[cdetiiho]

My son has asked me to give him factual proof that smoking pot is bad for you. So far most of what I've found based on facts is that there isn't much proof. HELP!

[Curlyben]

Well other than the fact it's ILLEGAL you mean.

[J_9]

Here's some info

Effects on the Heart
Marijuana increases heart rate by 20-100 percent shortly after smoking; this effect can last up to 3 hours. In one study, it was estimated that marijuana users have a 4.8-fold increase in the risk of heart attack in the first hour after smoking the drug.5 This may be due to increased heart rate as well as the effects of marijuana on heart rhythms, causing palpitations and arrhythmias. This risk may be greater in aging populations or in those with cardiac vulnerabilities.

Effects on the Lungs
Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;6 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.7 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.

Nonetheless, marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, and a heightened risk of lung infections. A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers.8 Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Found here... Marijuana - InfoFacts - NIDA

[DrBill100]

The single most effective and realistic argument against the use of cannabis is as Curly Ben has noted. It is illegal. Not only is it illegal but classed as a Schedule I, Controlled Substance, therefore exposing even the user to severe criminal penalties.

Any attempt to explain the medical dangers of marijuana is immediately frustrated by the fact that it is prescribed as a medicinal agent in one jurisdiction while deemed a dangerous and addictive drug with no medicinal value in another.

It is also an erratic substance that evades classic definition as either a stimulant or depressant.

Further complicating interpretation of research conducted in the US is the fact that such activities are conducted by governmental agencies (or specifically certified researchers), using specially grown marijuana (Univ of Mississippi) with regulated THC content. Independent research was banned in 1942 and such prohibition is still in effect.

Comparison of this hygienically grown product to the street grade marijuana should be an extremely cautious process and generalized conclusions avoided (ie: dangerous or innocuous). Leastwise, based on current and recent research.

Modern (1980 >) Laboratory medical research is inconclusive and often contradictory. Past clinical and historical review is probably the best guide. Cannabis sativa, as it was exclusively known until the term Marijuana was popularized in the 1930s, has a long and well documented history in medicine. It was widely used in the US from 1842 through 1920s with no adverse consequences such as addiction, social problems, etc. It's medicinal use diminished after the Civil War due to the introduction of opiates as affect was faster and dose more easily regulated. But cannabis in the form of extracts, candies, etc remained widely available and extensively used until the 1920s. Once again with no record of social problems emerged.

In attempting to explain these seeming contradictions to anyone you are facing an enormous and complex task. It's better to explain it as as civics lesson, illegal, than place reliance on developing and inconclusive research.

Thus I revert to the original thesis. Whether right or wrong, it remains a dangerous substance because it exposes the user to criminal penalties, if for no other reason, this is a significant danger in the US. The jury is out in relation to medical (incl. psychiatric) consequences.