Marijuana Not Linked To Lung Cancer

[bloodshed344]

Exactly. This is what bothers me about the world. People are misinformed enough to believe that Tobacco is extremely poisonous, but Weed smoke isn't. Tobacco (for instance) actually has very little to no additives in it, the actual reason why Tobacco is smoke is so poisonous due to the fact that when burned, chemicals are created that are toxic. Nothing in the Tobacco is going to be poisonous relative to other drugs.

Weed smoke is actually thicker and this is due to the fact that Marijuana burns at a much higher temperature than Tobacco. Was causes the thicker smoke is the fact that there is more carbon in the smoke. If anything, due to this fact alone - it leads me to believe that Marijuana smoke would actually be MUCH worse for you than Tobacco smoke.

But anyways, my point is, the poison is the smoke, pure and simple. Doesn't matter what "kind" of smoke it is - smoke is smoke. It's all equally as poisonous (if not more so for some chemicals) and it is therefore always going to be cancerous.

You should actually be able to be warned for posting misinformation that goes this far. Just accept the facts and don't argue based on your "common sense", use some actual facts of your own to argue against.

and no, smoke is not smoke. smoke is not just 1 element. smoke is what stuff turns to when vaporized and incinerated. So by definition weed smoke and tobacco smoke are completely different.
It's not equally as poisonous (you were WRONG) and it's not always going to be cancerous no matter how much you like to say it.

 

[Psychedelic Jay]

You should actually be able to be warned for posting misinformation that goes this far. Just accept the facts and don't argue based on your "common sense", use some actual facts of your own to argue against.

and no, smoke is not smoke. smoke is not just 1 element. smoke is what stuff turns to when vaporized and incinerated. So by definition weed smoke and tobacco smoke are completely different.
It's not equally as poisonous (you were WRONG) and it's not always going to be cancerous no matter how much you like to say it.

It’s not just my common sense... I backed my info up thus far in this thread...

Smoke is smoke... It is a product of combustion. No one said vapor is smoke, as vapor is not smoke... Weed smoke and tobacco smoke are both products of incineration...

Pre-cancerous changes mean nothing to you then? Do they mean anything to anyone? They do to me, and people who are aware that smoking anything is bad for your lungs and is cancerous...

Because of the bronchial dilating effects of marijuana, people will often cough up the byproducts of the smoke which they inhale into their bodies. The THC actually helps their bodies to get rid of the smoke that goes into their lungs.

Your bronchial tubes are not alveoli... You will not cough up deeply settled material... No matter how much you cough...

 

[bloodshed344]

It’s not just my common sense... I backed my info up thus far in this thread...

Smoke is smoke... It is a product of combustion. No one said vapor is smoke, as vapor is not smoke... Weed smoke and tobacco smoke are both products of incineration...

Pre-cancerous changes mean nothing to you then? Do they mean anything to anyone? They do to me, and people who are aware that smoking anything is bad for your lungs and is cancerous...





Your bronchial tubes are not alveoli... You will not cough up deeply settled material... No matter how much you cough...

Okay show me your sources because your argument you just restated means nothing. Weed smoke and cannabis smoke are VAPORS of entirely different COMPOUNDS, so HOW COULD THEY BE THE SAME?

Sorry to use capital letters, but I figure it might help you understand English better as you obviously didn't understand a word of my first post. Now, do you have a real reply?

 

[Psychedelic Jay]

Okay show me your sources because your argument you just restated means nothing. Weed smoke and cannabis smoke are VAPORS of entirely different COMPOUNDS, so HOW COULD THEY BE THE SAME?

Sorry to use capital letters, but I figure it might help you understand English better as you obviously didn't understand a word of my first post. Now, do you have a real reply?

My reply was real... WTF?

You obviously did not understand me, nor did you read the whole thread...

I’ve been a broken record through this whole thread, i have already posted links... I even used the links already posted as part of my evidence...

It’s already there... I’m not going to keep posting the same stuff over and over again with links to sources I have already posted...

 

[bloodshed344]

My reply was real... WTF?

You obviously did not understand me, nor did you read the whole thread...

I’ve been a broken record through this whole thread, i have already posted links... I even used the links already posted as part of my evidence...

It’s already there... I’m not going to keep posting the same stuff over and over again with links to sources I have already posted...

