Effects of Smoking Marijuana on the Lungs

Effects of Smoking Marijuana on the Lungs
4.5 (90%) 66 votes

There is unequivocal evidence that regular cannabis smoking causes acute lung inflammation, but what are the long-term consequences?

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“There is unequivocal evidence that habitual or regular marijuana smoking is not harmless and causes respiratory symptoms and airway inflammation.” If you take biopsies from the airways of those that smoke crack, cannabis, or tobacco, compared to nonsmokers, there is significantly more damage in the lungs of crack smokers, marijuana smokers, and tobacco smokers. And, the levels of damage seemed comparable—especially between the marijuana smokers and tobacco smokers—which is remarkable, since the tobacco smokers were smoking about a pack a day, whereas the marijuana smokers were only smoking about 20 joints a week, rather than 25 cigarettes a day. And those smoking crack were just doing a gram or two a week. So, to see similar rates of damage between marijuana smokers and cigarette smokers suggests each joint is way worse than each cigarette.

Indeed, we’ve known for 30 years that smoking three or four joints is the equivalent of smoking a pack a day of cigarettes, in terms of bronchitis symptoms and acute lung damage. How is that possible? Well, it may be the way they’re smoked. Pot smokers inhale more deeply, and then hold the smoke in four times longer, resulting in more tar deposition in the lungs. And, joints are more “loosely packed [and] unfiltered,” resulting in both “hotter smoke” and smokier smoke. So, even though in many ways smoke is smoke, the different “method of smoking” may explain how a few joints a day appear to cause as much inflammation as an entire pack a day of cigarettes.

“The visual evidence of airway injury was at times striking.” This is what your airways are supposed to look like—the tubes inside your lungs. This is your lung. This is your lung on tobacco; see how your airways get all inflamed? And, this is your lung on pot. You get the same kind of inflammation, and what’s crazy is that’s just five joints a day, compared to 26 cigarettes a day in the tobacco smokers.

If you compare the respiratory symptoms associated with marijuana versus tobacco, compared to nonsmokers, both marijuana smokers and tobacco smokers have elevated rates of chronic cough and excess sputum production, and acute episodes of bronchitis and wheezing. Now, when you quit tobacco, these respiratory symptoms eventually go away. Does the same thing happen with marijuana? What are the “effects of quitting cannabis on respiratory symptoms”?

About 30 to 40% of regular cannabis users suffer from cough, excess sputum, wheezing, and shortness of breath. A thousand young adults were followed for years, and in those who kept smoking, their respiratory symptoms got worse, or remained the same. But, those that quit tended to get better.

If we don’t quit, what are the long-term lung consequences? What about COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases), like emphysema? Even if smoking a single joint compromises lung function as much as up to five cigarettes, you’re still smoking 15 times less overall, and so, should end up with less long-term lung damage, right? That is, indeed, what’s been found.

Even long-term pot smokers don’t appear to suffer lasting lung damage. Follow people for 20 years, and an occasional joint appears to have no discernible effect on long-term lung function, though there may be some “accelerated decline” in function among those smoking joints every day for decades, and so marijuana “moderation” is suggested.

In other words, “a caution against regular, heavy marijuana usage is prudent.” But “even regular heavy use of marijuana [is nothing] compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco.” “Any toxicity of marijuana pales when compared with the greatest legalized killer in the world today.” In fact, the greatest risk to our lungs from marijuana may be that it can be a “gateway” drug to cigarettes.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Heath Aleike via Flickr. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“There is unequivocal evidence that habitual or regular marijuana smoking is not harmless and causes respiratory symptoms and airway inflammation.” If you take biopsies from the airways of those that smoke crack, cannabis, or tobacco, compared to nonsmokers, there is significantly more damage in the lungs of crack smokers, marijuana smokers, and tobacco smokers. And, the levels of damage seemed comparable—especially between the marijuana smokers and tobacco smokers—which is remarkable, since the tobacco smokers were smoking about a pack a day, whereas the marijuana smokers were only smoking about 20 joints a week, rather than 25 cigarettes a day. And those smoking crack were just doing a gram or two a week. So, to see similar rates of damage between marijuana smokers and cigarette smokers suggests each joint is way worse than each cigarette.

Indeed, we’ve known for 30 years that smoking three or four joints is the equivalent of smoking a pack a day of cigarettes, in terms of bronchitis symptoms and acute lung damage. How is that possible? Well, it may be the way they’re smoked. Pot smokers inhale more deeply, and then hold the smoke in four times longer, resulting in more tar deposition in the lungs. And, joints are more “loosely packed [and] unfiltered,” resulting in both “hotter smoke” and smokier smoke. So, even though in many ways smoke is smoke, the different “method of smoking” may explain how a few joints a day appear to cause as much inflammation as an entire pack a day of cigarettes.

“The visual evidence of airway injury was at times striking.” This is what your airways are supposed to look like—the tubes inside your lungs. This is your lung. This is your lung on tobacco; see how your airways get all inflamed? And, this is your lung on pot. You get the same kind of inflammation, and what’s crazy is that’s just five joints a day, compared to 26 cigarettes a day in the tobacco smokers.

If you compare the respiratory symptoms associated with marijuana versus tobacco, compared to nonsmokers, both marijuana smokers and tobacco smokers have elevated rates of chronic cough and excess sputum production, and acute episodes of bronchitis and wheezing. Now, when you quit tobacco, these respiratory symptoms eventually go away. Does the same thing happen with marijuana? What are the “effects of quitting cannabis on respiratory symptoms”?

About 30 to 40% of regular cannabis users suffer from cough, excess sputum, wheezing, and shortness of breath. A thousand young adults were followed for years, and in those who kept smoking, their respiratory symptoms got worse, or remained the same. But, those that quit tended to get better.

If we don’t quit, what are the long-term lung consequences? What about COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases), like emphysema? Even if smoking a single joint compromises lung function as much as up to five cigarettes, you’re still smoking 15 times less overall, and so, should end up with less long-term lung damage, right? That is, indeed, what’s been found.

Even long-term pot smokers don’t appear to suffer lasting lung damage. Follow people for 20 years, and an occasional joint appears to have no discernible effect on long-term lung function, though there may be some “accelerated decline” in function among those smoking joints every day for decades, and so marijuana “moderation” is suggested.

In other words, “a caution against regular, heavy marijuana usage is prudent.” But “even regular heavy use of marijuana [is nothing] compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco.” “Any toxicity of marijuana pales when compared with the greatest legalized killer in the world today.” In fact, the greatest risk to our lungs from marijuana may be that it can be a “gateway” drug to cigarettes.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Heath Aleike via Flickr. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Doctor's Note

What about using a vaporizer? Find out in my next video, Smoking Marijuana vs. Using a Cannabis Vaporizer.

I have a whole treasure chest of cannabis videos that are going to be dribbling every month or so until the end of 2019. If you want to see them all now, I put them all in a digital DVD you can download or stream right now.

Here are the ones I have up so far:

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

115 responses to “Effects of Smoking Marijuana on the Lungs

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. All funding for ANY cannabis study (That this DR relies upon) had to be approved by NIDA, and they ONLY approve studies that are designed to support their position against cannabis. ACTUAL human experience by countless individuals does not say that smoking cannabis causes ‘bronchitis symptoms and acute lung damage’. AT THE MOST there is a mild pulmonary effect according to researchers at UCSF.

