• Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

Does smoking weed cause lung cancer?

M

Mycophile

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
4,319
I got into this debate with another poster who suggested that because smoking tobacco causes lung cancer, smoking weed must necessarily also cause lung cancer, and I think that this is false.

I've heard many other people make the same assumption, that just because any kind of smoke is irritating to the lung tissue, which is obviously true, that therefore, that also means that it necessarily causes lung cancer, which I would have to assume is not always the case.

If you take huge bong hits of chamomile tea or oregano or mint leaves it's going to irritate your lungs also, but does this necessarily mean that they will all CAUSE LUNG CANCER??

I don't think that it does, and I've never seen a study proving that marijuanna, or THC specifically, is cancerous.

Isn't it more THE SPECIFIC COMPOUND which either is or isn't cancerous and not the ROA which causes the cancer??

Aren't there certain compounds which simply are not cancerous regardless of ROA and others which are??

By the same token...tobacco itself is cancerous no matter how it is ingested isn't it??

Don't we know this from the fact that chewing tobacco causes mouth cancer and smoking cigars causes throat cancer??

But if THC itself were cancerous, then wouldn't that also mean that eating cannabis edibles would cause stomach cancer??

Again, I haven't read any studies but I've never heard CONCLUSIVE PROOF that smoking, or ESPECIALLY vaporizing, cannabis, can cause lung cancer, and even less that THC itself as a compound is cancerous like Nicotine/tobacco.
 
Well, I guess so many people skipped this thread because they didn't know the answer to the question.

From what I've heard, there's never been any conclusive proof that smoking weed, and NOTHING ELSE, can actually cause lung cancer despite it still being bad for the lungs.
 
The idea is that when you burn cannabis you produce a whole host of compounds other than THC itself. Burning cannabis produces amongst other compounds something called Benzyprene which is carcinogenic based on it's well established actions on p53 - a tumour suppressor gene. Another sort of gene carcinogens can act upon are oncogenes and I would bet that burning smoke of most things may create a few oncogenic activators and tumour suppresor gene deactivators. On the other hand cannabis smoke will also obviously contain THC and CBD both of which have shown some anti-tumour properties through in vitro studies. All of these can be backed up by refs I cannot be arsed to add but you can easily google... Probably less carcinogenic to smoke cannabis but the medic in me is dubious that 'it's weed man it cures cancer'
 
Mycophile said:
Well, I guess so many people skipped this thread because they didn't know the answer to the question.

From what I've heard, there's never been any conclusive proof that smoking weed, and NOTHING ELSE, can actually cause lung cancer despite it still being bad for the lungs.
Click to expand...



That's why I skipped over. Figured you'd prefer a meaningful reply to a bunch of idk's.
 
Smoking cannabis will increase your risk of lung cancer - it might not be a dead set cause but it is a risk factor.

ambiguus said:
The idea is that when you burn cannabis you produce a whole host of compounds other than THC itself. Burning cannabis produces amongst other compounds something called Benzyprene which is carcinogenic based on it's well established actions on p53 - a tumour suppressor gene. Another sort of gene carcinogens can act upon are oncogenes and I would bet that burning smoke of most things may create a few oncogenic activators and tumour suppresor gene deactivators. On the other hand cannabis smoke will also obviously contain THC and CBD both of which have shown some anti-tumour properties through in vitro studies. All of these can be backed up by refs I cannot be arsed to add but you can easily google... Probably less carcinogenic to smoke cannabis but the medic in me is dubious that 'it's weed man it cures cancer'
Click to expand...

Excellent answer.

In respect to the anti-cancer properties of THC - you might find this article interesting. Short answer: the body is a complex system and cancer treatments are does and delivery dependent. Just because THC and various compounds might suppress tumours in a petri dish it does not equate to a cancer treatment in the human body

http://theconversation.com/smoking-or-eating-marijuana-is-not-a-cure-for-cancer-24224

Mycophile said:
I got into this debate with another poster who suggested that because smoking tobacco causes lung cancer, smoking weed must necessarily also cause lung cancer, and I think that this is false.

I've heard many other people make the same assumption, that just because any kind of smoke is irritating to the lung tissue, which is obviously true, that therefore, that also means that it necessarily causes lung cancer, which I would have to assume is not always the case.

If you take huge bong hits of chamomile tea or oregano or mint leaves it's going to irritate your lungs also, but does this necessarily mean that they will all CAUSE LUNG CANCER??

I don't think that it does, and I've never seen a study proving that marijuanna, or THC specifically, is cancerous.