Your sources don't substantiate the claim that weed smoke and tobacco smoke are the same, are equally damaging, equally mutagenic, equally radioactive, equally mettallic. There's so many factors that I don't have to look at the htem to know they're wrong if they say weed has all that stuff because it DOESN'T. That's bull. and you know what man,, screw you for spreading the propaganada when you know not a single person has ever died from weed lung problems. I can't believe your attitude.


Yeah, you're hammering the same thing over and over again... shitty nails lol

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

No personal attacks please, unless they really deserve it (see: Hammilton)

And caps doesn't really serve to make your point

Please re-read what sekio has said

I suggest both of you refer to a third party to figure this out; but first you need to clarify just what it is you're trying to asnwer. The person I would suggest is of course sekio: the most mature, knowledgeable, and accessible person on bluelight. There's no guarantee he'll answer, but he's already posted in this thread so there's a decent chance, notwithstanding his general willingness to clarify.

I don't know much biology/chemistry, but I have done a fair amount of research on the topic, especially considering I used both substances.

Here's my take: both "organic" tobacco and otherwise commercial tobacco are mutagenic, carcinogenic, and teratogenic, though "organic" tobacco much less so. I put organic in quotes because, at least in North America, something that is organic isn't entirely what we think of as organic (i.e. 90% of carcinogenic compounds are removed and other stipulations, which, though they make the substance much more safe, don't eliminate all artificially added harmful chemicals).

Smoking tobacco that you yourself have grown and that has no harmful chemicals added to it may in fact only be harmful insofar as you are inhaling tar, but I don't know.

Most high-quality weed isn't grown with very many harmful chemicals at all, if any.

"Beasters" or commercial weed produced on a large scale was not grown with the user's health in mind - it probably is about as healthy or less healthy than "organic" tobacco.

Given an equivalent quantity of marijuana and tobacco, assuming an equal amount of harmful chemicals was added, one usually inhales more tar smoking the marijuana than the tobacco. However, compounds in marijuana smoke offset the detrimental effects of the tar.

Furthermore, in practice, a user inhales much more tobacco than marijuana in a session/day.

Hope that helped.

Apologies for any redundancies.

Here's to hoping we can have a decent conversation, instead of talking about shitty nails and...yeah.

 

[Psychedelic Jay]

And the tripped out part of it is... I originally stated that the sources pointed out in the beginning of this thread do not substantiate that weed does not create lung cancer, all the studies mentioned for weed concludes that they in fact do not know... And there were pre-cancerous changes...

Bashing with a stoner attitude isn’t helping anything... I love weed, just like other people love it... I love tobacco as well... I also am very fond of cocaine... I am also very fond of heroin. I smoke all of them.

Now with that being said, you can’t let your psychological fondness of a substance downplay what is a endangerment to health in general... Smoking is one of them.

Just remember always folks, that you are burning a plant... Plants always create seriously dangerous substances such as hydrogen cyanide upon burning... These are rules that neither you or I created...

Weed is indeed a plant, and no matter what, I can’t stand here and not voice facts that I know as a whole go to complete waste...

It is indeed well known plants are as radioactive as the soil they grow in... Weed included.

Non-organic fertilizing is the main cause for such radioactive plants, also things such as fallout... Weed is grown in all conditions just like tobacco...

There is more tar in weed. There are bigger deposits of carbon left over just as any other smoker.

This is by far not propaganda...

 

[bloodshed344]

I am not fond of tobacco or cocaine. They are toxic. I was harsh in my earlier post, I concede but I was absolutely right. I will now go edit out my capital letters.

Here's to hoping we can have a decent conversation, instead of talking about shitty nails and...yeah.

Thank you.

 

[Elven Warriorr]

And the tripped out part of it is... I originally stated that the sources pointed out in the beginning of this thread do not substantiate that weed does not create lung cancer, all the studies mentioned for weed concludes that they in fact do not know... And there were pre-cancerous changes...

Bashing with a stoner attitude isn’t helping anything... I love weed, just like other people love it... I love tobacco as well... I also am very fond of cocaine... I am also very fond of heroin. I smoke all of them.

Now with that being said, you can’t let your psychological fondness of a substance downplay what is a endangerment to health in general... Smoking is one of them.

Just remember always folks, that you are burning a plant... Plants always create seriously dangerous substances such as hydrogen cyanide upon burning... These are rules that neither you or I created...

