Talk:Cannabis-associated respiratory disease

There is no such thing...
Someone delete this joke of an article. There is no such thing as "Cannabis-associated respiratory disease". This is pure nonsense.Yonskii (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

lol dude... any smoke, not just cannabis smoke, will fuck up the lungs. that's just common sense. don't spread misinformation about drugs 142.51.215.102 (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with this article is that it is synthesis. See Synthesis Yonskii (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Poor article
This article really needs a serious rewrite and better and more numerous references if it should continue to exist. For example, the article states at one point "There are many ways in which Cannabis leaves or flowers are being contaminated, these include being dusted with partiicles [sic] of glass, dipped in chemical solutions or sprayed with synthetic cannabinoids (such as JWH-018 or AM-2201)", which isn't even cited, and it goes on apparently implying that alleged cases like that are becoming a common public health problem, which is just ludicrous. Adulterated cannabis is rather rare, and while I am aware of a few cases of fiberglass contamination in the UK, however, this is nowhere close to common as this poorly written article presently implies. As for JWH-018, I am aware that it is a synthetic cannabinoid often used in "herbal" smoking blends, but dealers "spraying" it on their cannabis? That is ridiculous. Once again, this article needs a serious rewrite and better references, a lot of this drivel really should be removed.-- Metalhead94 TC 00:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate mention?
In the Cancer risk section, are the 2007 and 2008 studies one and the same? If so, then why mention it twice? 31.16.124.131 (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Lungs
why dont we try to focus on those and not testicular and neck cancer, this is not the right article for that. this article is about respiratory disease. I am removing the cancer risks that are not related to the lungs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skybone (talk • contribs) 23:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

i think the new zealand study of 97 people should be removed. unless someone objects i will take it out. a sample size of under 100 is not significant enough to deserve mention, and the study itself says, and i quote "cannabis smoking (defined as lifetime use of ≥20 joints) was not associated with a significantly increased risk of lung cancer (Table 3)" which seems to contradict the statements regarding it. the study was funded by the new zealand govt and various pharmaceutical companies. the fact that before they started their study they named themselves "the cannabis and respiratory disease research group" calls their motives into question. Skybone (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)