Marijuana Not Linked To Lung Cancer

That study tested all levels of use, from very light to very heavy. It's not entirely relevant to the current discussion because it didn't look for tumors, but it is a long term study about smoking weed.

It should be noted that the same group of 5,115 subjects can be re-examined in 10 or so years from now for cancer or whatever.

That sounds much better...

But, it is as of right now very inconclusive as to weather weed actually causes cancer.

But based on current knowledge, the contents in the smoke other than the cannabinoids themselves are carcinogens... Carcinogens highly increase the chance of cancer...

So for now assume whatever you want. But as for me, I’m sticking with known knowledge. Smoking is fucking cancerous bro... LMAO
 
Did you know that if you eat a banana not fertilized by humans you still get some radiation?

I said all plants... even before read the whole thread...

Chemically fertilized plants have even higher radiation than organic plants... Lots times as more... That is my point....

Everyone who lives is irradiated constantly...

So the radiation argument for weed vs. tobacco is outlandish...
 
THC is not anti-cancerous .. get out of here with that! :?

This is a 1975 study; I'm fairly certain the results have been replicated, most recently for breast cancer:

J Natl Cancer Inst. 1975 Sep;55(3):597-602.

Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids.

Munson AE, Harris LS, Friedman MA, Dewey WL, Carchman RA.

Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of
delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta9-THC), delta8-tetrahydrocannabinol
(delta8-THC), and cannabinol (CBN), but not cannabidiol (CBD). Animals treated
for 10 consecutive days with delta9-THC, beginning the day after tumor
implantation, demonstrated a dose-dependent action of retarded tumor growth. Mice
treated for 20 consecutive days with delta8-THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor
size. CBD showed no inhibitory effect on tumor growth at 14, 21, or 28 days.
Delta9-THC, delta8-THC, and CBN increased the mean survival time (36% at 100
mg/kg, 25% at 200 mg/kg, and 27% at 50 mg/kg, respectively), whereas CBD did not.
Delta9-THC administered orally daily until death in doses of 50, 100, or 200
mg/kg did not increase the life-spans of (C57BL/6 times DBA/2)F1 (BDF1) mice
hosting the L1210 murine leukemia. However, delta9-THC administered daily for 10
days significantly inhibited Friend leukemia virus-induced splenomegaly by 71% at
200 mg/kg as compared to 90.2% for actinomycin D. Experiments with bone marrow
and isolated Lewis lung cells incubated in vitro with delta9-THC and delta8-THC
showed a dose-dependent (10(-4)-10(-7)) inhibition (80-20%, respectively) of
tritiated thymidine and 14C-uridine uptake into these cells. CBD was active only
in high concentrations (10(-4)).

PMID: 1159836 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

The anti-cancer mechanism is perhaps inhibition of DNA synthesis, discussed here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1248011

Additionally, I've posited that cannabinoids' ability to scavenge reactive oxidative species contribute to the lower incidence of cancer that's emergent in the data.
 
This is a 1975 study; I'm fairly certain the results have been replicated, most recently for breast cancer:



The anti-cancer mechanism is perhaps inhibition of DNA synthesis, discussed here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1248011

Additionally, I've posited that cannabinoids' ability to scavenge reactive oxidative species contribute to the lower incidence of cancer that's emergent in the data.

This is also what I was saying earlier. There are more studies on individual cannabinoids on cancer, mental illness and pain than anything... I have strong feeling that even they know smoking is degenerative to give cannibinoids for those purposes...
 
Smokleless cannabis does not cause some cancers. Smokeless tobaccos do cause some cancers. Well, what exactly causes this so?

Tobacco has carcinogens that don’t have to be activated by burning...

I’m pretty sure cannabis does too... But, it is not soaked in the mouth like tobacco. So contact is very minimal in reality...

Plus... Tobacco has nothing but pro-cancerous compounds in it...

Again, this is about smoking... and smoking is cancerous and damaging to the lungs.
 
I’m sorry, but everyone who smoke anything is getting doses of radiation... So, yes, he very well could have along with all other smokers...

Yes that's true, and it's also in smokeless tobacco like dip/chew, and snuff.

In my previous post, I was thinking more along the lines of what happened to Karen Silkwood, Alexander Litvinenko, and others.
 
