Does methodology matter to no one.

[Baby Lee]

Saw this all over the net today and finally clicked on it.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012...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]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Saw this all over the net today and finally clicked on it.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012...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]

Originally Posted by loochy

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]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

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.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by loochy

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.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by loochy

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.

[tooge]

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]

Originally Posted by tooge

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.

[tooge]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

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.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by tooge

The other thing is that most people dont smoke but a partial joint at a time.

Says who?

[alnorth]

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.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Says who?

I wondered that too
Posted via Mobile Device

[ForeverChiefs58]

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."

[ClevelandBronco]

Is it just me or does JAMA sound like a great name for a strain of killer weed?

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

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.