Study: Secondhand Marijuana Smoke Worse Than Cigarettes

[Lost Horizons]

Study: Secondhand Marijuana Smoke Worse Than Cigarettes

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) – Secondhand marijuana smoke may damage your blood vessels even more than cigarette smoke.

That’s according to a new study from the American Heart Association.

In the study, arteries in rats that inhaled secondhand marijuana smoke for one minute carried blood less efficiently for at least 90 minutes.

Similar exposure to second hand tobacco smoke cause blood vessel impairment for 30 minutes.

In a news release the AHA says, “While the effect is temporary for both cigarette and marijuana smoke, these temporary problems can turn into long-term problems if exposures occur often enough and may increase the chances of developing hardened and clogged arteries,†said Matthew Springer, Ph.D., study senior author and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco’s Division of Cardiology.

Researchers say arteries of rats and humans are similar in how they respond to second hand tobacco smoke.

Researchers also found the mere burning of the plant material appears to cause the impaired blood vessels, not chemicals like nicotine and tetrahydrocannabinol.

“There is widespread belief that, unlike tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke is benign,†Springer said. “We in public health have been telling the public to avoid secondhand tobacco smoke for years. But we don’t tell them to avoid secondhand marijuana smoke, because until now we haven’t had evidence that it can be harmful.â

Click to read more...

 

[LT]

What about your lungs, though?

I think its pretty obvious that you should just try to avoid inhaling any kind of smoke, no matter the source.

 

[PredsV82]

What about your lungs, though?

I think its pretty obvious that you should just try to avoid inhaling any kind of smoke, no matter the source.

Dont let the "Weed is a miracle drug that big pharma is suppressing" crowd hear that.

Its funny how something so obvious as "don't inhale smoke, its bad for you" is lost on so many people

 

[Fordy]

“There is widespread belief that, unlike tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke is benign,”

no there isn't

literally nobody thinks this

“We in public health have been telling the public to avoid secondhand tobacco smoke for years. But we don’t tell them to avoid secondhand marijuana smoke."

what? why is dude lying?

 

[ColePens]

no there isn't

literally nobody thinks this



what? why is dude lying?

It may not be you, or intelligent people who want to discuss this matter in a Science forum, but a lot of general idea out there is that it's completely harmless. It's sad... but it is actually out there.

I'm just so guessing those individuals don't frequent a message board to discuss it.

 

[Hurt]

Wayward off topic political discussion is not allowed.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Has it even been proven that second hand smoke has lasting negative effects?

I mean 90 minutes? Thats nothing. You're basically recovered once you leave the room.

 

[LT]

Has it even been proven that second hand smoke has lasting negative effects?

I mean 90 minutes? Thats nothing. You're basically recovered once you leave the room.

I assume you're referring to just marijuana smoke? Because there have been numerous studies about cigarette smoke, and it is absolutely a short and long-term health issue.

 

[aleshemsky83]

I assume you're referring to just marijuana smoke? Because there have been numerous studies about cigarette smoke, and it is absolutely a short and long-term health issue.

No i mean secondhand smoke. For example when I was a kid I was told x thousand people die from secondhand smoke a year. But that turned out to be untrue.

I mean unless you're working in a bar every day for 20 years does it have any effect?

 

[LT]

No i mean secondhand smoke. For example when I was a kid I was told x thousand people die from secondhand smoke a year. But that turned out to be untrue.

I mean unless you're working in a bar every day for 20 years does it have any effect?

Do you have any links proving those claims are untrue? I'm genuinely curious, as I hadn't heard that before.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Do you have any links proving those claims are untrue? I'm genuinely curious, as I hadn't heard that before.

Heres a few,

http://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/

If second hand smoke exposure is a significant risk factor for developing lung cancer, then we should expect to see increased numbers of cancer cases in non-smokers who are exposed to regular doses of second hand smoke. Has there been an increase in the incidence of lung cancer among nonsmokers over the last 40 years? The answer is quite simply… No. Data from national mortality studies show that rates of lung cancer among non-smoking women remained stable between the 1950’s to the 1980’s (very few women smoked during those years) and didn’t rise until substantial numbers of women started smoking in more recent years. These non-smoking women were included in numerous studies as control groups for examining lung cancer rates in their smoking spouses. As anti-smoking logic would dictate, the longer one is exposed to second hand smoke the more we should see a rise in lung cancer. However, when we examine the data from the studies noted above, we do not see such a rise in cancer rates for these non-smoking women.

...

In 1992, second hand smoke was labeled a Class A carcinogen: one that causes lung cancer and is responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans annually (U.S. EPA, 1993). However, there were no autopsies, no bodies, nor one person that could be claimed as a victim. The EPA did not base their classification on their own independent study but examined over thirty epidemiological studies (i.e., studies that attempt to correlate various risk factors with early death in different populations). Eleven of those studies were done in the United States, and of those eight found a positive risk, three found a negative risk but none of them were statistically significant (that is, none of the U.S. studies could make the statement that there was a causal relationship between second hand smoke and cancer).

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.extract

A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke.

...

The incidence of lung cancer was 13 times higher in current smokers and four times higher in former smokers than in never-smokers, and the relationship for both current and former smokers depended on level of exposure. However, among women who had never smoked, exposure to passive smoking overall, and to most categories of passive smoking, did not statistically significantly increase lung cancer risk. The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more. In …

 

[LT]

Thanks - both look like interesting reads, I'll hopefully get to them tomorrow when I have more time on my hands.

 

[jdhebner]

You should also read http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/who_inquiry.pdf and http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/index.php
And


http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/#harm

In my opinion most studies that say that there isn't a correlation between passive smoking and health problems are poorly done, incorrect, and/or performed by people with ties to the tobacco industry.