    In the US they REQUIRE approval from NIDA and the DEA to even be performed and they have intentionally refused to allow studies that were ‘double blind placebo controlled’ and only opt for studies that have predetermined outcomes supporting anti-cannabis laws. THIS IS A WELL KNOWN FACT

    And the last line has me suspect of how biased this DR is. Fact: most marijuana smokers smoked cigarettes before cannabis, not the other way around……unless you ONLY get all of your cannabis info from drugabuse.gov…….which is the NIDA website.

    1. N=14? Really? Millions of crack smokers and they are comparing the lungs of 14 people, people who, more than likely, smoke all three substances (I see no control variables)? Shame.

    2. Oh god… here comes the angry ranting… And to think, I thought this was positive enough for you guys to swallow when he did the end comparison, but I guess if it’s not rainbows and butterflies, there will be pitchforks and angry crowds.

    1. The conclusive part of the study which was fairly recent in origin..
      ” CONCLUSIONS:
      In a large cross-section of U.S. adults, cumulative lifetime marijuana use, up to 20 joint-years, is not associated with adverse changes in spirometric measures of lung health. Although greater than 20 joint-years of cumulative marijuana exposure was associated with a twofold increased odds of a FEV1/FVC less than 70%, this was the result of an increase in FVC, rather than a disproportional decrease in FEV1 as is typically associated with obstructive lung diseases.”

      1. To explain FVC is forced vital capacity. Ability of the lungs to inhale and contain air basically .FEV1 measures decrease of the lungs to expel air due to COPD condition.

        The study which is cited by Dr Greger as supporting his point of view in the video, in fact draws a inverse conclusion…..pot use increased FVC considered a positive, not reduced FEV1, a negative..
        It is a misread on study specific and then conclusion.
        The study states that in conclusion which I have copied and pasted.
        Curious

        1. To explain a bit more…”In obstructive lung disease, the FEV1 is reduced due to an obstruction of air escaping from the lungs. Thus, the FEV1/FVC ratio will be reduced”

          The study proves the opposite of his contention but is cited as support. Odd

  2. Dr, please. You have taught me well enough to discern a biased study, and this one leans very far to one side.

    Main qualm of mine: all marijuana smokers I know (very many) only smoke one or two hits at a time. Any weed around 20% THC will get me completely baked from one toke. That would be like 0.25g if weed.

    A joint could be up to 2g of marijuana— how much was in each joint for this study?

    This is like feeding rats 1000x the daily dose of Legal Substance X to see if they get cancer. It’s way outside of the norm.

    1. That is interesting that the people you know only do one toke.

      I grew up in generations where everybody smoked pot and from what I saw they all would do one whole joint.

      Not more or less.

      Do people light a joint take a puff and put it out?

      1. No offense Deb but your experience varies from mine. In a group setting a joint was always shared it was considered rude to not do so.
        So it is typically neither extreme not one puff and not a whole joint but a bit of a joint was what I found it was.

        And my experience as a kid was quite extensive in this regard and was drawn from a nationwide circumstance from NY to Calif and in between.

        1. When I was young, bonging was the norm in my social circles—one hit bowls inhaled deeply and held in for as long as possible. This might have resulted in a more controlled rate of inhaled smoke than a shared joint generally would be, but that’s probably debatable. We definitely thought this was the cleanest and most cost efficient way to smoke. Nobody can convince me that marijuana smoke isn’t harmful to lungs.

      2. Deb, Yes years ago the “gold standard” was one joint to get high. Today with the more potent strains around, one puff is sufficient…
        Hell if a person smoked 5 joints of the kind of MJ they have now they would be in a coma….. I’m not condoning using MJ but you have to compare apples to apples.. THC then to THC now… YMMV just my opinion…
        mitch

        1. Mitch the majority of the US now has or is soon to have access to legal pot for medical or recreational purpose..

          In a legal framework one buys the potency one wants , they offer variety of potency and THC content depending upon the choice of the customer.
          The idea pot is getting stronger and stronger for recreation is based upon a illegal context when only one type is available and that is what a dealer is selling at the moment.

          Are people buying more potent pot in stores…I don’t know as there is real study on that. Edibles vary most potent and they seem less consumed than other modes of ingestion. So I would say probably not.

          1. Here is a list of potencies and characteristics of 24 strains sold by this company in a medical context. They vary from very high in potency to mild.
            Just looking over it seemingly the purplish colored ones are mild.
            ;;www.thenorthwestleaf.com/pages/articles/post/guide-to-24-medical-marijuana-strains
            The industry seems to still focus on strength a bit. But some theorize it is as customers prefer the social aspect of smoking in a group setting sharing a joint or a bong. So a few tokes would be only possible for individuals in a group using it. So to still get high you would prefer more potent stuff.Singular use probably not.

        2. I concur with Mitch’s statements. On top of that, many are using medical cannabis. When you use it for medical reasons, one is not particularly looking to “get baked” but just enough to alleviate symptoms.

      3. You probably also grew up in a generation that only had access to weed that contained about one sixth of the amount of THC that is in most of the strains people are smoking today.

        1. If one wants to get cooked edibles are the way to go, with no doubt under the sun, excluding medical marijuana for specific cause.
          But they are not that popular.
          No one really has done studies showing trends in the variable strength products available today in pot legal states.With the emphasis on variable.

          The 24 types I listed by internet site speaks directly to that. Some are found quite mild. One gets what they ask for.

    1. The general conclusions from this study….
      “Our findings suggest that occasional use of marijuana for these or other purposes may not be associated with adverse consequences on pulmonary function. It is more difficult to estimate the potential effects of regular heavy use, because this pattern of use is relatively rare in our study sample; however, our findings do suggest an accelerated decline in pulmonary function with heavy use and a resulting need for caution and moderation when marijuana use is considered.”

      Surprisingly their numbers seem to suggest a increased volume capacity resulted. It is theorized that this may be related to the inspirational effect of the breathing in when smoking resulting in a lung training effect . In a absolute manner then this would suggest enhanced pulmonary function with occasional use.

      But I would suppose it is like with alcohol a amount used type thing which determines adverse or no averse effect.
      This drug clearly needs to be declassified for further study to ensue. That we can definitively say.

      1. To mention which supports the increase in FVC noted in the study I first link. One draws in pot smoke with a forceful inhalation expanding the lungs as much as possible to retain the smoke and provide the body with as much of the THC as possible in the blood.
        Likely providing a FVC increase through a training effect upon the lungs.

        1. Basically the study did not have a large enough grouping to make a determination of chronic abuse of pot users and pulmonary function. The sample size was just to small to draw definitive conclusion.
          Their definitive conclusion was this which I quote and paste…”Conclusion Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function.”

          Similar to perhaps a study on low or occasional alcohol use and liver function finding. In the initial we may have a definitive and abrupt finding of function impairment but it declines steadily normally almost immediately with time after use. With long term consideration likely little to no effect. Which is why recreational users of alcohol occasional drinkers, do not come down with liver breakdown. Similar to occasional or recreational pot users not having any overt decline in lung function due to a sole issue of pot consumption. On the initial shortly after consumption, yes they do cough and wheeze, and this and that, Rarely this initial event has even due to hypoxia likely resulted in presentation of a AMI. but it is very short term effect.

  3. I’m so disappointed in you, Dr Greger. You’re famous about seeing through the bogus tactics of food studies and telling us the straight scoop, but you’re completely off when you quote government studies on cannabis. Do you not know the truth about cannabis yet?

