No.2375
Hey, i know we all love our grass, but c'mon. Use a little common sense.
Yea, it's not as bad as cigarettes and isn't as addictive as nicotine,but you're still inhaling Carbon Monoxide (byproduct of combustion). This callouses the soft tissues in your lung, regardless.
Read these articles with a critical eye, man.
No.2376
>weed is good for your lungs
No.2377
>>361That's some stupid-add logic, there. Like Canadian Stoner said, shit will fuck you up a bit anyway. Luckily, I have learned to enjoy it, every last part.
No.2378
Dude, if you're really from Belgium it's even worse for us. Our weed is so strong we have to roll it with tobacco.
People from US and Canada get to roll pure ones and even that's not good for your lungs.
No.2388
>>2378I'm smoking a bowl filled with nothing but top quality weed from a guy who grows for pharmaceutical companies, has nearly the maximum amount of THC you can shove inside a plant.
No.2392
So reading this thread it kind of seems there still lies some bias towards smoking and the health implications surrounding it. I'm an American who works for the Medical Marijuana industry so all I can refer to is my country and the industry that I know first hand.
Right off the bat I will never disagree to the argument of how we inhale Carbon Monoxide and also if you smoke by a lighter you are also inhaling fumes through that as well and of course none of those things are good for your lungs.
So with that being said we need to look at the history of weed and what was being tested back in the day as far as medical research. Originally the research put into weed was designed to strengthen the war on drugs and the government needed to justify their stance towards placing Weed in the same category as say Cocaine.
They would not test people on the positive impacts of marijuana but instead they would only search for reasons of why it is bad for you, and they even went as far as to pull funding from any doctor that tried to prove that marijuana was not bad for you.
So sometime around the 70's I believe one doctor held a study where they tested the lung function of 3 groups of people. Group A did not smoke anything, Group B only smoked marijuana and Group C only smoked cigarettes. Also group B and C were required to smoke on a daily basis.
They waited until 10, 15 and 20 years had passed and ran their tests and when they did it was found that Group C's lung function was terrible obviously. But Group B had very interesting results as either the subject's lungs had not shown any negative effect or in some cases they had better function than Group A. The reason behind this was because deep inhalation and the act of holding one's breath for absorption had in fact made the lungs stronger over time.
Now in states such as Colorado, Washington and California they are able to run new tests and we will begin to see new, trustworthy research being released to the public in the next few years. But as of right now they have found that certain compounds found in Marijuana can even influence cells to heal themselves (thus where the idea that Marijuana can cure cancer comes from). Though regeneration and the "cure" does not apply to everyone so it is a tough argument to make on that bit but it should still be discussed nonetheless.
In conclusion I wouldn't say it's great for your lungs but I will also argue that in moderation, smoking marijuana is not bad for you.
No.2407
>>2378>our weed is so strong we have to cut it with tobaccoyou faggots just can't smoke the good shit we do.
No.3016
>>361weed isn't as bad for your lungs if you use a vape or bong, however if you use a joint or pipe you can fuck your lungs up even more due to the lack of filter
No.3170
>>2378>Our weed is so strong we have to roll it with tobacco.Dumpest thing I ever heard. All the Belgium is making fun of you right now.
No.3173
What is a Vaporizer?
It's also much more effective - I don't even get high from joints anymore