Background: Cannabis is the most widely used illegal drug worldwide. Long-term use of cannabis is known to cause chronic bronchitis and airflow obstruction, but the prevalence of macroscopic emphysema, the doseresponse relationship and the dose equivalence of cannabis with tobacco has not been determined. Methods: A convenience sample of adults from the Greater Wellington region was recruited into four smoking groups: cannabis only, tobacco only, combined cannabis and tobacco and non-smokers of either substance. Their respiratory status was assessed using high-resolution CT (HRCT) scanning, pulmonary function tests and a respiratory and smoking questionnaire. Associations between respiratory status and cannabis use were examined by analysis of covariance and logistic regression. Results: 339 subjects were recruited into the four groups. A dose-response relationship was found between cannabis smoking and reduced forced expiratory volume in 1 s to forced vital capacity ratio and specific airways conductance, and increased total lung capacity. For measures of airflow obstruction, one cannabis joint had a similar effect to 2.5-5 tobacco cigarettes. Cannabis smoking was associated with decreased lung density on HRCT scans. Macroscopic emphysema was detected in 1/75 (1.3%), 15/92 (16.3%), 17/91 (18.9%) and 0/81 subjects in the cannabis only, combined cannabis and tobacco, tobacco alone and nonsmoking groups, respectively. Conclusions: Smoking cannabis was associated with a dose-related impairment of large airways function resulting in airflow obstruction and hyperinflation. In contrast, cannabis smoking was seldom associated with macroscopic emphysema. The 1:2.5-5 dose equivalence between cannabis joints and tobacco cigarettes for adverse effects on lung function is of major public health significance.

No abstract

No abstract

The aim of the present study was to determine the risk of lung cancer associated with cannabis smoking.A case-control study of lung cancer in adults f55 yrs of age was conducted in eight district health boards in New Zealand. Cases were identified from the New Zealand Cancer Registry and hospital databases. Controls were randomly selected from the electoral roll, with frequency matching to cases in 5-yr age groups and district health boards. Interviewer-administered questionnaires were used to assess possible risk factors, including cannabis use. The relative risk of lung cancer associated with cannabis smoking was estimated by logistic regression.In total, 79 cases of lung cancer and 324 controls were included in the study. The risk of lung cancer increased 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2-15) for each joint-yr of cannabis smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking, and 7% (95% CI 5-9) for each pack-yr of cigarette smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cannabis smoking. The highest tertile of cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (relative risk 5.7 (95% CI 1.5-21.6)), after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking.In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that long-term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults.

A prospective audit of 100 admissions to a general medical unit was performed to determine the relationship of the initial nutritional status of the patients to the actual length of stay and hospital charges. These data then were compared with the allowed length of stay and estimated reimbursement under the prospective payment system of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). Forty-five percent of the malnourished patients were hospitalized longer than that allowed under DRGs, compared to 30% for normal patients and 37% in the borderline group. The average length of stay was 15.6 +/- 2.2 days in the malnourished group compared to approximately 10 days in the other two groups (p less than 0.01). Although the estimated base DRG reimbursement was similar in all three groups ($4352-$5124), the actual hospital charges were significantly greater in the malnourished ($16,691 +/- 4389) and borderline ($14,118 +/- 4962) groups compared to normals ($7692 +/- 687), (p less than 0.01). The DRG system will have an adverse financial impact in the care of malnourished patients. It is suggested that early recognition of malnutrition and aggressive treatment may lead to a decrease in the length of stay and cost deficit incurred by malnourished patients.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract