|
i P. 03
<br /> L / ~ s3hkfn, Simmons, Slleria, et d.: Marijwtla and Mnu+, Changes in FtV, 143
<br /> T,lata 1
<br /> 1
<br />
<br /> i" ORa40GMF11K ANO SMOgNG CIIAMCtialalltl OF fYMlM AT VISrT 1
<br /> ieaftco Manluanf FEVi
<br /> N Mean Aqt
<br /> 7volr0u (lA/F) (r4 ( IpOC!-yr) rie:,n/~ tpd-M (%wM
<br /> MS 101/30 ll.af OS• OAt0.0- 7.1 z0.6 4.1;0.6 Sd.2f rt.v t06l1.4
<br /> MTS affil 33.a x0.6 1a.4f 1.l1 16.0!1.77 7.6303 45.1539 106x1.1 '
<br /> r5 33172 76.7l0.4t T7.f l1J 21A l1.9 OAS O.O OAt QO 106x1.9
<br /> N! Sip) 71Af4a 0df00 OAlO.O O.Ot0.0 O.OSOA 10311.4
<br /> Oarw,ion dMambtlanr. M • nu1C r • faeatC !I! • 1NnhrN tmogn; 3171+n,,,yuMa pNf w5nm! Lnatf.4 R • teeacta snob
<br /> rn; NS • •on VMYenC lainl,/d • nurM,er dpW, (w 1~•OwvYMtll per dry, pil,tyf • nWnpp d'pinU Iw j0int<gyivalfnbl p;,
<br /> dry • n,/naer d nest ,naf4d.
<br /> • lEM.
<br /> _ 6~1~13~p<aos>.
<br /> 1e10tlna ca710wfn (p < 0.05).
<br /> I
<br /> 1
<br /> marijuana, reduced their dailyamouatof marijuana use, others of a mutjlsana e[fett wa, independent of the effect of tobacco,
<br /> (3141 of MS and 361Ps of MTS) increased their usr, the rraultant ad indicted by the similarity of [he flndinga for the different
<br /> avrnge teduuion in use was rNatively small (0.7 and 1 Joint Catesoiia of muijuana smokaa (never, conHnu[ng, Interrttia
<br /> anions MS and rif1S, 3espeuivelyj. Amangl/sitW tabsceo amok- trnt) when the analyses wan confined to either !lever tobacco
<br /> en, including these who subsoqumtly quit smoldne tobaocat a94s smokaa (Figure 3A) or continuing tobacco smokers (Figure 38).
<br /> of TS and 364E of MTS reduced tbeir daily numbs of deuatta, Simile observations were rated womrn. The slopes for all
<br /> whercaa 194a of'f5 and 344a of MTS increased their dally Ilse atesor[es of marijuana smoker ue tteeper among the contin-
<br /> of toWccac the mean changes in 7S and M1S were rsdltuions uing tobeceo smokers than among the never tobacco smokers,
<br /> of 4.8 snd 0.8 cisarettes/d, respectively. as a consequence of the effort of tobacco (not marijuana) on
<br /> Figure 1 shown the estimated decline in FEV, Mth age by the rote of destine in FEV,.
<br /> smoking atatua derived from the raidom-eftaeu model for men In contrast to lnarquana, the continuity of tobacco smoking
<br /> (Haute IA) and women (Flsure l8), with smokbts states [or did affect the rate of desdlte to Itmg function, with 6 comiueat
<br /> tobaesa and muijuana, and the tobaoco-muljuanalntetaction gradlrnt of inaeasiag desllne from never tluonsh intermittent
<br /> rntered as a timedependeat covariabk, in men, tobaeso amok- to continuins tobecoo stttoking, as shown for mar is F{gurc 4.
<br /> ing, but not marijuana:cooking, vat alnoclated with a signifi- Table t shows the results of randomeffests models, which
<br /> antty steeps dacLne in F6 V, ollmparcd with aonsmokins, in- are plotted in Figure I through 4; t few were used to duermine
<br /> dicatins an aesekrated decline In tuns funpkln wiW iacreaaing whether the slope coeffideots dl[taed from Zero The fisted
<br /> ace for tobaeso smoking but not for marijuana smoking nom- coeffkirnts lepltaeni the decline W FSV, with age for each of
<br /> Ferrel with uonrnMkios. $hnAu fbldittgs was aibseT3ed to womat, the rcfeteoa groups, and for the ooarekrenee getups they rcp-
<br /> although tlrcslops difference far tobaocodW not aohievestatisti• resent the ate of decline relative w each reference group. For
<br /> cal signifkance A 7Kgati;! intaaetkta M'aa found braiseal mut)n• eaamptt the results fa Flsurs lA Ir7dieere the the rcterence group
<br /> are and tobacco smoking In men but not in wromrn (Figure lA; (noasmokrn) heel a 253 mUyr sate of deslinq whereas mari-
<br /> 'Ibble 4). Juana amokm had a 30.8 ml/yr me of destine, or a difference
<br /> ' WhrnthcintrnsityoftnarijwnasmokingonFEV,desllae ofi.Sml/yr(wshowainTible4)fmmtherefaencegtoup.MTS
<br /> with age was examined in men, ao diffneaces were noted bor. had a derJiee 10.3 mVyr gteata titan did NS which Is the sum
<br /> lwnn even quite heavy marijuana smoklns pa, 3 Joints/d) and of the marijuana and tobacco terms and their interaction (which
<br /> noasmokisls of muijuane (Figure 2A). Simile fllldiags were is zero for aft croups exlxpt MTS). Slight differences from the
<br /> noted in women. In contrast, the amount of tobacco srnoltcd was f
<br /> figures aro due w roundoff error. According to the model for
<br /> signlflfwttfy correlated with decline in FSV, with ace {Figure Figure 2A, FBV, in marijuana smoker deelin6d only 0.036 ml/yr
<br /> 2H), altholrsh a dose-response relationship for lobaao wan not fasts than in naumoken of marijuana for each joint per day
<br /> dtmonstraled in women. reguluy smok6d. [n Figure 3A (never smokers of tobacco only),
<br /> Fisurc ~ shows the e(fea of the eootinuiry of marijuana FEV, in intermlttmt and continuing smoker of marijwna dr
<br /> smoking among mm wbo were noramokeTS of tobatm (Figure clitted 0.47 and x.94 mUyr faster !ban in never smokers of mari-
<br /> 3A)oreoatinuiastobacaosrooken(Figure3$).withmarijuana Juana, rapectlvely.
<br /> smoking Natty (never, continuing, lotamittenp u a constatlt
<br /> covulabk Neither the oonUnulns nor the inlvmituat msriju-
<br /> ana smokm eaNbitad cry ai;ni[kanHy diffatntrates of deslina
<br /> in FBV, u compared with raver amokaa of otmiluaaa. This luk
<br /> rAass s
<br /> coNnFam a aawaritc sTATUs
<br /> TAata J NW11eft a sngrm N Farll t:,,.awy
<br /> NUMaart Oa StIgaCTS Wn71 ONI Oa alOaE NSira ItaON Mt---~~ T_~co
<br /> Yivl M0. I ~ ! 4 ! f 7 TaW StaNf n Ce,WnuYq I~tfnna4nl aMt
<br /> Inlelmi
<br /> MS a7 71 {a e
<br /> fNM H H la ZS 27 ]t 11 76t MTS f) 46 1r 40 23
<br /> renal! 41 24 li 16 I7 f a 126 Tor 41 - 7 )7 !
<br /> ToW 170 7! sS I1 to 30 30 3f1 NS 67 - 1 - 1
<br /> j
<br />
<br />
|