Any risks smoking pot and taking the pill?
October 24, 2008 8:59 PM Subscribe
Does smoking marijuana carry the same risks as smoking tobacco while taking birth control pills?
The fine print is very explicit about the risks of smoking cigarettes but no mention of smoking pot. Not much luck searching around the internet either. If helpful, Tri-Sprintec is the brand.
The fine print is very explicit about the risks of smoking cigarettes but no mention of smoking pot. Not much luck searching around the internet either. If helpful, Tri-Sprintec is the brand.
Best answer: I think the concern is nicotine. There is no nicotine in marijuana.
posted by Class Goat at 9:14 PM on October 24, 2008
posted by Class Goat at 9:14 PM on October 24, 2008
I'd say no. I'm of the understanding that the issue is nicotine's cardiovascular effects. Marijuana doesn't have those effects.
posted by Netzapper at 9:56 PM on October 24, 2008
posted by Netzapper at 9:56 PM on October 24, 2008
Just anecdotal evidence, but I have a blood clotting problem (that is, it is "sticky" and forms clots) and also suffer from Raynaud's Syndrome, which causes the blood vessels to constrict. Back when I still smoked cigarettes, I noticed that occasionally a few puffs would make me dizzy enough that I had to sit down or else topple over. My rheumatologist told me that nicotine was the culprit (and emphasized that that was just one more reason to quit, which I eventually did.) Marijuana never had a similar effect. (Note the past tense, Internet detectives or Mom or my doctor....)
posted by Oriole Adams at 1:15 AM on October 25, 2008
posted by Oriole Adams at 1:15 AM on October 25, 2008
There's very likely never been a study of the effect you're talking about, so no definitive answer to that question exists. Numerous studies have shown that pot is not physically harmful in any way, if consumed in moderation. I remember one study a while back saying how pot could be lethal--if you smoked 20 joints a day, or some such ridiculous total.
posted by zardoz at 4:05 AM on October 25, 2008
posted by zardoz at 4:05 AM on October 25, 2008
I'm thinking the only reason it would cause any problems would be if you were smoking a spliff with tobacco in.
posted by jhighmore at 6:25 AM on October 25, 2008
posted by jhighmore at 6:25 AM on October 25, 2008
Smoking anything has negative health effects for your lungs, so the person who said that smoking pot in moderation has no negative health effects is incorrect.
Specifically in regards to blood clotting while on HBC, though, nicotine is the concern, not the smoke itself.
posted by fructose at 9:19 AM on October 25, 2008
Specifically in regards to blood clotting while on HBC, though, nicotine is the concern, not the smoke itself.
posted by fructose at 9:19 AM on October 25, 2008
From what I understand, you can limit potential cannabis smoke impact by using a vaporiser, which limits the combustibles that transfer into your system without also removing the active properties of the smoke....but that's neither here nor there.
I've no real data on your actual question, although those putting forth the nicotine theory seem to have a point. I know birth control pills come with a risk of blood clots, so it seems like anything that could affect blood flow in further unpredictable fashions would be a bad idea to add in.
posted by batmonkey at 9:52 AM on October 25, 2008
I've no real data on your actual question, although those putting forth the nicotine theory seem to have a point. I know birth control pills come with a risk of blood clots, so it seems like anything that could affect blood flow in further unpredictable fashions would be a bad idea to add in.
posted by batmonkey at 9:52 AM on October 25, 2008
While running the risk of a bit of a derail, this is not, strictly speaking, true in terms of lung cancer. Basically, putting anything into your lungs that your body cannot clear puts you at a higher risk for lung cancer.
Strictly speaking, your generalization is wrong. Just because your body doesn't "clear" something doesn't mean it has the potential to the cause intracellular events at the nuclear/DNA level that would lead to the aberrant cell division which is a hallmark of dysplasia and cancer. Many chemicals have the potential to be either inert to begin with or appropriately sequestered but not "cleared" per se by the body's defenses.
While it is currently believed that tobacco increases thrombotic risk via a number of mechanisms including hyperfibrinogenemia with chronic use, elevated catecholamines, augmented platelet aggregation, and other effects, it is not entirely clear which components of tobacco are at play, and while nicotine is one factor, it is unlikely to be the only factor leading to hypercoagulability.
There is much less available in the medical literature regarding marijuana, but case reports have been published potentially linking marijuana to strokes and heart attacks even in young patients. While cause for some concern, this is not high level evidence and is to be taken with perhaps a grain of salt.
The short answer to your question is maybe but we really don't know with any certainty.
posted by drpynchon at 9:57 AM on October 25, 2008 [1 favorite]
Strictly speaking, your generalization is wrong. Just because your body doesn't "clear" something doesn't mean it has the potential to the cause intracellular events at the nuclear/DNA level that would lead to the aberrant cell division which is a hallmark of dysplasia and cancer. Many chemicals have the potential to be either inert to begin with or appropriately sequestered but not "cleared" per se by the body's defenses.
While it is currently believed that tobacco increases thrombotic risk via a number of mechanisms including hyperfibrinogenemia with chronic use, elevated catecholamines, augmented platelet aggregation, and other effects, it is not entirely clear which components of tobacco are at play, and while nicotine is one factor, it is unlikely to be the only factor leading to hypercoagulability.
