,000 typical pot users, compare them with 1,000 very light few times a month cigarette smokers, and see what you got. I do think cigarettes are more harmful, but the difference wont be much under that condition.

trndobrd
01-11-2012, 04:38 PM
Waiting to see the study comparing the health impacts of pot brownies to Oreo consumption.

DaFace
01-11-2012, 04:45 PM
Waiting to see the study comparing the health impacts of pot brownies to Oreo consumption.

People who eat a pot brownie a week are more healthy than people who eat 40 Oreos per day. You're welcome.

JASONSAUTO
01-11-2012, 04:56 PM
The difficulty is finding a decent comparison. A pot user doesnít light up and smoke an entire joint every hour or so like a smoker does. They may smoke once or twice a day (and thatís a pretty serious user, assuming they have a job).

And who are these idiots who think that a joint is the universal form of smoking pot? Of all the regular smokers I know, Iíd guess less than 1% use joints as their main form of consumption, and those are generally the people who smoke the least overall, since a joint is a social thing.
Blunts FTW.
Posted via Mobile Device

JASONSAUTO
01-11-2012, 04:57 PM
Says who?

I wondered that too
Posted via Mobile Device

DRU
01-11-2012, 05:44 PM
One word... Vaporizer!

Yup

JASONSAUTO
01-11-2012, 05:49 PM
Yup

Got one. Dont like it much though. Not the same to me
Posted via Mobile Device

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 05:54 PM
People who eat a pot brownie a week are more healthy than people who eat 40 Oreos per day. You're welcome.

Apt and succinct. I approve.

DRU
01-11-2012, 06:01 PM
Got one. Dont like it much though. Not the same to me
Posted via Mobile Device

Took me about a week to get used to it. The reason it's not the same is because of exactly that...it's not the same.

The process, the steps involved, the smell, the taste (which is actually a lot nicer with the vape), the cached feeling in your lungs, etc. That all goes away with the vaporizer so all you get is the end result.

That end result does still work just fine, and you feel a lot of better in general, too, because you're not sucking in all that nasty, resinated shit that gets left behind. Not to mention you save on your shit because it's a lot more efficient. No flame. No burning up your stuff. No carcinogens. You gotta get past the habit of everything else involved and be able to realize it.

Point is I think you should try it again.

JASONSAUTO
01-11-2012, 06:05 PM
Took me about a week to get used to it. The reason it's not the same is because of exactly that...it's not the same.

The process, the steps involved, the smell, the taste (which is actually a lot nicer with the vape), the cached feeling in your lungs, etc. That all goes away with the vaporizer so all you get is the end result.

That end result does still work just fine, and you feel a lot of better in general, too, because you're not sucking in all that nasty, resinated shit that gets left behind. Not to mention you save on your shit because it's a lot more efficient. No flame. No burning up your stuff. No carcinogens. You gotta get past the habit of everything else involved and be able to realize it.

Point is I think you should try it again.
Lol. I use it quite a bit still.

Just isn't the same
Posted via Mobile Device

AustinChief
01-11-2012, 06:25 PM
What's your point? Every sane person knows that inhaling any kind of smoke is a bad thing. Marijuana users just look for a reason to justify using, so they say it's better than smoking. Well, maybe it is, but inhaling smoke is not good, period.

That's actually not true at all. The dose makes the poison. Anyone who has studied toxicology knows this.

Check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_limit_value

Of course, inhaling smoke DIRECTLY usually does cause one to pass that threshold. I don't know the exact figures for marijuana .. I do know that it is far worse on carcinogens than cigarettes are.