Isn't it more THE SPECIFIC COMPOUND which either is or isn't cancerous and not the ROA which causes the cancer??

Aren't there certain compounds which simply are not cancerous regardless of ROA and others which are??

By the same token...tobacco itself is cancerous no matter how it is ingested isn't it??

Don't we know this from the fact that chewing tobacco causes mouth cancer and smoking cigars causes throat cancer??

But if THC itself were cancerous, then wouldn't that also mean that eating cannabis edibles would cause stomach cancer??

Again, I haven't read any studies but I've never heard CONCLUSIVE PROOF that smoking, or ESPECIALLY vaporizing, cannabis, can cause lung cancer, and even less that THC itself as a compound is cancerous like Nicotine/tobacco.
Click to expand...

Not bad logic. The carcinogenic properties come from the combustion of an organic material - so combusting chamomile tea or oregano or mint leaves could potentially create carcinogenic compounds. If you took hit after hit for years on end then they could quite conceivably increase your risk of lung cancer, despite them being harmless when you make them into tea. So, theoretically, vaporising cannabis shouldn't be carcinogenic - certainly the level of carcinogens are dramatically decreased when vaporising compared to combusting. So while the evidence is far from conclusive it's probably safe to assume that vaporising would lead to a negligible risk of lung cancer
 
Last edited:
Have you taken a look at this study? It came out just a few days ago.

Anyways, I would be very surprised if smoking weed notably increases your risk for lung cancer. I feel like we would have noticed it by now. Hopefully marijuana will be reclassified as a schedule II or lower drug soon so we can run some legit tests to find out for sure.
 
Mycophile said:
I got into this debate with another poster who suggested that because smoking tobacco causes lung cancer, smoking weed must necessarily also cause lung cancer, and I think that this is false.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said at all. For someone who is so adamant about quoting a study to back up my belief you're pretty loose with your interpretation of what I said. My understanding is that burning plant matter usually creates carcinogenic hydrocarbons. They're created when burning any kind of biomass.

Regardless, as another poster mentioned, marijuana smoke contains carcinogens. So the question is really "do marijuana's supposed cancer fighting properties cancel out KNOWN CARCINOGENS in the smoke?" I personally think this is unlikely, but it may be true. The jury is still out, but I imagine as legal restrictions ease we'll see more and more conclusive studies. The long historical illegality of marijuana makes studies sparse compared to tobacco studies. Despite the long history of marijuana use we're still in the early stages of scientific studies on it. Just as there are very limited studies on other psychedelics like mescaline and psilocin even though they've been in use for millennia.
 
When vaporizing it, it actually fights lung cancer.
When burning it, you also inhale the burnt particles which are causing lung cancer.
I guess that the THC (and other active substances) and burnt particles kind of cancel eachother out, but that's just a guess.

Vaporized weed doesn't have any burnt particles and therefore only the cannabinoids do their work.

http://www.collective-evolution.com...-studies-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-cancer/
 
LearntYoung said:
When vaporizing it, it actually fights lung cancer.
Click to expand...

No. That's conjecture based on results from petri-dish experiments in a lab. The human body is infinitely more complex than cells in a petri-dish. Read the article I linked to a few posts up. It explains the problem with assuming that a cancer treatment is going to respond in a human body the same way it responds in a lab.
 
MedicinalHeroin said:
Have you taken a look at this study? It came out just a few days ago.

Anyways, I would be very surprised if smoking weed notably increases your risk for lung cancer. I feel like we would have noticed it by now. Hopefully marijuana will be reclassified as a schedule II or lower drug soon so we can run some legit tests to find out for sure.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, yeah that kind of goes against what I was saying - for sure. They do point to other negative consequences from smoking pot though. And that's one thing that probably gets overlooked when just talking about lung cancer - cancer is just one of many tobacco-related diseases that kill people. Things like emphysema & heart disease are very real issues too.
 
bit_pattern said:
No. That's conjecture based on results from petri-dish experiments in a lab. The human body is infinitely more complex than cells in a petri-dish. Read the article I linked to a few posts up. It explains the problem with assuming that a cancer treatment is going to respond in a human body the same way it responds in a lab.
Click to expand...
Oncogene said:
Additionally, in in vivo studies in severe combined immunodeficient mice, there was significant inhibition of the subcutaneous tumor growth and lung metastasis of A549 cells in THC-treated animals as compared to vehicle-treated controls. Tumor samples from THC-treated animals revealed antiproliferative and antiangiogenic effects of THC. Our study suggests that cannabinoids like THC should be explored as novel therapeutic molecules in controlling the growth and metastasis of certain lung cancers.
Click to expand...

http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n3/abs/1210641a.htmlYes, rats aren't humans, but it does mean something imho.