There is much less available in the medical literature regarding marijuana, but case reports have been published potentially linking marijuana to strokes and heart attacks even in young patients. While cause for some concern, this is not high level evidence and is to be taken with perhaps a grain of salt.
The short answer to your question is maybe but we really don't know with any certainty.
posted by drpynchon at 9:57 AM on October 25, 2008 [1 favorite]
Basically, putting anything into your lungs that your body cannot clear puts you at a higher risk for lung cancer.
But presumably if that was a significantly bigger risk than the general population, we'd have epidemiological studies that demonstrate it -- particularly in light of the phenomenal amounts of money that the US government has spent every year to try and prove marijuana-related health risks.
I'm not aware of any such studies. But here's a couple of links that summarize what *is* currently known on the issue:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/10/1829
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=16054989&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:31 AM on October 25, 2008
But presumably if that was a significantly bigger risk than the general population, we'd have epidemiological studies that demonstrate it -- particularly in light of the phenomenal amounts of money that the US government has spent every year to try and prove marijuana-related health risks.
I'm not aware of any such studies. But here's a couple of links that summarize what *is* currently known on the issue:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/10/1829
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=16054989&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:31 AM on October 25, 2008
fructose wrote: Smoking anything has negative health effects for your lungs, so the person who said that smoking pot in moderation has no negative health effects is incorrect.
Except, you know, the multiple studies on the subject that failed to show a link to cancer in even long term heavy marijuana smokers.
It does have a demonstrable effect on memory that goes away after you stop, but not for a few months if you were a heavy smoker, and long term heavy smoking would seem to put you at risk for emphysema, but I haven't seen any studies on that.
Of course, part of the difference may be that the usual rate of consumption for a cigarette smoker is around 20 cigarettes a day, while even a habitual marijuana smoker usually smokes 5 or fewer a day, although even heavier use hasn't been shown to cause serious health effects, I find it harder to believe that's not just from the dearth of studies.
posted by wierdo at 12:10 PM on October 25, 2008 [1 favorite]
Except, you know, the multiple studies on the subject that failed to show a link to cancer in even long term heavy marijuana smokers.
It does have a demonstrable effect on memory that goes away after you stop, but not for a few months if you were a heavy smoker, and long term heavy smoking would seem to put you at risk for emphysema, but I haven't seen any studies on that.
Of course, part of the difference may be that the usual rate of consumption for a cigarette smoker is around 20 cigarettes a day, while even a habitual marijuana smoker usually smokes 5 or fewer a day, although even heavier use hasn't been shown to cause serious health effects, I find it harder to believe that's not just from the dearth of studies.
posted by wierdo at 12:10 PM on October 25, 2008 [1 favorite]
I should have said "...heavy marijuana smokers who were not also tobacco users"
posted by wierdo at 12:12 PM on October 25, 2008
posted by wierdo at 12:12 PM on October 25, 2008
(derail)
In the study referenced above that looked at lung cancer patients and how many of them smoked marijuana, they used 60 lung cancer patients and 200 controls. That is a very small sample size, and that's one of the "concerns about methodology" that the quote references. There are also marijuana studies going on in the US, particularly in states where medical marijuana is legal. It doesn't necessarily take federal funding to do a study since there are many private health centers, universities and drug companies. A study in California looked at 1200 cancer patients and found no link to marijuana use.
posted by oneirodynia at 5:19 PM on October 25, 2008
In the study referenced above that looked at lung cancer patients and how many of them smoked marijuana, they used 60 lung cancer patients and 200 controls. That is a very small sample size, and that's one of the "concerns about methodology" that the quote references. There are also marijuana studies going on in the US, particularly in states where medical marijuana is legal. It doesn't necessarily take federal funding to do a study since there are many private health centers, universities and drug companies. A study in California looked at 1200 cancer patients and found no link to marijuana use.
posted by oneirodynia at 5:19 PM on October 25, 2008
But are any of these studies using non-paper-based combustion of the product? Like water pipes, simple pipes, or vapourisers?
posted by batmonkey at 12:10 PM on October 26, 2008
posted by batmonkey at 12:10 PM on October 26, 2008
I agree.
I'm curious because I've got friends who will swear up and down that cannabis has no lung cancer risk at all, no matter how imbibed, and that seems ludicrous. Carbon is carcinogenic, and burning something causes carbon. Having it (sort of) confirmed for paper-rolled consumption made me wonder if there was more info on the other methods.
Anyway. Thanks for coming back on that!
posted by batmonkey at 3:40 PM on October 27, 2008
I'm curious because I've got friends who will swear up and down that cannabis has no lung cancer risk at all, no matter how imbibed, and that seems ludicrous. Carbon is carcinogenic, and burning something causes carbon. Having it (sort of) confirmed for paper-rolled consumption made me wonder if there was more info on the other methods.
Anyway. Thanks for coming back on that!
posted by batmonkey at 3:40 PM on October 27, 2008
« Older How to make Gas company pay for water damage they... | Looking for Tools to Develop YouTube-style... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by sunshinesky at 9:09 PM on October 24, 2008