    1. Yeah man… he doesn’t know the truth… man. Seriously, are you guys for real? If there’s some kind of reputable scientific study, post the study… go browse pubmed or something. It really isn’t all that surprising that SMOKE INHALATION IS NOT GOOD… CLOVE, one of the most antioxidant rich foods on the planet, is extremely harmful when smoked, even worse than cigarettes.

  4. Having smoked socially in my 20s, and heavily smoked medical cannabis for a 2 year period during chemotherapy I can honestly say that someone smoking 3-4 joints per day has much bigger things to worry about than bronchitis! Not to make light of the issue, but that is a large amount of weed.

    1. Totally! I was of the same opinion but towards the end of the vid Dr. G did point out that most smoke a joint a day. To me, even that is extreme unless you have a real problem with living in reality.

      1. This is from a marijuana research company, on average use of pot in a pot legal state Washington. Why do they research….all companies do to find a market and to see if they are filling the market same as with any other goods sold.
        “Headset Inc., a cannabis intelligence firm, reviewed about 40,000 legal marijuana purchases made in Washington State from September 2014 to July 2016. The Seattle-based company determined that the average recreational weed consumer is a 37-year-old man who buys traditional marijuana buds. The median spend by this customer was $647 annually, with an average of 19.5 days between purchases.”

        So as pot costs…. at the least 80 per ounce in Wash, and at the most 200 per ounce,(this is not 1968 these things are expensive and taxed highly) we can readily assume the amount smoked to make 647 a average is not that much at all and certainly not one joint per day for your average consumer. Probably 6 ounces per year, higher or lower depending upon where one lives, 100 used as the average cost per ounce.
        How much is in a typical joint is subject to much debate but probably about .20 of a ounce.
        So one ounce per five joints. 6 ounces per year equals very roughly 30 joints.

        Which is in no way under the sun even if you used the most grossest highest numbers possible in this calculation equal to one joint per day.

        One joint every other weekend or at the highest every weekend would be a probable if one rolled very tight joints.
        Some indeed certainly smoke more and spend more but that is the average in a pot legal state 650 or so per year spent. .
        To smoke one joint per day you would need 300 plus joints consuming 60 ounces plus per year or 4800 to 12,000 per year USD expended.
        Few are devoting that amount of money to pot that are gainfully employed and not in some illegal trade of some sort.

        So only a very rare individual is smoking one joint a day at todays market prices. Other states may vary and also if one can legally grow their own but a average is still that average. And that is not one joint per day in any event.

        Which seems to be about right….. a average recreational user probably only lights up on the weekend to relax or party after a hard weeks work.drinking bout. I’d bet by far their sales focus towards the weekend use…. sales on a Thursday or Friday and Saturday.

        Illegal users in illegal states perhaps they do smoke a joint a day. Really this is a track on legal use not that. Which with legalization of medical and recreational pot now is the norm not the exception. 28 states participating in some form with large populations included per state with California now in the count.

  5. Dr Greger, “five joints a day” ? Really? I have known some hard-core tokers in my life and, except for some parties, none of them smoked that much weed. This is a pretty bogus study and the government studies are all as suspect as egg studies by the Egg Board.

    1. In the pot legal state of Washington five joints per day would run you at the very least about 24,000 dollars per year. More realistically probably 30 k or more.
      Which is quite impossible for most all but a very few.
      So I firmly agree…. few would be even able to smoke that amount….money spent as the only limitation discussed. Someone living at home with mum and dad perhaps and no other expenses but that would be very rarely found in circumstance.

  6. Citing this study doesn’t reflected positively on you, sir.

    Comparing the lungs of 10 pot smokers to 10 tobacco smokers (who usually smoke both, yet no mention of controlling for this) is absurd; sure, n=10 would make sense if this study sought to measure the impact of smoking pot on, say, those with Type 1 diabetes and who own a spotted woodpecker (small population to be sure); but you mean to tell me they could only find (of fund the finding thereof) 10 people who smoke pot or Marlboros? Absolute garbage study. I could find 10 people who smoke both in my community (no, it’s a rather affluent community).

  7. LOL. Marijuana a gateway drug for cigarettes? I don’t know a single person who has gone this way. I admit that I was younger (40-50 years ago), smoking cigarettes did make smoking weed a little easier. But all the young folks I know who smoke would never smoke a cigarette. Why? Because they know that cigarettes cause cancer, and marijuana is safer and more fun. All these one-sided studies show is that they are right.

    And yes, marijuana now is much stronger than when I was young. I sincerely believe that the new correct measure for consumption should be hits, rather than joints. And they might want to test weed smokers who use bongs. This usage appears to decrease the heat of the smoke, and obviates many of the comments made about loosely rolled joints.

  8. I am still pondering it for my cousin.

    Lungs, it will be better than his smoking cigarettes.

    The heart is still the main issue.

    1. The science on pot and heart health is usually framed on the substance found in this one study referenced in this quote.
      “By reviewing reported cases of marijuana abuse in France between 2006 and 2010, researchers identified 35 users who suffered heart disease — including 20 heart attacks and nine deaths.
      The percentage of heart disease cases among reported marijuana abusers more than tripled during those five years, rising from 1.1 percent of cases to 3.6 percent, the investigators reported.
      In nearly half the cases, the afflicted pot users already had risk factors for heart disease such as high blood pressure or high cholesterol, the study authors said.”

      The initial involves over a thousand peoples…..considering the amount halved by already present risk factors and there is a statistically irrelevant finding.
      Holding ones breath and such when actually smoking pot may induce hypoxia which in a heart compromised person may spell AMI.
      But that person pot may be a precipitant factor but the existant heart disease is the issue not the tempory hypoxia by smoking pot.
      They may as well be shoveling a driveway of snow…but we don’t say drive way snow shoveling causes heart disease nor death from that. Exercise induces hypoxia as well. Which if severely compromised by heart disease may result in a fatal outcome.

      1. To explain the initial had as premeis the study of 2000 complications from pot use which were found usually in a medical setting.

        So it was a already having complications grouping. Which they found 35 were related to heart and of the 35 roughly half were with already existant heart risk factors….

        So baically the study is showing nothing. But the side that wants prohibition will continually throw this study out there as some more proof of devil inspired pot consumption.

        Like the salmonella issue with kratom, another natural which competes with pharma drugs…..around ten cases in one year of salmonella and it is throw out there as damning evidence when literally thousands upon thoousands of salmonella cases occur each year due to egg consumption.
        There is risk seemingly when one induces hypoxia when smoking, which I would say is common.

        1. In short Deb…. if your family member has heart problems I would not ask them to go out and shovel the driveway clear of snow nor have them smoke a joint…..it risks a precipitating event that could result in a AMI. Joint smoking does typically with the holding of the breath induces a slight hypoxia.

          There is no reason to risk that I would not.

  9. I have only been using cannabis for 50 years. The present day US grade cannabis is way stronger than the Mexican Cannabis from the late sixties. One toke in a bong is like an evening cocktail for me. But I prefer my homemade cannabis brownies for relief from osteoarthritis , less side effects than ibuprofen or alcohol. I have never smoked tobacco or crack for my arthritis.

