Marijuana Not Linked To Lung Cancer

SwampFox56 said:
Somke is cancerous. We learned that nearly 100 years ago. I would think that would be common knowledge by now.
Click to expand...

Have you done any reading on the anti-tumor effects of various cannabinoids or is this "information" based solely on beliefs. I'm not suggesting that smoking marijuana doesn't inflame the lungs or cause bronchitis (it does) but to definitively say that smoking marijuana causes cancer goes against a growing body of scientific evidence suggesting otherwise.

I also understand that results from science can be wrong but to simply ignore this research based on your personal beliefs, which you are free to do, is no better than the many people who say drugs are bad for you based on their personal beliefs.
 
shishigami said:
Have you done any reading on the anti-tumor effects of various cannabinoids or is this "information" based solely on beliefs. I'm not suggesting that smoking marijuana doesn't inflame the lungs or cause bronchitis (it does) but to definitively say that smoking marijuana causes cancer goes against a growing body of scientific evidence suggesting otherwise.

I also understand that results from science can be wrong but to simply ignore this research based on your personal beliefs, which you are free to do, is no better than the many people who say drugs are bad for you based on their personal beliefs.
Click to expand...

Yes consumption of cannibinoids fights cancer. The way it is delivered is the key.

No, smoking weed does nothing for cancer. It is redundant to smoke weed for cancer.

When you create all those free radicals, and a little bit of cannibinoids... What do you think is going to happen over time?

Cancer. Why? Smoking is cancerous... This is a long long long ongoing craze that is sweeping the nation....

Eat you weed to help with cancer. Smoke you weed to make your cancer worse.
 
No long term study was mentioned there... There isn’t any long term studies...

One of those studies even quit based on the assumption that weed is usually stopped before/during middle age...

Two of those studies mentioned that THERE STILL NEEDS TO BE MORE RESEARCH on smoking weed and cancer...


To date, similar epidemiologic and/or clinical studies on the use of cannabis and cancer are few and not definitive. However, the public and policy-makers should interpret the ambiguity of these results with caution – neither construing them at this time as an endorsement of cannabis’ safety nor as an indictment of its potential health hazards./QUOTE]

I dismissed to whole thing... After reading the whole page I came across numerous pre-cancer changes...

This page is damn near saying what I have been trying to say... Smoking is dangerous, weed isn’t studied in this area enough... There is potential for cancer.

Am I right, or am I right?
Click to expand...
 
THC and CBD aren't just antineoplastics (anti-cancer), they're also antioxidants:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20965/

That means they bind free radicals and prevent them from covalently bonding with DNA, thereby preventing the genetic mutations that lead to cancer from taking place.

I'm drunk on mango brandy so some of this may be a little off.
 
SwampFox56 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well it's not all going to be equally as poisonous if there are different chemicals in different types of smoke.

Also I remember there was a longitudinal study on cannabis and lung cancer, it was between 15-20 years I think and had a few thousand participants. It showed no link between lung cancer and smoking cannabis.

Can't find it now though because if I try and search google for studies on lung cancer and cannabis all I get is this new one.
 
One Thousand Words said:
35020830_zps04eeef2b.jpg


Admittedly not lung cancer but it's cancer protecting benefits are over rated none the less
Click to expand...
Maybe Bob Marley ingested plutonium somehow unknowingly?
 
Chesh said:
Well it's not all going to be equally as poisonous if there are different chemicals in different types of smoke.

Also I remember there was a longitudinal study on cannabis and lung cancer, it was between 15-20 years I think and had a few thousand participants. It showed no link between lung cancer and smoking cannabis.

Can't find it now though because if I try and search google for studies on lung cancer and cannabis all I get is this new one.
Click to expand...

You can’t find it because that study never happened...

There are no long term studies on smoking weed... But, there are studies on various cannabinoids for long term study on the mind...

The only difference between weed and tobacco are the active chemicals... The cancerous compounds in the smoke is near identical...
 
Psychedelic Jay said:
You can’t find it because that study never happened...

There are no long term studies on smoking weed... But, there are studies on various cannabinoids for long term study on the mind...

The only difference between weed and tobacco are the active chemicals... The cancerous compounds in the smoke is near identical...
Click to expand...


We have a thread on the 20-year study he's referring to:

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/605422-Occasional-Pot-Smoking-Won-t-Harm-Lungs
 
23536 said:
We have a thread on the 20-year study he's referring to:

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/605422-Occasional-Pot-Smoking-Won-t-Harm-Lungs
Click to expand...

That is for less than moderate smokers... If you smoke only one cigarette a day, your lungs wouldn’t be noticeably damaged either...

Where is the study for the hardcore stoners? That doesn’t exist...


This is what I’m getting at...

Hardcore stoners want to know if weed is really safer than cigarettes in the same amount, correct?

Cigarette studies are normally based on pack-a-day smokers.... Not one square a day smokers...

Where are the smoking all day everyday weed studies?

It seems safer because you are testing them radically differently... Tobacco is chronic-use tested... Weed is moderate-use tested, even though it is well known that large quantities are smoked by a lot of people a day...
 
Last edited:
Psychedelic Jay said:
That is for less than moderate smokers... If you smoke only one cigarette a day, your lungs wouldn’t be noticeably damaged either...

Where is the study for the hardcore stoners? That doesn’t exist...


This is what I’m getting at...

Hardcore stoners want to know if weed is really safer than cigarettes in the same amount, correct?

Cigarette studies are normally based on pack-a-day smokers.... Not one square a day smokers...

Where are the smoking all day everyday weed studies?

It seems safer because you are testing them radically differently... Tobacco is chronic-use tested... Weed is moderate-use tested, even though it is well known that large quantities are smoked by a lot of people a day...
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top