jwh-073 risks

[nightripper]

I'm surprised nobody seems to be taking into account the anticancer properties that most cannabinoids have. Some of the most recent studies done on smoking marijuana and cancer have failed to show any increased cancer risk in the population smoking cannabis compared to the group who didn't smoke cannabis. There was actually a negative correlation between smoking cannabis and cancer risk, although the authors of the study say they didn't get adequate data to determine if smoking weed actually reduces the risk of lung cancer. The theory is that the cannabinoids, which have been known to have anticancer properties for decades, counteract the carcinogens in the smoke. My understanding is that activation of the cannabinoid receptors is thought to be responsible for the anti-cancer effects, not some property which is specific to the natural cannabinoids. If this is true, then inhaling vaporized JWH compounds may actually reduce one's cancer risk. Not only cannabidiol works against cancer, but THC, and nearly every cannabinoid receptor agonist which has been extensively studied (to my knowledge.) Read the wikipedia articles on cannabinoids and medical cannabis as a good starting point to learn more. Someone pointed out that a certain pharmaceutical (duloxetine?) has a structure similar enough that it could be metabolized into these epoxides potentially, and nobody has seen problems in people using that drug. Its true, they aren't smoking it their paxil or whatever, but carcinogens associated with smoking are not the issue because we are talking about vaporizing pure chemicals: the important question is whether the use of these drugs really translates into an increased health risk.

 

[oatmeel]

I'm surprised that I'm the only one who regularly doses jwh-018 orally, and only orally. I get very good results from 3-10mg, but I think it's a personal sensitivity, and a lack of tolerance build up as I don't dose very frequently.

It took me a short period of trial and error where an oral dose might kick in four hours after consumption, but now it seems regular and predictable and I will usually notice it one hour after ingestion. What are people's thoughts about the carcinogenic traits of jwh-018 when taken orally?

 

[MurphyClox]

There was actually a negative correlation between smoking cannabis and cancer risk, although the authors of the study say they didn't get adequate data to determine if smoking weed actually reduces the risk of lung cancer. The theory is that the cannabinoids, which have been known to have anticancer properties for decades, counteract the carcinogens in the smoke.

That is highly unlikely! Smoking anythíng is harmful to you respiratory tract. I think that can be taken as a simple and general rule of thumb.

- Murphy

 

[pofacedhoe]

That is highly unlikely! Smoking anythíng is harmful to you respiratory tract. I think that can be taken as a simple and general rule of thumb.

- Murphy

yes but is the anti carcinogenic effect a dirrect result of the cannabidiol molecule or the effects on cannabinoid receptors as nightripper seems to have a pro-cannabinoid bias that seems to defy truth in favour of bias

your more educated suggestions wanted

 

[nightripper]

Cannabidiol is not the only cannabinoid with anti-cancer effects. THC definitely has anti-cancer properties as well. Check out this article. I know it's not a peer reviewed scientific journal, but it is the first thing that came up on google. It seems to hint that synthetic "designer" cannabinoids may be an effective lung cancer treatment.

Here's a quote:

"THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer."

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/marijuana-ingredient-cuts-lung-cancer-growth-spread-18538.html

 

[misterh]

Is JWH-x carcinogenic too if it is taken orally? or only when smoked?

 

[ebola?]

It should be equally carcinogenic in either environ, BUT, lung cells regenerate extraordinarily rapidly (hence their resilience to other insults, like silt constantly deposited within them), making lung cells more prone to the effects of carcinogens in general.

That is my lay-understanding, at least. . .

ebola

 

[stuckinaloop]

It should be equally carcinogenic in either environ, BUT, lung cells regenerate extraordinarily rapidly (hence their resilience to other insults, like silt constantly deposited within them), making lung cells more prone to the effects of carcinogens in general.

That is my lay-understanding, at least. . .

ebola

I don't know if jwh-xxx is carcinogenic when taken orally..that is a good question.

Tobacco smoke is...obviously the smoke has carcinogenic properties...but that's because the tobacco is going through a combustion process

Asbestos particles on the other hand, do not go through any combustion process, and are also carcinogenic.

So that raises the question, is jwh-xxx carcinogenic before it goes through the combustion process.

 

[TheAzo]

The claim with JWH-xxx was that they were carcinogenic in and of themselves due to the napthoyl moiety being metabolized in vivo to the epoxide, and there was that animal study that showed that one of them (i think one that wasn't on RC market) was carcinogenic (i don't have the reference handy), and we'd expect the others to be as well, since they've got that napthoyl moiety. JWH-250 of course wouldn't have that issue, since it doesnt have the napthoyl moiety. It's also the weakest of them, unfortunately.


The 'but cannabinoids have anti-cancer properties' argument, at best, only applies when the cannabinoid is present, but the metabolites stay in your body after the compound has been metabolized (and as we all know, JWH's are short in duration, due to rapid metabolism). In general, it seems to be a highly unlikely claim, grasping at straws because we want JWH's to be safe - I would assume it was untrue unless it was proven otherwise.

I am not taking the JWH's anymore, but that's half because i just plain don't like them as much as the real thing or CP-55,940.