    1. MJ I can provide link from any one of a hundred or so pot shops in legal states which attest to variability in THC content amongst their retail lines.
      This is usually referenced as to type of high. Some are smooth and mellow some are mind altering and some are in between.
      The notion pot is uniformly stronger is based upon study done in illegal context with only that as basis.
      Strength now is totally a decision for recreational and medical means in pot legal states which now comprise a majority by population medical and recreational use considered.
      One gets what they request in pot shops not some other thing or other strength they do not want.
      There is simply no study done on the many variants of pot for purchase in legal states nor on their popularity overall. Though we may find things which qualify as antidotal information locally.
      And there is no federal oversite to attest to any uniformity in non legal pot states nor is there any requirement to prevent the adding in of other substances to enhance a high, as it is illegal and no one inspects nor regulates it.

      1. The study referenced in this article serves as the basis for most of the contentions on the pot being stronger claim.
        “In the study, the researchers looked at more than 38,600 samples of illegal marijuana seized by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration over 20 years. They found that the level of THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol — marijuana’s main psychoactive ingredient — in the marijuana samples rose from about 4 percent in 1995 to about 12 percent in 2014.”

        Which is fact I do not doubt in a illegal context only. Who buys things illegally……. someone who wants a nice moderate high that may be only a thing to relax, or someone who wants to go out and party…..in very general terms it is the latter which is why illegal pot trends stronger.

        But who buys by which strength legally….edibles by far the most powerful are not by any means the most popular. Least I would say though no study has been done. But any pot shop owner will say that.
        But you want to demonize…oh yes it may have been Ok once but now…look at how strong it is..it must never be legalized…….is the thinking.

        A trend it is and will continue..soon we will all go around totally blotto just looking for another fix, I mean toke….and on and on.
        Total nonsense…you buy the strength you want.

        1. Here is a example of one company offering 15 strains with differing potencies….https://potguide.com/strain-profiles/

          Colorado is considering legislation to prohibit a max amount for THC. Some of the medically oriented things can be very potent but are taken usually in liquid form. California is in the process of developeing standardized testing for purity safety and contaminants. The strain varies and also what part of the plant is utilized.

          It is a developing industry. Eventually one will probably find as requirement a actual listing of THC component by product
          Now it is usually by description of effect only produced by the manufacturer or seller in the recreational line.

    2. I know someone who has had really good luck with their arthritis using CBD oil, she uses it with the THC taken out. She also said it helped her with her depression.

      1. Many of the CBD oils have trace amounts of THC added to them not enough to get anyone high, but as it is thought to assist in the assimilation of the active componants of the CBD.

  10. Bad video.

    One major difference between cannabis and tobacco is the effect on blood flow. In the lungs cannabis causes vaso/bronchial/brachial/alveolar dilation. Tobacco does the complete inverse- so seeing more redness is an indicator of inflammation there but I would not say it is for cannabis. Secondly some cannabinoids block TNF and ROS which are the main ways our body starts the process the inflammation.

    For the record if you smoke cannabis heavily for 100 years straight and live to the age of 140 natural lung function loss combined with the effect of cannabis will qualify you for COPD. However if you smoke for 98 years straight and live to the age of 140, You can start smoking up again- because all the effect of cannabis will be pretty much gone.

    I’ll tell you why this is bad too. The bioavailability of smoking is almost 98%, the effect is instant. For many conditions this is optimal as it means less medication is required to manage symptoms, and they can be managed more effectively. Putting this stigma on it hampers to acceptability of it and that is not good.

    1. And yes, while I have only seen studies that show it blocks TNF and ROS in vitro- cannabinoids are fat soluble and as I mentioned bioavailability is extremely high- it even passes the blood brain barrier easily- so if it is happening in vitro, it is happening in vivo- and it is absolutely happening on the surface of the lungs.

    2. Well yes heavily is the key and the determinant in all probability. The science is still out on that, but probably with very heavy use there is detrimental effect. Hard to tell exactly as very heavy pot use does confound a isolated study factor. Invariably those peoples engage in activity that have numerous confounding aspects which are hard to isolate for, such as complete lack of exercise, taking of other things, alcohol and this and that which have detrimental effects not only to body overall but often to lungs .
      Normal recreational use of pot, does not show a COPD enhancing effect in good published study that I have found.

      1. The science out there on this is almost laughable at times. Just reviewing a study on heart disease and pot and a look at the specifics make it a joke really.

        Lung function seems about the same. A temporary known present effect of a immediate nature. Beyond that is not really substantiated at all in recreational users and found in those who approximate heavy use by some study.

        But heavy use is invariably a use that would approximate a person being high all day every day which is really a isolated phenom. Unless one is trying to prove a thing.

  11. I can tell who smokes pot by the reactions ;)

    “Remove the oil from the salad. No! Entire civilizations have eaten oil.”

    “Remove the pot from the lifestyle. No! there are counter studies that show pot is good.”

    When a branch forms it feels alone. It is not part of the main branch anymore. Ideologies divide to suit preferences. They branch out in different ways and in different directions. But what is common is that they creates stories. The birth of the counter study appear. But if you notice, the counter study started before the study. The counter study is a rationalization of a previous state.

    1. I completely favor legalization and have not smoked or otherwise ingested pot for about 40 years.
      In fact in my line of past professional work at one time for a extended period, I was routinely drug tested.
      And in later years my compatriots were all of the fitness crowd least likely to smoke pot, though now many do.

      And I have no financial interest.
      You just have not researched this to a full degree. It is now found true that the war on drugs with pot as focus was endeavored for specific political reasons which targeted specific groups. The freedom of information act has brought this to light. And in the initial it was basically the same but favoring more the economic reasons for the outlaw.

      Show science that purports your view.

      1. From that notorious leftwing publication Forbes…..
        “. Dan Baum’s mention of his interview with John Ehrlichman, counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under Nixon, in the latest issue of Harper’s is one of those moments.
        The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

        Problem is now the young were not the subject of this propaganda for quite a few years. It ended mostly around the Reagan era. And as those older folks whose opinions were honed by propaganda as they are become less politically active the laws are changing.
        So it is game over with time as more younger people present, which they always do.

        1. ron, the original drug laws were enacted in the 1930s to control and destroy minority communities: African American, Mexican, Chinese (though they used different words back then). They were successful. Read, for example, “The New Jim Crow Laws” by Michelle Alexander. Ronnie was merely treading down a well-worn path when he extended their enforcement to politically dangerous “hippies.” Your description of the tactics used are spot on — but they predate the 60s and 70s.

          1. Thanks doc, I do suppose that is the fact.
            The very initial I think was in the interests of retaining a monopoly in the wood pulp market by the hurst corporation a major publisher back in the day. The publishers were heavily into the wood pulp industry as newpapers back in the day were all about wood pulp for manufacture. So hemp was a alternative to wood pulp and the industry would demonize hemp through marijuana, as they have the same source materials and making one illegal pot made the other as well hemp. Only recently in the last couple of decades has hemp been legal for use.

            Why would they not just go into hemp as cheaper and easier to grow and forget the demonization they assisted through their control of media back in the day….as they had existant holdings in wood pulp forests and such. To change would degrade their assets. They obtained those assets, forests and such, to assist in the making of newpapers in the cheapest way possible.
            So it was simply a matter of retention of asset worth in the very beginning. Hurst and them I think did devolve into the specific of social management that you describe, concurrent with that or shortly after to my understanding.
            The two things are interwoven. Opium was used to devolve Asian political influence(a big thing in the northwest back in the day) and various other things would be used to assist in the management of other populations.

            A strange turnaround for that specific on asia considering the opium wars and all……but so is our history at times…strange.

