Editorials

Comparing cannabis with tobacco

Smoking cannabis, like smoking tobacco, can be a major public health hazard

Britain now has 13 million tobacco smokers. This number has been steadily decreasing due to public awareness of the harm caused by tobacco smoking. At the same time the number of cannabis smokers is increasing. Between 1999 and 2001, the number of 14-15 year olds who had tried cannabis rose from 19% to 29% in boys and 18% to 25% in girls, and a Home Office document estimates that 3.2 million people in Britain smoke cannabis. ^{1 2} However, the harmful effects of smoking cannabis are widely known and have recently been highlighted. ^{3 4} Although the active ingredients of the cannabis plant differ from those of the tobacco plant, each produces about 4000 chemicals when smoked and these are largely identical. Although cannabis cigarettes are smoked less frequently than nicotine cigarettes, their mode of inhalation is very different. Compared with smoking tobacco, smoking cannabis entails a two thirds larger puff volume, a one third larger inhaled volume, a fourfold longer time holding the breath, and a fivefold increase in concentrations of carboxyhaemoglobin.⁵ The products of combustion from cannabis are thus retained to a much higher degree. How is this likely to translate into adverse effects on health?

We already know that regular use of cannabis is associated with an increased incidence of mental illnesses, most notably schizophrenia and depression,⁴ but it is also worth examining its potential to cause other illnesses, especially those of the heart and respiratory system.

At present, there is an understandable dearth of epidemiological evidence of cardiopulmonary harm from cannabis, because its use is a relatively new phenomenon and its potency is changing. The amount of the main active constituent, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), in cannabis has increased from about 0.5% 20 years ago to nearer 5% at present in Britain, whereas "Nederweed" (the variety smoked in the Netherlands) has an average of 10-11% tetrahydrocannabinol. At the same time little study has been undertaken of any concomitant change in the content of tar. Case-control studies are difficult to perform since cannabis cigarettes do not come in standard sizes, which makes dose-response relations difficult to establish. Furthermore, most users of cannabis also smoke tobacco, which makes it difficult to dissect out individual risks. As with tobacco, there will be a latent period between the onset of smoking and the development of lung damage, cardiovascular disease, or malignant change.

Tobacco smoking is responsible for 120 000 excess deaths each year in Britain, 46 000 from cancers, 34 000 from chronic respiratory disorders, and 40 000 from diseases of the heart and circulation. However, there are indications that smoked cannabis may cause similar effects to smoking tobacco, with many of them appearing at a younger age. Smoking cannabis causes chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and other lung disorders, which were recently summarised in a review released by the British Lung Foundation.³ A striking feature of cannabis smoking is that it is associated with bullous lung disease in young people.⁶ Inflammatory lung changes, chronic cough, and chest infections are similar to those in cigarette smokers, but may also be commoner in younger people.^7-9 Premalignant changes have been shown in the pulmonary epithelium, and there are reports of lung, tongue, and other cancers in cannabis smokers.

Tetrahydrocannabinol has cardiovascular effects, and sudden deaths have been attributed to smoking cannabis.¹⁰ Myocardial infarction is 4.2 times more likely to occur within an hour of smoking cannabis.¹¹ However, despite these alarming facts, there is no evidence at present on whether smoking cannabis contributes to the progression of coronary artery disease, as smoking cigarettes does. More studies of the cardiovascular and pulmonary effects of cannabis are essential.

It may be argued that the extrapolation from small numbers of individual studies to potential large scale effects amounts to scaremongering. For example, one could calculate that if cigarettes cause an annual excess of 120 000 deaths among 13 million smokers, the corresponding figure for deaths among 3.2 million cannabis smokers would be 30 000, assuming equality of effect. Even if the number of deaths attributable to cannabis turned out to be a fraction of that figure, smoking cannabis would still be a major public health hazard. However, when the likely mental health burden is added to the potential for morbidity and premature death from cardiopulmonary disease, these signals cannot be ignored. A recent comment said that prevention and cessation are the two principal strategies in the battle against tobacco.¹² At present, there is no battle against cannabis and no clear public health message.

John A Henry, professor. 

Academic Department of Accident and Emergency Medicine, Imperial College School of Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, London W2 1NY (j.a.henry{at}ic.ac.uk)

William L G Oldfield, specialist registrar. 
Onn Min Kon, consultant. 

Department of Respiratory Medicine, St Mary's Hospital

Footnotes

Competing interests: None declared.