Smoke Gets in Your Lungs

In the present day, there's a lot of controversy about smoking. Old substances (tobacco) are in decline and are often under public disdain. "New" ones (marijuana) are in ascendance and are becoming more acceptable and may even cross the line back into legality (it's not really new and has a long history of various stages of legality -- see the Wikipedia entry Legal History of Cannabis).

However, because of its controversial legality and use, the health aspects of marijuana smoking have not been pursued as it has been for tobacco. There are also other substances that are sometimes smoked -- heated and inhaled or brought into the mouth. So, let's take a step back and just look into the smoke.

Smoke occurs when substances are burned. Many firefighter (and people trapped in fire areas)  injuries are associated with smoke inhalation. There are good (but highly technical) sources such as Wikipedia for articles on the various possibilities depending on factors such as heat, presence of other substances, humidity, and so forth. In this blog, we will concentrate on the tobacco and marijuana smoke voluntarily inhaled in relatively limited amounts by "smokers" and "tokers".

Smoke has four major aspects: carbon monoxide, tars and particulates, active ingredients, and additives.

1. Carbon Monoxide. This gas is created by incomplete burning of the material. It is primarily a danger to those "inhaling" as it is more lung-related. It is present in all smoke in varying degrees and is considered to be a poison as the body will absorb it and it decreases general function and may cause death. It is absorbed into the blood cells and decreases the ability to absorb oxygen and, thus, reduces stamina and general ability to perform at optimum levels. There is little difference in the effects between tobacco and marijuana smoke.
   
   
2. Tars and Particulates. These are the visible parts of smoke -- if you can see it, they are present. They are what cause the darkened areas of X-rays of lungs. "Tars" are resinous substances -- usually quite sticky and they cause the staining of teeth (and lungs) and can act as a kind of glue in the lungs, reducing the ability of the lungs to absorb oxygen. The particulates can vary in size depending on the temperature of the burning material and the size of the parts being burned and can act as an irritant causing more mucous production which is a major cause of "smoker's cough". It takes about five years for the lungs to fully repair from the damage caused by these substances and is considered to be a major trigger of lung cancer. This area could use more study but it is likely that there is little difference between tobacco and marijuana smoke.
   
   
3. Active Ingredients. These are the substances that interact with other parts of the body to cause the effects anticipated by smokers and tokers. In tobacco, this substance is nicotine which has many effects but primarily acts as a stimulant. It also has a mile diuretic (body water removing) effect which may cause weight loss for beginning smokers (and cause some temporary weight gain after quitting). It is water-soluble and, thus, is ideally administered via smoking. Anecdotally, nicotine is considered to help general focus and mental activity but there are no controlled studies verifying this. Nicotine also tends to paralyze the cilia in the trachea (windpipe) and, thus, may increase mucous retention and coughing. There are a few minor medical purposes for nicotine but it is highly physically addictive
   
   The primary active ingredient in marijuana is tetrahydrocannabinol (usually referred to, for obvious reasons, as THC). Its effects vary from individual to individual and is considered primarily a "psychoactive" (acting primarily on the central nervous system) drug. Common effects include increased appetite, decreased nausea and pain, and a reduced sperm production in men. It is not considered to be highly physically addictive although a varying amount of emotional or psychological addiction is possible for both marijuana and tobacco.
   
   
4. Additives. Since tobacco has been legal for many years and is a highly competitive industry, each company does what it can to both distinguish and "enhance" its brand of tobacco. Glycerin is normally added to increase shelf life and prevent the tobacco from drying out. Formaldehyde (think of frogs in jars in biology class) is added to make absorption and crossover to the brain more rapid. This increases the risk of physical addiction. Many other additives are also present -- from spices such as cinnamon and cloves to liquids such as menthol and other oils. Formaldehyde is known as a carcinogen and the burning by-products of the other additives have not been extensively tested. However, this is an area that is highly likely to contribute to act as cancerous triggers (especially for non-lung-related cancers). Tobacco is much worse in this area than marijuana.

Inhaling or not inhaling? As a water-soluble drug, the effects of nicotine are dependent upon the surface area times the duration of exposure. This is also true for other additive burn by-products. Thus, inhaling would be worse if holding it in the mouth was done for the same amount of time. However, this is not actually the case as cigar and pipe smokers tend to allow the smoke to remain in their mouths longer. Thus, there may be close to the same exposure for nicotine and additives. However, there would still be greatly reduced effects from the carbon monoxide and particulates. With THC, it varies upon the general environment. It is not considered to be water-soluble but it IS lipid (fats) and alcohol-soluble so, if taken with food or drink, it is probably absorbed as readily (or more readily) than bringing into the lungs.

What's the fuss about GMOs?

There has been a lot of flurry about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the press and Internet. What is a GMO and what are the concerns about it? GMOs are actually the tail end of a sequence of food modifications -- the process is the least "natural" and the most uncertain as to long-term consequences. The series begins with natural hybridization, leads through human hybridization, and continues to GMOs.

• Natural hybridization. Plants and animals change over time. Through a process of "natural selection" and "spontaneous mutation", life changes to adapt to best survive in a particular environment. Sometimes this combination of processes is called "evolution". A "spontaneous mutation" isn't anything menacing or bad -- it just means that the "child" is significantly different from the "parent". If the change brings advantages then the "child" is more likely to survive. If the change brings disadvantages then the "child is less likely to survive. This is "natural selection" and it applies to all plants and animals.
  
  
• Human-directed hybridization. Plants and animals are naturally diverse. They have slightly different characteristics from each other. By choosing life that has attributes that are "desirable" to propagate to the next generation -- mixing and choosing -- new combinations of attributes will emerge within the offspring.
  
  The difference between this and natural hybridization is that the new attributes are not normally chosen based on the plant surviving without human intervention. In fact, the opposite is often true. Human hybridized life often requires ongoing human intervention. This may include more water than is naturally available within the region. It may require special weeding and chemical support. If left alone, without human support, it will often "revert" back to the varieties that best survive.
  
  
• A GMO takes this choice one (considerable) step further. The actual seeds, or eggs, are manipulated to add or remove genetic material from one form of life and integrated together. The goal is to make the genetic change inheritable from one generation to the next. One can look at it as "non-spontaneous" mutation. Desired attributes may include "better" flavor, easier transportation, longer lasting after harvest ("shelf life"), faster or greater growth, or greater production (more fruit or milk produced, for example).
  
  There is nothing specifically bad about this -- it is just hurrying nature along. However, many of these changes are highly unlikely to ever occur spontaneously. Some genetic material from animals may be added to plants or vice versa.
  
  The primary warning, or fear, from GMOs is that, by introducing life that would probably never occur naturally, there is little knowledge of what the long term interactions within the ecosystem, or between producers and consumers, will be. There may be little difference between the genetics of a nutritious plant and that of a slow-acting poison. Studies of new organisms rarely are long-term, checking effects through the generations.
  
  Another problem is that GMOs may be patented. The courts sometimes take a contrary view of this by applying existing patent logic. Existing patent logic is based on the idea that patented ideas/materials can spread only by being "taken" or specifically reproduced. Thus, plants that contain the patented genes have "stolen" the new material. While this follows existing patent logic it does not apply properly to living material that can naturally spread. It should be treated as "invasive" or an "infection" where the GMO is actually "attacking" the non-modified life. Patent law needs to be updated to existing realities.

GMOs are not inherently bad. They are inherently a change and changes take a while to determine benefits or risks. GMOs already are in wide use within human food. Some countries require GMOs to be labeled as such, feeling like the public should be aware they are part of a long-term study of effects. However, due to the widespread use of GMOs, food producers often fight against this notification. Specifically, corn is often a GMO plant and, in the U.S., corn syrup is used in many food products. Most food (including sweetened carbonated beverages) would need GMO labeling because the product includes GMOs.