            1. I will add or so I have heard. The subject of Hurst and pulp is still debated with some adding on Dupont and this and that to my opinion to confound the issue. It is clear to me Hurst held significant wood pulp interest which would devalue with use of hemp. The opium thing was first acted way prior to dilute Asian political influence to my opinion and arose concurrent with Asian migration to the states really almost from the start.Thye preceeding pot by many a year.

              The Hurst denial of interest folds into the narrative of pot being bad still resounding today. If strictly money was the issue it devalues the ideological basis for illegalization. Which hurts the cause so to speak. So it is denied. But the arguments involveing it to the inverse seem only true if one adds on Dupont and the banks and this and that making it much more complex than by my read it was.

              I do agree the end result in any event was utilization for management.

              1. Hemp even back in the day was relatively common in certain applications. And a clear distinction was found in pot and hemp for use in ropes and such. But the movement of Hurst perhaps assisted with by Dupont and the banks, made illegal hemp as well as pot which to my opinion states the intention.

                Certainly even back then hemp and pot though being of the same basic genre, could be distinguished for illegal application if that was the desire.
                So I take that as a read on intention. Why was hemp not just pot made illegal? They did not know of THC and that but clearly the plants for application of use differed. They are two different species sativa and indica which are clearly identifiable by visual clues. Which is why pot was made illegal in most other countries but hemp not.

                1. To add now one may Find THC in both strains due to genetic manipulation and cultivation when once hemp only contained very trace amounts.

                  Still hemp is not hard to identify as distinct from pot that used for industrial purposes in varying products.. so why did they make it illegal back in the day, no one was going to smoke some dock ropes?

                  1. Here is the public record part I mention found when the freedom of information act applied which it does to many things of historical nature in government….
                    “Highlights of Nixon comments on marijuana:
                    Jews and marijuana: “I see another thing in the news summary this morning about it. That’s a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I suppose it’s because most of them are psychiatrists . . .”
                    Marijuana and the culture wars: “You see, homosexuality, dope, immorality in general. These are the enemies of strong societies. That’s why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing the stuff, they’re trying to destroy us.”
                    Marijuana compared to alcohol: marijuana consumers smoke “to get high” while “a person drinks to have fun.” Nixon also saw marijuana leading to loss of motivation and discipline but claimed: “At least with liquor I don’t lose motivation.”
                    Marijuana and political dissent: “. . . radical demonstrators that were here . . . two weeks ago . . . They’re all on drugs, virtually all.”
                    Drug education: “Enforce the law, you’ve got to scare them.” ”

                    Forgetting at times what a misinformed anti-Semite loon that fellow was. Luckily he recorded most all he did so we can remember him well. All public record now.

  12. Hi Dr. Greger, this has nothing to do with your video you just posted. My 23 year old little brother was recenty diagnosed with Chronic myeloid leukemia blast crisis and I want to know if there is any special type of dieting that might work fighting back the cancer?

    1. Bryan, I am so sorry to hear that!! There are loads of videos on here explaining how a plant based diet can help with cancer for multiple reasons. I highly suggest researching the site and I highly suggest Dr. Greger’s book “How Not To Die.”
      In one video in particular, garlic came out on top for working against just about every type of cancer it seemed.

      Good luck to you and your brother!!

    2. Bryan, there have been studies using fasting combined with other interventions.
      Check out Drs. Peter Attria, Valter Longo.
      Many cancer survivors attest to being helped by changing to a totally unprocessed vegan diet with juicing.
      Many mushrooms such as Turkey Tail, for one, can help activate the immune system to fight the cancer.
      Shitake, Maitake, Reishi, there are studies on all.
      Drink a lot of good clean water to clear out toxins from the body.
      Help your brother to stay positive, and get social support. You being there for your brother is so important.
      Best wishes to you both.

    3. Besides looking at Dr. Greger’s other videos, check out the web page, Chrisbeatscancer. You will find info that will hopefully be helpful.

  13. I love that the data for the study cited at 2:20 is for an average of ‘5 plus or minus 5.2’ joints per day. Minus 5.2 puts some in the negative number of joints smoked per day. ;-)

  14. How about just not SMOKING marijuana if you use it? There are healthier ways to use it. Smoking is bad, bottom line. I suspect it is not just a case of lack of filtering and all that was suggested, but the smoke itself. Recently my aunt rented out a house used by a group of heavy pot smokers, the walls were actually sticky and so bad from the smoke that two cleaning companies came in and refused to take on the job and the blinds all had to be thrown away. My family is really experienced in cleaning and sadly all too familiar with cigarette smoke, so I can only take their word for it that the cigarette smoke cleans off of the walls easier and isn’t as thick.

    Plus honestly, it’s just more CONSIDERATE to not smoke so as to not create second hand and third hand smoke for those around you (human and animal alike).

    To be totally honest, while I loved getting this info as I’ve been extremely curious about this, I felt the end was way too apologetic. Why try to sugar coat or smooth over something that is horrible for our lungs by comparing it to a lifestyle that might be even worse? This isn’t the approach you take when it comes to harmful foods, drinks, or supplements so I can’t help but feel it’s due in large part to all the aggressive commenters who start blowing up the comments with sometimes outright insane posts whenever something remotely negative is said about marijuana use. Those same people like to accuse you of having an agenda when you cite a negative finding but praise you when you cite a positive. I feel if it weren’t for that crowd, you may have simply suggested to people or at least added in the suggestion of not to SMOKE in the first place as this is usually the way it’s been in your other videos unrelated to marijuana. My apologies if I’m way off here but I don’t think I am.

    1. S, agree, how can anyone argue that smoking -anything- is healthy unless they have an agenda.
      Thank you for voicing common sense.

    2. S
      Would you please be so kind as to specify those instances which you claim amount to “outright insane posts?” I think that all those who have posted comments would be grateful for your common sense diagnosis.
      No hurry.
      We can wait.

      1. No need to wait, Steve, just browse through the comments of the various videos on the subject here. You’ll find a sea of irrational aggression and insane accusations such as accusing Dr. Greger of using his website as a biased platform to steer his kids away from weed or comparing his videos to”Reefer Madness” and shaming him and accusing him of cherry-picking and then many of those same people applauding him when he cites a positive attribute. It’s fascinating to see the reactions and patterns, I highly suggest taking a look although you may not appreciate it in full if you’re coming from a defensive place of your own.

        1. S
          So, no specific comment that you choose to cite.

          I’m confident that you see a “sea of irrational aggression and insane accusations;” though, I was only asking for a single, specific, example. I guess that I’ll have to settle for a little passive-aggression.

          1. Yeah Steve, quite often when you’re passive aggressive with someone that person is likely to respond with a detectable note of sarcasm, what do you expect? But anyways, I clearly gave specific examples of a few of the irrational accusations and statements made in the comments under numerous videos on the topic, but I’m not going to spend my time copying and pasting them. The comments are obviously under the videos so anyone curious to what I’m referring to can easily go and browse them for themselves.

      1. After all, if Dr. Greger follows a WFPB diet, there’s no reason he would ever stink like s skunk! Am I right? Huh? Huh? :-)

    1. More specifically YR in some native belief systems it keeps away demons. Navajo for instance have many rituals to expunge demons which may present which no medical solution may remedy. All else tried that is gone to. They are firmly believed in. There is some commonality between Navajo and Tibetan ritual basis actually, both believe in demons and both do not believe in western notion of a creator god..They suffer a different relationship in that regard.
      Westerners assume generally demons are a thing of connection to their notion of such a god, a opposition of sorts. Strange for them to conceive a atheist may believe in demons.