First and foremost most of not all of tobacco has unsafe additives, and most are plant extracts for flavor and freebasing compounds, the plant itself is what is cancerous as well as the process of smoking it...

Most if not all additives are aromatic compounds. Some are to change the texture and are volatile so they are evaporated even before they get to the pack...

If you look at the list of chemicals from cannibus smoke, you will see some familiar compounds naturally... Why? It is a plant...

http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/hazard_ident/pdf_zip/FinalMJsmokeHID.pdf

Read that article. Make sure you read the table of contents to get to the juicy stuff...
 
Last edited:
your link is broken



aromatic as in having aromatic rings, or as in having an easily detectible scent?

Easily detectable scent.

Burning releases the aromatic ring compounds you speak which are in all plants... they are carcinogens too. Thanks for reminding me.

I edited the last post, The link is good now.
 
It seems you've made your mind up and very little is going to do otherwise to convince you.

Honestly, the state of California coudn't tell a carcinogen if it smacked them in the face... the carbon pigment in black plastics is considered a carcinogen, never mind that it's bound into polyethylene. </rant>

A lot of the odds ratios in the document cited seem very unconvincing. (pp.102-150) It seems that most studies suggest that cannabis smoking is actually associated with *reduced* lung and oral cancer incidence (O.R. <1) although there are some studies that have resuts that seem strangely variable... (O.R. between 0.9 and 15?!)

E.G. Berthiller 2009 head and neck cancer study suggesting that the average >3 times daily smoker is between 40% and 200% as likely to get cancer as a non-smoker (average 90percent)... I don't exactly see that as convincing evidennce to support the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke.
 
It seems you've made your mind up and very little is going to do otherwise to convince you.

Honestly, the state of California coudn't tell a carcinogen if it smacked them in the face... the carbon pigment in black plastics is considered a carcinogen, never mind that it's bound into polyethylene. </rant>

A lot of the odds ratios in the document cited seem very unconvincing. (pp.102-150) It seems that most studies suggest that cannabis smoking is actually associated with *reduced* lung and oral cancer incidence (O.R. <1) although there are some studies that have resuts that seem strangely variable... (O.R. between 0.9 and 15?!)

E.G. Berthiller 2009 head and neck cancer study suggesting that the average >3 times daily smoker is between 40% and 200% as likely to get cancer as a non-smoker (average 90percent)... I don't exactly see that as convincing evidennce to support the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke.

It’s not to convince you that weed is carcinogenic, it is to say smoking is. Weed and cancer is still inconclusive...
 
It’s not to convince you that weed is carcinogenic, it is to say smoking is. Weed and cancer is still inconclusive...

Why is smoking the most common method of cannabis consumption? Why don't some more people vaporize or drink or eat their cannabis instead of smoking it? It's way safer by doing it that way. It's still very unsafe because cannabis harms the cognitive abilities, even without this smoke, but there's basically no cancer issues and respiratory system damages risks if it's consumed through different means of consumption.
 
Why is smoking the most common method of cannabis consumption? Why don't some more people vaporize or drink or eat their cannabis instead of smoking it? It's way safer by doing it that way. It's still very unsafe because cannabis harms the cognitive abilities, even without this smoke, but there's basically no cancer issues and respiratory system damages risks if it's consumed through different means of consumption.

Smoking is the only ideal cheapest way to get as much cannabinoids in your system as fast as possible... Not a lot of stoners are just balling like that.
Fastest high, most inefficient (technologically speaking).

Vaporizing is still a fairly expensive and/or time consuming process with the more portable devices being rather inefficient (technologically speaking).

Eating cannabis is pretty inefficient if it is not eaten extracted with fat or ethanol first. Or, else you are consuming a lot.
 
Smoking is the only ideal cheapest way to get as much cannabinoids in your system as fast as possible... Not a lot of stoners are just balling like that.
Fastest high, most inefficient (technologically speaking).

Vaporizing is still a fairly expensive and/or time consuming process with the more portable devices being rather inefficient (technologically speaking).

Eating cannabis is pretty inefficient if it is not eaten extracted with fat or ethanol first. Or, else you are consuming a lot.

Well, what about the drinking of cannabis? So, why is drinking cannabis not so popular?
 
You would basically be getting drunk and high at the same time.

You would technically be making a tincture of cannabis...

You need a high-proof alcohol for this. doesn’t taste all that pretty either...
 
Top