Just 1 Minute Of Secondhand Marijuana Smoke Impairs Blood Vessel Function

[bobandtorey]

 A new study finds that you do not have to use marijuana to experience its negative health implications; inhaling secondhand marijuana smoke for just 1 minute may temporarily impair blood vessel function.

Researchers found exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke for just 1 minute impaired rats' blood vessel function.

What is more, researchers found that it may take three times as long for blood vessel function to recover after inhalation of secondhand marijuana smoke, compared with inhalation of secondhand tobacco smoke.

Senior author Matthew Springer, Ph.D., professor of medicine in the Division of Cardiology at the University of California-San Francisco, and colleagues report their findings in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

The harms of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke are well established, and these include immediate damage to the heart and blood vessels.

But according to the research team, little is known about the harms that may arise as a result of exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke.

To find out, Springer and colleagues exposed rats to either secondhand tobacco or marijuana smoke for 1 minute.

The team assessed the blood vessel function of the rodents before and after exposure to each form of smoke. Specifically, they looked at how the smoke impacted the blood vessels' ability to transport blood, and if impairment occurred, how long it lasted.

Lengthy blood vessel recovery with secondhand marijuana smoke

The researchers found that exposure to both types of smoke impaired the rats' blood vessel function, but secondhand marijuana smoke appeared to have a more damaging effect than secondhand tobacco smoke.

Following exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke, it took 30 minutes for the rodents' blood vessel function to recover, but it took at least 90 minutes for their blood vessel function to recover after exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke.

Additionally, the team found that it was not the chemicals in marijuana - such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) - that were responsible for blood vessel impairment, but rather burning of the plant material itself.

Such blood vessel damage - despite its temporary nature - could have long-term health implications.

"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."

Matthew Springer, Ph.D.

While the study was conducted in rats, the researchers note it is highly likely that secondhand marijuana smoke has the same effect on human blood vessel function.

"Arteries of rats and humans are similar in how they respond to secondhand tobacco smoke, so the response of rat arteries to secondhand marijuana smoke is likely to reflect how human arteries might respond," says Springer.

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in America, though the drug has been legalized in a number of states for recreational or medicinal purposes, meaning an increasing number of people are likely to be exposed to secondhand marijuana smoke.

As such, Springer and colleagues note it is important to gain a better understanding of the possible health implications of such exposure, and further research in this field is warranted.

In the meantime, the team advises avoiding all forms of smoke, whether from tobacco or marijuana.

Learn how long-term marijuana use may alter the brain's reward system.

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/311899.php

[trichcycler]

wait a minute.....ok,  great reasons to demand edibles and cannabis extract to be accepted as legal for card holders at least. vaporizing negates this burning of dead plant material and possibly many of the toxic results of combustion.

 

Still, not a worrisome "side effect" from mother natures finest pharmacopeia . Compared to waking up in the middle of the night and zombie gambling, suicide, mass homicides, cancer, and death often toted as "side effects" to the bulk of big pharma advertised prescriptions.........this news dont mean chit to me!

 

Just in !!

todays smokers find cannabis makes them cough, giggle, relax, love, share, cough a little more, then heal. beware!!

 

 

[+Malamute]

This guy regularly does studies for NIDA.  They probably gave him a half million bucks to come up with this crap.  I haven't read all the way through this yet, but I do know they burn leaf, not buds, in the study.

 

 As usual, his studies start with the conclusion.

[Wild Bill]

How were the rats exposed? A few whiffs of smoke such as one would experience if in a room with someone smoking or in a small smoke filled chamber close to the point of asphyxiation?

[trichcycler]

contact buzz  meh

[bax]

http://jaha.ahajournals.org/content/5/8/e003858.full

 

Female Sprague‐Dawley rats (Simonsen Laboratory, CA; n=8/group) were used at 9 to 10 weeks of age, with body weights of 200 to 250 g. Rats were anesthetized under ketamine/xylazine with intraperitoneal injection. Starting doses were ketamine (100 mg/kg)/xylazine (5 mg/kg). Repeated injections were required with one third to one half doses at a time (approximately every 30 minutes). Experiments were terminal. All procedures were approved by the University of California, San Francisco Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

 

how did they kill the rats?

[Spartyon]

how did they kill the rats made them watch the rnc and the dnc from start to finish 

[Restorium2]

Again, lifetime cannabis smoker here with perfect cardio health and nice low cholesterol. My wife too. I just wonder where they messed this up because when you check their work, like you learned to do with a math problem in the third grade, it doesn't add up. 

 

Additionally, the team found that it was not the chemicals in marijuana - such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) - that were responsible for blood vessel impairment, but rather burning of the plant material itself.

Such blood vessel damage - despite its temporary nature - could have long-term health implications.

 

I think they might have been able to prove some sort of diminishment in the oxygen content due to relaxation but to make that into some sort of 'damage' is where they made the leap into the abyss of BS. 

Edited July 29, 2016 by Restorium2

[Alphabob]

I will call BS on this article.

1. The title should be ‘One Minute of Secondhand Smoke Exposure Substantially Impairs Vascular Endothelial Function In Rats” instead of their clearly misleading "One Minute of Marijuana Secondhand Smoke Exposure Substantially Impairs Vascular Endothelial Function"

2. Their results are not significant (p < 0.05 versus the typical p < 0.001 for scientific publications). This has become a regular behavior in anti-cannabis studies; i.e. stating something as if it were fact when there is WEAK evidence for it in rats or some other animal. The journal that published this should be ashamed and have their impact rating knocked down for supporting junk science.

3. It looks like they fudged their numbers a little bit or had problems controlling for various factors in their experiment. The pre-experimental values vary by as much as the actual difference between timed measurements. Furthermore, the uncertainty is large enough to account for the effect, hence the low significance.

4. We know that THC is a vasodilator, so it makes absolutely zero sense that 0.01% THC had the same effects as 4.5% THC. Anyone with half of a brain could tell you this. It’s on the level of claiming that you've measured an insoluble compound (THC) in your town’s water system.

 

Yet, they claim these two doses gave the same results and that it is the smoke causing the issue. Oh no, a negative result, better fudge the paper's title and mislead the media about marijuana being a dangerous drug. You know, the drug we have been intensively studying the negative effects of for decades and have yet to find any evidence of cardiovascular disease with? Freedom of speech is one thing, portraying junk as science to fear-monger or affect policy is something else all together. Scientists and journals should not be able to mislead the public like this, they know what they are doing and it's called fraud.

 

P-Values:

p > 0.10                 No Evidence

0.05 < p < 0.10      Weak Evidence               *what this article uses

0.01 < p < 0.05      Moderate Evidence

0.001 < p < 0.01    Good to Strong Evidence

p < 0.001               Very Strong Evidence      *the scientific standard for publishing anything that isn't MJ

Edited July 30, 2016 by Alphabob