      But sage, yes it is thought to keep them away. It is a bit more specific than negative energies but they do qualify as such, demons are negative energies.
      So I thought I may add that to your true statement to qualify it. Hope you don’t mind. It is sprinkled around but may be used as incense, not smoked. I guess tribal use varies.

      1. Yes, thanks Ron. I certainly don’t smoke it (or anything else…cough-cough, choke-choke). I know somebody who lives in a very old house and always seems depressed. There could be some lower astrals still hanging around that place, and she’s picking up on their thought forms, etc.

        Next time I see her I’ll give her a few smudge sticks to light and swirl in all the corners and near the doors, etc. People use salt, incense, and holy water too, of course. And we’ll see if this makes any difference.

        1. YR to add..
          I am not a endorser of the formal religion as I think it corrupted, like all religions in the place day and time, though I do use some of their means for self knowledge., But Tibetan lama’s are very effective and knowledgeable shamans. If one is serious about a removal they can be contacted and a ceremony at the house performed.

          They do not formally charge, but a donation to them or their place, is the way to go about it. If you live in any fair size city there is probably a Tibetan place there, as it is fairly popular. I tend Kagyu, as that is my formal training, but really any branch in that is about the same. A Tibetan lama not a American who knows the religion. These practices are kept in house and kept secret. Americans do not have in general the psychology to perform them though they may know the words gestures and actions. Which can be very dangerous and attract them, not repel them.

          In some Hindu, from which Buddhist thought evolved, these times may be considered (in some specific beliefs found in it) to be a period of decline.
          All is corrupt and bound to get worse, as we are in a overall period of degeneration. To context. these are millions upon million year cycles. This, It will eventually corrupt completely, devolve, and then return to the same cycle again, growth formation to be followed by a degeneration eventually, as part of the universe attempting to understand itself. We here and now are stuck in this degenerative times but means can still be employed, learned in brighter days. Our universe will expand apart, the atoms themselves, eventually in several billion years. Science now predicts this, is has a to do with dark matter.

          Sometimes even new homes or places may be habituated by negative things. We simply do not know what took place before in any place, nor know clearly why a demon may choose one place over another. Though we may assume they choose place of habitatation due to some attachment..I know one family, that the lama found many demons in their one place of residence and it was new.

          I have found spirits in remote wildernesses but not demons. A feel to a place is a tell on that. Perhaps they like the isolation or removal from being around so many people. I don’t know, Spirts are benign and have no need for human. One I found in the wildeness in a stream. Their minds are quite delightful, very different than ours, They are open to us if we listen careful for their sound and are quiet and attentive. But they care not for us. Demons prefer people places as they feed upon them(as I read it), their energy. A human may tend demon and after death and rebirth, due to attachment, ( a residual remains) return to a place they lived as human. But not all demons are from human, some are from gods and other things, or from the formless realm. So they vary.. and where they choose to live varies.

          1. I hate to think there are “demons,” but if you say they’re around, well….. I do know psychics have seen the spirits of former lowlifes who used to like boozing it up at bars attach themselves to some drunken louse and head home with him/her. (Yuck, get offa me already!) Same with those who die with a heavy ciggie addiction. The lower astrals hover over smokers trying to vicariously feel that smoke go down their throats (or wherever ciggie smoke goes). It’s best to conquer heavy addictions before you croak. :-)

            This psychic medium is certainly not Tibetan — anybody who grew up in the Midwest can spot her accent immediately — but people often ask her to their houses for “cleaning.” She doesn’t specify just how she does this — fascinating video:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdGWlI1O0A

            1. Those type things you describe are not demons but remenants of conscious beings who have died. Being not really whole in life, they dismember in the afterlife and do not have immediate successful rebirth but wander around lost. Generally they are stupid peoples as human.
              If one contacts them they invariably are confused and cannot really explain their circumstance. Religious ones these from the Abrahamic lineage will at times create a pretend world combining their ideas of how things should be, with their present state. But if you do use a medium and they do contact one, invariably their comments are not well thought ones. This leads to confusion, as peoples take them to know a thing which they do not. The ones who know a thing have gone elsewhere and do not linger here. It is like asking a person who works sweeping floors in a science lab about science, thinking they know a thing as they happen to work there. They would best be described as ghosts. I would call a failed human a ghost. Who else would bother to talk with us? We are quite vile.Our inner conversations would bore a thing to death.

              Similar to those seeing a great white light in a near death experience….it is but one of the first parts of the stages of human death, but those who see it, think it is it…god nirvana whatever……and they then return and report that…but it is false it is only the beginning.

              Eventually those spirits you describe, the ghosts, they get over it and pass on to their destiny of consequence but it may take many many of our years. A century five hundred certainly.
              Demons are a whole differing category of being who have firm self identity and a firm reason of cause being what they are. They are like evil humans, not generally dumb in their way, quite cunning usually, though their choice in things is suspect. I take your god, the god of Abraham, to be such a thing.The thing you think is teaching you things over a lifetime or series of lifetimes, but offers only things he desires, but cannot provide. It is called a azura. He speaks of their potential. But most certainly, are not great like that one. Tibetans they take the lesser ones and use them for their purposes, It is not taught to westerners. A woman developed that practice many many years ago, it is firmly shaminstic. They use human thigh bones as their flutes in ceremony, imagine trying to get that through customs…. it is hard core. They offer their bodies as feast to demons as part of one ritual. They have colors to the rituals depending on aim.

              A certain type of spirit or ghost eats smoke. But they also are not demons but from peoples concerned to much with fulfilling desires in human life who become ghost.
              It is a style of human life produces cause of that. Hedonism naked greed, things like that, causes that, not smoking and not strictly addiction. Hungry ghosts they are called. They try to eat but their necks are to small all they can eat is smoke.
              A bit better than those ghosts you describe, I suppose, at least they know their plight. Those fools are just wandering lost.

              Addicts are devolving their cause of harm by pain in this life, they suffer not that pain again. It is great in this life and has complex cause. . In another it is done with. Their addiction it had a prior cause, not in this life. A tendency of action developed by habit causes it. None want to be a addict to anything.

              Shaministic lore has commonalities and I find many similar things in Navajo and Tibetan concepts. Westerners generally it is a rare rare one who knows a bit of any of this. By my read the evil that was colonialism and the constant wars drew it from them so they live in this world now without magic. They killed the magicians. Mostly they know what the demons tell them or have misplaced opinions based upon partial incomplete knowledge those in the west in this field. Some, a group, actually think they run or guide things…..they are but used which is why the global state is so stark. Like western mediums they just do not know to who they communicate or the source of their power.

              If I wanted that thing of shamanism I would devote five years or so to helping natives or some others, who we have destroyed and only then start to study and practice. But virtually no one does that. A ground must be created to have that flower. A ground of compassion to counter the obstruction of history or other cause. Before I began to study mind I did that very thing, but not for power but to understand, five years work for free. To counter past cause or else be misled. They do not have the ground, so they are used by things and think they know, but do not. Bad then is the outcome. Like those thinking dreams are telling them things…likely they are, but who is the author is the question?.

              1. Hmmm….it certainly sounds like you know a lot about this stuff, Ron. Maybe I’ll take another read of THE WAY OF THE SHAMAN by Michael Harner that’s sitting in my bookcase.