Same here (in mice):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22198381?dopt=Abstract

And here (also in vivo):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21097714?dopt=Abstract
 
LearntYoung said:
rats aren't humans, but it does mean something imho.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, maybe, but not in the opinion of actual cancer researchers - well, actually, it does mean something but that something does NOT translate into "inhaling THC vapour will prevent/cure/reduce risk of cancer in humans". Sadly, shit is more complicated than that.

In bench top, petri dish-like experiments, these chemicals have been shown to kill or slow the growth of different cancers, including in one study, colorectal tumours and leukaemia. Some studies have also shown effectiveness in animals models, but all these used the pure chemicals as injectable solutions.

Unfortunately, anticancer activity in the laboratory doesn’t always equal similar activity in humans. More than 80% of drugs fail human cancer clinical trials even though they have been found to be curative in animals.

In addition, if marijuana itself was able to cure cancer in humans then there should be a lower incidence of cancer in groups of long-terms users. Instead, it appears that marijuana use may increase your likelihood of cancer. While this hasn’t been firmly established yet, regular marijuana use definitely does not lower your risk of cancer.​

I respect the fact that you've gone to the effort of sourcing high quality peer-reviewed material to make your case - but unfortunately nobody here has the qualifications to assess how that evidence fits into the bigger picture. That's why we rely on experts who have dedicated their lives to understanding the complexities of the human body and the way anti-cancer drugs interact with it.

akaye74 said:
why smoke when u can vape it?
Click to expand...

That's fine, probably won't increase your risk of cancer but don't ever be fooled into thinking it's going to reduce the risk, or cure, or prevent, or any other claim that certain elements of the marijuana lobby might otherwise lead you to believe.
 
Last edited:
bit_pattern said:
Instead, it appears that marijuana use may increase your likelihood of cancer. While this hasn’t been firmly established yet, regular marijuana use definitely does not lower your risk of cancer.
Click to expand...
The problem here is that recreational, long-time users often mix with tobacco and even more often burn their marijuana.
Also, they often smoke tobacco during the day.
At least, I don't know any recreational long-time user that uses a vaporizer for all his smoking and it's often a next step after tobacco (in my experiene)
I am not a big fan of Mary Jane myself, and that's a Dutch guy speaking, but I do believe it has many benefits to quite a few illnesses and it somehow feels logical that cancer is one of those.

Nevertheless, I'm not an expert, I'm just a part-time drug using chemistry student :)
 
Well, if we can at least agree that vaping and eating cannabis edibles does not increase the chances of developing any sort of cancer, lung cancer or otherwise (making no claims about it CURING or PREVENTING cancer at all) and it seems most of us can agree on this, then at least can we agree that MOST LIKELY THC itself as a chemical does not cause cancer, and that IF smoking weed does in fact increase the chances of cancer, that it's simply the tar that would do it??

Because as I'd said before, nicotine/tobacco ITSELF as a chemical causes cancer, not only smoking it, and we know this from chewing tobacco causing mouth cancer.

So it would SEEM to logically follow, that if THC ITSELF was cancerous as a chemical, vaporizing would still increase your chances of some kind of cancer, lung, mouth, throat or otherwise, and that eating cannabis edibles would increase your chances of stomach cancer or liver cancer, etc.

I think we can probably all agree that it's HIGHLY unlikely that anyone will ever contract stomach or liver cancer from eating cannabis edibles, though no one can say it's IMPOSSIBLE.

So I'm guessing that THC ITSELF is not cancerous.

Likewise, another interesting question which I don't think anyone can answer, is does smoking or using cannabis in any form increase your chances of heart disease???

As most people probably know, the number one disease that kills tobacco smokers/users is NOT lung cancer or any other form of cancer, but actually heart disease.

It would seem fairly unlikely to me that smoking cannabis would increase your chances of heart disease, and even more unlikely that vaporizing or eating cannabis could increase your chances of heart disease.

What do people think about these questions??
 
It's not a big leap to think that any combustible material, you decide to breath into your lungs, will increase the risk and possibly cause the abnormal growth of cells(cancer).

In terms of Cannabis being consumed by means of vaporization or ingestion, the verdict is still out. Do certain cannabinoids have the potential to increase/cause cancer... only time and studies will tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top