Does methodology matter to no one.

[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.

[sedated]

Originally Posted by alnorth

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

The difficulty is finding a decent comparison. A pot user doesn’t light up and smoke an entire joint every hour or so like a smoker does. They may smoke once or twice a day (and that’s 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, I’d 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]

Originally Posted by sedated

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.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by sedated

The difficulty is finding a decent comparison. A pot user doesn’t light up and smoke an entire joint every hour or so like a smoker does. They may smoke once or twice a day (and that’s 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, I’d 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

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Says who?

I wondered that too
Posted via Mobile Device