                  1. YR…the real things are not allowed to be read. One can only obtain access and buy them if one has permission of ones personal lama with qualification in the field of study. I could tell you to go to snow lion, a Tibetan religious outlet, and tell you to ask for this or that title and they will not sell it to you. If it has real value you will not be allowed.
                    What is given to the west in books, is general stuff one may find in most any global religion. It has value as it leads peoples generally to compassion as all good human religions should, but it is not the core.

                    The core is considered to dangerous for misinterpretation and potential of harm. In my particular field of study there are three books to accompany any teaching, the initial the ideological and practical basis, the interpretation of the original by a qualified teacher, and a practice manual to show you how to apply it all.

                    Not a one will you get if you do not have permission with the serious texts. Yet a hundred books will be written on the subject matter but in a way that makes it very general and diluted.There is no exception to this. Westerners are generally devoid of magic. So they can not utilize means other cultures may. Their minds just simply cannot allow it. What they are left with is doing good things to develop a ground for a future life…which is a good thing.So they are taught that. But that is not the teaching.

                    1. A westerner writing a shamanistic text…no offense but if they knew they would never write it.
                      The two things never coincide. Perhaps it is good fiction which may inspire one. Or it is a misdirection with intension.
                      Certainly the public would not be given any access.
                      So yes, go read it, but keep in mind those limitations.
                      A lot of the Tibetan stuff is a real good read on a wet day with nothing to do. But I would not expect to much from it.

                    2. Reminds me of the cartoon showing this “guru” sitting in the lotus position in front of his devoted followers. He says something like, “Grasshoppers, I am now going to leave my body.” They’re entranced, of course, as they watch him sitting there with this blissful look on his face.

                      A little while later he announces, “I am back!” They all exclaim, “Wow!” :-)

                    3. There are real teachings but they are generally kept secret from those without the ground necessary to utilize it properly.

                      Look at it this way…a significant amount of our populations are cutting off pieces of their sons private parts as a standard course of business….would you trust sacred teachings to such a idiotic and barbaric peoples? Who knows what they would do with such things.
                      I certainly would not. Give them something to help them towards compassion and keep them busy and out of trouble…, prayer and devotion, like what one finds in these abrahamic religions. Then maybe with time they will stop doing such things learn compassion and be ripe for some other things…in a century or two. Finding out who is a demon and who is not, things like that.

                    4. “A westerner writing a shamanistic text…no offense but if they knew they would never write it.
                      The two things never coincide. Perhaps it is good fiction which may inspire one. Or it is a misdirection with intension.
                      Certainly the public would not be given any access.
                      So yes, go read it, but keep in mind those limitations.
                      A lot of the Tibetan stuff is a real good read on a wet day with nothing to do. But I would not expect to much from it.”
                      – – – – – – – – – –

                      I’ve already read the Lobsang books and as much about Shamanism as I care to — in this linear lifetime, anyway. Perhaps in a parallel world I’m more “into” either of them. Yes, it’s true that all the so-called great religions and philosophies of the world have had their secret teachings — only for the “chosen few.” Our way is better than your way; mine is bigger than yours; my diet is healthier than yours. And so it goes!

                      (I happen to believe we came from outer space, outer galaxies; if people found out the real “truth”about their origins they’d probably go stark raving mad!)

  15. I read a story recently where–at first I thought surprising, but now I know it’s not–big tobacco was buddying up with the marijuana industry for exactly the reason stated at the very end of the video. Old thinking was that cigarettes was the “gateway” to joints, but au contraire! Leave it to that wily and deviously clever tobacco industry to jump in on the marijuana wagon.

    1. No offense to Dr Greger if he was seriously contending that. But I think the tobacco industry will go full steam ahead when and if pot is ever legalized federally.
      At the present time they may set their ducks in a row, but prohibitance as a illegal substance, makes money movements and transparency very difficult for multinationals to endeavor it. Other countries have usually similar prohibitions which make money movement and tracking difficult.
      Actually the fed stance may be helping the industry to stay out of the hands of the multinationals at the present time. In Colorado for instance most of the bookkeeping is on a cash only basis.

      It will probably be eventually federally legalized and they will set up for that eventuality.

      Most peoples back in the day who drank beer and or hard liquor commonly smoked as well. But the industry never intentionally combined the two.
      But they grow and package tobacco it seems a gimmie the industry is already ahead in the game to give it a go when the opportunity presents.
      Should we then hate them as they have a part in it…..well we must then hate food companies such as Kraft as they are part and parcel of tobacco.and are already diversified into many fields.That occurred back in the day when they changed their names to benign things such as altria as opposed to Philip morris.

    1. Yes the opioid crisis in the states has just passed another mile stone…more deaths by opioids than car crashes the leading cause of death in certain younger age groups.
      Our congress just passed a bill which allows another big pharma product to be more easily administered to combat opioid addiction, despite a scant record of success in study pursuant to its release.

      Part of the press on it…”“Based on our extensive experience with more than 60,000 registered Canadian patients, we believe CBD to be one of the most impactful medical compounds to become legally available to people in need of non-addictive therapies to treat pain,” CEO of Aurora, Terry Booth, stated in a press release.
      “We are very pleased to be working with Aurora on this project,” said Dr. Gabriella Gobbi, a leading researcher at the Faculty of Medicine of McGill University.”

      Non addictive therapies to treat pain……well now who could use that….. Canada only?
      Seeing this as the leading cause of death for grouping by age of young people now, I am a bit ashamed our medical community has not taken a more proactive approach.
      Kratom a substance not really studied, but with much historical use, is another thing that remedies pain and is in need of study..but all we get now is demonization without substance to back up the negative claims.

      Real study needs to be done to identify safety.

      1. It appears to me a complete white wash is in the mix.Heard a thing on PBS referencing kids needing to not take these things and now I see it reinforced in my local media, a move afoot to keep kids away from those things.

        Since most introduction to opioids and then heroin come first from a prescription I find that a bit odd.
        So looking up data just now I think more younger peoples are now dying as first cause but really it has spread to all groupings…it is just other cause is leading cause of death in older folks.

        From business insider….Different age groups were also hit far harder by fatal opioid overdose than others. While overdose death rates increased for all age groups, the greatest increase was in adults aged 55-64. Still, the group with the highest overall rates of fatal overdose was slightly younger — adults aged 45-54.
        Specifically:
        The percentage increase of drug overdose deaths among adults aged 55-64 rose from 4.2 per 100,000 in 1999 to 21.8 in 2015.
        In 2015, adults aged 45-54 had the highest death rate from drug overdose at 30 deaths per 100,000.

        :Other states I have seen from the CDC in a bit of a earlier context has the 25-34 age group leading deaths in most states but many deaths occur in all states at all age groupings.

        Anything to deflect from the real cause of this thing…which really is big pharmaby my read..

  16. From CBS focusing on Ohio….overdose is now the leading cause of death for those under 50…truly astonishing.

    ” Thomas Gilson, the medical examiner for Cuyahoga County, said: “If you look at how many people die in the country from opiate overdose, we’re looking at the same number of casualties as the entire Vietnam conflict.”
    The crisis affects the rich and poor, white and black, and old and young. On Thursday, the 911 operator in Akron received an emergency call after a 1-year-old stopped breathing.
    It’s unclear how the child got the opioid in his system, but he died on Sunday.
    Ohio is now suing five big drug companies that manufacture prescription painkillers, charging that they knowingly minimize the risks of addiction. As Attorney General Mike Dewine put it: “They knew they were wrong but they did it anyway and they continue to do it.”

