Marijuana Not Linked To Lung Cancer

so have we all reached a consensus that vaporizers are the pinnacle of reaping the positive benefits of weed while minimizing the negative effects?

if so

NSFW:
50centandfloydmayweather.jpeg
 
shimazu said:
so have we all reached a consensus that vaporizers are the pinnacle of reaping the positive benefits of weed while minimizing the negative effects?

if so

NSFW:
50centandfloydmayweather.jpeg
Click to expand...

Yes. But, it doesn’t catch on like it needs to because of the prices of these units...

Elven Warriorr said:
What harm does carbon do?
Click to expand...

It deposits in the lungs clogging alveoli...
 
Last edited:
Elven Warriorr said:
Actually, THC is some bronchial dilator which helps to clear up somebody's lungs.
Click to expand...

Thc just “opens up"... Which can allow shit to go even deeper into to the lungs... You can’t clear anything up smoking...

It is impossible to hack and cough up everything... It will still have detrimental effects...
 
Elven Warriorr said:
THC actually helps some people with asthma by clearing up their lungs of smoke and tar and other bad stuff. It even helps some people by clearing up their lungs of the smoke that comes from cigarettes.
Click to expand...

Smoking weed and cigarettes is twice as bad...

Weed still irritates the lungs... THC does not clear your lungs...

Now if you are vaporizing, yes... THC is an excellent way to cough “some” stuff up...

Smoking isn’t going to clear nothing... You are smoking...

I can’t see why some people fail to understand this...
 
Elven Warriorr said:
[/B]
Well, this is simply because the THC kills cancer cells. It has some anti-cancer properties.
Click to expand...

By itself, not with all the products of combustion...

I agree there...

Route of administration is everything with the medicinal value of weed...

It’s like smoking green tea... Would you smoke green tea for it’s anti-oxidant properties?

Do you see what I am saying now?
 
First of let me correct you...

THC reduces the amount of cancer cells...

There is a lot of byproducts from smoking, majority are cancerous... It is redundant to put any amount of cancerous material in your body to get an anti-cancerous substance...

Do you burn yourself and put ointment on at the same time? No. It would seem ass backward right? Smoking weed has to do damage before any good comes out of the picture... It is common sense.

Smoking is filthy man... No matter what it is...

If you have cancer, eat or vaporize, don’t smoke...
 
Elven Warriorr said:
Which specific particles of the raw tobacco plant is carcinogenic?

Non-smoked cannabis does not contain any carcinogens at all within it, because THC kills cancer cells. THC cures cancer, so how can raw cannabis even be carcinogenic?
Click to expand...

Non-smoked cannabis is absolutely fine... We are going in circles...

Tobacco is known to be cancerous no matter how it is consumed...

THC reduces cancer... It doesn’t cure it... It only slows progression... There is no cure for cancer, as cancer is a mutagenic disease...
 
Psychedelic Jay said:
Non-smoked cannabis is absolutely fine... We are going in circles...

Tobacco is known to be cancerous no matter how it is consumed...

THC reduces cancer... It doesn’t cure it... It only slows progression... There is no cure for cancer, as cancer is a mutagenic disease...
Click to expand...

Why?
 
commercially grown tobacco has the following carcinogens (off the top of my head)

nitrosamines (from smoke curing)
polonium-210 (from phosphate fertiliser)
polycyclic aromatics and small-molecule combustion products (from combustion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cigarette_smoke_carcinogens

those 3 are the biggest contributors, I thought. explains why the risk is somewhat reduced by using non-smoke cured, "organic" tobacco. (stuff like snus has a lower incidence of cancer)
wiki said:
Since snus is not intended nor recommended for inhalation, it does not affect the lungs as cigarettes do. Because it is steam-cured, rather than fire-cured like smoking tobacco or other chewing tobacco, it contains lower concentrations of nitrosamines and other carcinogens that form from the partially anaerobic heating of proteins - 2.8 parts per million for Ettan brand compared to as high as 127.9 parts per million in some American brands, according to a study by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Health.[16] The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledges Swedish men have the lowest rate of lung cancer in Europe, partly due to the low tobacco smoking rate, but does not argue for substituting snus for smoking, citing the effects of snus still remain unclear. Around 2005, several reports,[which?] partially funded by the snus industry, pointed to the fact that no carcinogenic effects could be attributed to Nordic snus and this resulted in the removal of the warning label that claimed snus could cause cancer.[citation needed] It was replaced with the more vague label "May affect your health negatively".[citation needed] Research is still going on, but no conclusive reports have been made regarding the health effects of snus.[citation needed]
Click to expand...


nicotine in and of itself is not carcinogenic, nor are there many carcinogens present "natively" in greenhouse grown cannabis (in lead- and polonuium- free soil).

that being said, smoking commercial cigarettes is a vice that is best avoided, if you want to preserve lung function and cell integrity.
 
Smoking period is a bad thing to get into... Barring what plant it is...

In my honest opinion...

Smoking creates more carcinogens... And decreases lung function... universally...

There are natural carcinogens in most plants... Not just tobacco and cannabis...

Component compounds in the plant are listed in one of the links I posted...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top