Weed is indeed a plant, and no matter what, I can’t stand here and not voice facts that I know as a whole go to complete waste...

It is indeed well known plants are as radioactive as the soil they grow in... Weed included.

Non-organic fertilizing is the main cause for such radioactive plants, also things such as fallout... Weed is grown in all conditions just like tobacco...

There is more tar in weed. There are bigger deposits of carbon left over just as any other smoker.

This is by far not propaganda...

What makes you think that marijuana smoke has more tar than what tobacco smoke has? How much more tar does it have? The fact that some people inhale deeper, this doesn't automatically mean that the marijuana smoke itself has more tar.

Cigarette smokers usually smoke much more than marijuana smokers.

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

^I just have to say, imo, if you are a troll, you're hilarious imo; if you're not a troll, I'd bet you're like fifteen

 

[One Thousand Words]

I only have to look inside my grand dads pipe and compare to my own hash pipe to see the difference.

 

[Elven Warriorr]

I only have to look inside my grand dads pipe and compare to my own hash pipe to see the difference.

Which pipe has more tar inside of it?

 

[One Thousand Words]

The cannabis by a long way. It also has a lot more dense ash deposits and general crap on it

 

[bloodshed344]

A small amount of toxins are still more dangerous than a large amount of largely harmless material, so the distinction is useless to know because it isn't tar that causes the cancer. It's polonium and something else.

 

[Psychedelic Jay]

A small amount of toxins are still more dangerous than a large amount of largely harmless material, so the distinction is useless to know because it isn't tar that causes the cancer. It's polonium and something else.

There are radioactive substances in weed as well.

It is in all plants. All plants...

I can positively assure you that there is way less radioactive stuff in natural growing plants than commercial ones. We all know that.

Weed included. And unless you are smoking homegrown everyday, which is indeed doubtful for most, you are in the same boat. Hell even most homegrown uses inorganic pesticides...

A large amount of a largely harmless material can still be quite toxic... Water, serotonin, dopamine, gaba, and norepinephrine, just to name a few...

Not everyone smokes like a train all day... Wether it be tobacco or weed...

 

[Elven Warriorr]

There are radioactive substances in weed as well.

It is in all plants. All plants...

I can positively assure you that there is way less radioactive stuff in natural growing plants than commercial ones. We all know that.

Weed included. And unless you are smoking homegrown everyday, which is indeed doubtful for most, you are in the same boat. Hell even most homegrown uses inorganic pesticides...

A large amount of a largely harmless material can still be quite toxic... Water, serotonin, dopamine, gaba, and norepinephrine, just to name a few...

Not everyone smokes like a train all day... Wether it be tobacco or weed...

Is tar a carcinogen, or not?

 

[sekio]

yes, tar is carcinogenic. so is hot vapour (and hot liquids too). so is smoke (pyrolysis products). however the risk can be migitated by e.g. filtering, cooling and moderating smoke intake.

There are radioactive substances in weed as well.

and bananas, but you don't tell people to avoid consuming them because they might get cancer

in the end the more important metric is not whether or not you can justify cannabis being carcinogenic on paper, but whether or not it is actually observed to increase the occurence of cancers (which it essentially doesn't, in my opinion)

 

[sekio]

a nitpick I have with many studies pre-2000 is that the average cannabis strength is almost always below 3% thc by weight, which would be considered smoking ditch weed these days. i am sure there's less tar generated per mg of THC delivered in 20%THC buds than in a cigarette.

 

[bloodshed344]

a nitpick I have with many studies pre-2000 is that the average cannabis strength is almost always below 3% thc by weight, which would be considered smoking ditch weed these days. i am sure there's less tar generated per mg of THC delivered in 20%THC buds than in a cigarette.

Subjectively I've found weed with more THC makes my lungs hurt more but is not as harsh on the throat. Kief is killer on the lungs in a big hit. I don't think this pain translates to any damage though, it feels more like inhaling a heavy vapor.

 

[Psychedelic Jay]

Subjectively I've found weed with more THC makes my lungs hurt more but is not as harsh on the throat. Kief is killer on the lungs in a big hit. I don't think this pain translates to any damage though, it feels more like inhaling a heavy vapor.

That’s because cannabinoids are an irritant...