    1. From the same source ..sounds like a lot huh?…In Ohio alone, nearly four billion opioid pills were prescribed across Ohio between 2011 and 2015. ”

      Because it is.

      1. Media influence being very subtle at times. The problem with opioids in this time of corporate control of media and politics is…. opioids overdoses which lead directly from opioids to heroin (very similar by effect drugs) are starting to hit home. Even those in positions of power are finding overdose deaths amongst them…so it has become impossible to surpress so widespread it is.

        Just saw a Netflix thing on Baghwan Ranjenesh or Osho. A very well followed and popular series. Totally omitted was the fact he was on at least nine meds, some for asthma which he had but also multiple painkillers. Which by my read lead directly to his not having oversite of his commune which resulted in murder being committed.

        Never once mentioned though his list of drugs was evident with his incarceration and public information thusly.

        Forgot to add that part they did…..

        Marijuana that travesty had only those not in power, the young black people of color usually disproportionally suffering incarceration.
        So it took years and years and is a bit still going on, that fight. This opioids strikes all, as it kills indiscriminately, age color type income, all suffer
        So media is beginning to report the truth of it…it starts with prescription for pain, most times by far the majority..Which is the why as to how it is so widespread.

  17. A personal note I will add, as it may have relevance. I had a close personal friend involved in the trade years ago who was white and of means, arrested by a undercover operative for pot dealing. He received a very light charge and sentence, which amounted only to probation with no other result.
    I know fully well back in that day if of color, he would have received a sentence most probably, of hard time, in Attica, ten years or so.
    I was subsequently subject to a vehicle search by some other undercover operatives, which I thought unrelated, but now knowing how things work, may not have been coincidental.

    In that search I was indeed carrying, but of a lesser amount and subject to no charge whatsoever. What they wanted with me, apparent on a full inspection of all of my things, to include phone numbers in wallet, was a lead to sources.

    So it was and is, in the war on drugs. Likely as I read it, the powers that be may use this opioid epidemic as a cause for similar actions to those of color. Evident with their focus on protecting the young shown in media at times presently, a recent occurance…… we must protect the young from these nefarious drug dealers. Which in this specific are really the big pharma companies, but that is expected to be aside the issue. Our local media has just started one such campaign, I expect they speak of one voice that being found in most other places.

    Will it once again work…….?.

    I have not involved myself in use of this thing nor had any financial interest for more than 40 years. But I cannot deny what I know to be true nor cease to advocate for the removal of the demonization of this thing pot.
    It produces harm certainly it seems, if one is subject to overt use. Lesser use recreationally and medically probably not. Study does not show it does.
    And medically it competes with patented drugs of great profit for companies. So the science to the inverse must be studied carefully, as monied interest support its creation and media interest.

    The same situation is found within the meat and dairy industry and their study to my opinion. It must be studied carefully and weighed for merit considering the context. In this specific government itself does hold a card or the card of interest. The industry of law enforcement is real and does act to its benefit. Government part they always are.
    Kratom a unrelated drug of much lesser use, is involved in this same battle, I am certain. Not to say it is good or bad, but it must be studied as peoples are using it to drop opioids quite completely, some peoples(not all). For some it does not work. And it is nonaddictive.
    It may be uncomfortable but this is the reality of these things.

  18. I live in Colorado in an area where we are experiencing smoke-filled skies every day from wildfires in other parts of Colorado, California, and other western states. I eat a WFPB diet and hike for exercise. I’m concerned about the effects of breathing our smoky air. The fires are expected to continue. Any specific foods that might be recommended to offset the smoke?

    1. Lily others will provide a more informative answer I guess, I have no particular authority in this but..

      Smoke as in smoking cigarettes has been know to deplete certain vitamins, vitamin C being most conspicuous. Cigarette smoke is not smoke from a forest fire but I would expect there would be commonalities.
      So I would eat some citrus strawberries anything with vit C in them. Some componants of things from wood smoke can have affects that are not thought of.

      Acrolein I think it is, produces a depressive sometimes accompanied with aggression, though that found in the air would be very low. There are many componants to wood smoke we don’t normally think of that can have negative affect dependent upon.exposure level.

      So things to remediate that if one is feeling a depression may be helpful. Natural sources of the B vitamins, particularly B-12 and perhaps make sure you are getting enough vitamin D as well. D by some study has antidepressive affect.
      Accompanied with the WFPB diet to provide the antioxidents and I would guess that is a good to go. Really I think citrus vit C, would be most important as only one item considered.

    2. Lily, in Dr. Greger’s book “How Not To Die” he talks about how turmeric is able to help protect against some of the damage from smokers (but of course he stresses not to smoke and to immediately quit if you do). So turmeric I would imagine would be very beneficial and take it with a bit of black pepper for 2,000 x’s the antioxidant absorption. Also, you should check out his videos on broccoli and broccoli sprouts. The sulforphane in broccoli (which is incredibly high in broccoli sprouts) is one of the most protective foods against air pollution.

  19. I would like to make a suggestion. I am a TREMENDOUS fan of Dr. Gregor’s and until he started making videos about marijuana, I pretty much trusted everything I learned on this site, which is a LOT! I’ve bought his books and given them as gifts to many. However, the videos about marijuana have been reminiscent of what I expect to see from people who are not truly equipped to provide the kind of information that people need to know about nutrition only in this case, the topic is cannabis. The study of cannabis has been hindered, especially in the US, by the government. There are many powerful special interests at play. The studies that Dr. Gregor sites in this video are full of holes larger enough to drop several turnip trucks through. I am saddened by these videos mostly because I now feel the need to scrutinize Dr. Gregor’s comments on nutrition topics more closely and I don’t want to do that. SO I won’t do that but I will not feel as comfortable about presenting his videos as unbiased information anymore either. However seeing how he selects data for the cannabis videos brings into question his accuracy and data referencing on all the other videos. Better not to post this series of videos until he is better educated about the topic. It only hurts his credibility which I don’t want to see happen. I love Dr. Gregor.

  20. Thank you for your help, S and Mostly vegan Ron from New Mexico! I appreciate this so much and will include the vitamins/foods you recommended.

  21. I had been hospitalized for 4 years in a row all in the same month march, for shortness of breath. They thought it was asthma. The last time which was this year, they hospitalized me for a week. Which they ran lots of test and determined I have COPD. The symptoms I had were shortness of breath, tired, and coughing.There has been little if any progress in finding a cure or reliable treatment. I was seeking something to help regain my life to be able to do things for myself. Through my primary physician i learnt about a COPD disease herbal formula from NATURAL HERBAL GARDENS and their success rate with the treatment, i immediately started on the COPD disease herbal protocol, I am glad to report the herbal formula worked effectively and there was no side effects, I had a total decline in symptoms, the Chest tightness, shortness of breath and other symptoms stopped, my COPD disease is totally REVERSED

  22. Elaine- Glad to hear your condition is much improved. While you credit the herbal formula you used, we do not endorse specific products and of course focus on food than any remedies even if anecdotal evidence shows a cure from such approaches. I would encourage you to also consider that what you’ve eaten and continue to eat can also affect your lung condition. For that reason please also consider carefully reviewing this video and seeing the suggestions provided make sense to you. Hope this helps. https://nutritionfacts.org/2012/06/07/treating-copd-with-diet/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This