Marijuana Not Linked To Lung Cancer

Psychedelic Jay said:
That’s because cannabinoids are an irritant...
Click to expand...

Exactly how much more tar does cannabis smoke have in comparison to tobacco smoke?

The fact that marijuana smokers inhale more tar than cigarette smokers, this does not tell us anything about how much more tar marijuana smoke has in and of itself, when compared to the tobacco smoke.
 
Where marijuana has been legalized, in places such as in Colorado and Washington state, there's more controlled studies on it. How come there's been no statistics about the amount of pot-related cancer deaths in those states?
 
It's only been legal there for what 6 mmths or something. It'd be good to know the facts tho. I think I read ages ago about the fact that a lot of pot smokers also use or had used tobacco, so it was hard to tell, don't know where that was from tho or if it was any official study or data
 
Elven Warriorr said:
Exactly how much more tar does cannabis smoke have in comparison to tobacco smoke?

The fact that marijuana smokers inhale more tar than cigarette smokers, this does not tell us anything about how much more tar marijuana smoke has in and of itself, when compared to the tobacco smoke.
Click to expand...

Wow, just wow...
 
Psychedelic Jay said:
Wow, just wow...
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know that much about that tar content, but there's no question that marijuana smoking may cause cancers. Bob Marley was a marijuana smoker, and he died of cancer.

Also, does marijuana smoke contain hydrocarbons, or not?

While there's no question that marijuana smoke may contain some carcinogens in it, is the tar itself a carcinogenic substance?

The bronchial dilating effects expels the tar from the body. Tobacco has bronchial constricting effects, which keeps the tar and all of that other stuff trapped inside of the body.

Does the bud have less tar than the leaf, or about the same amount of tar?
 
Last edited:
This is either a very elaborate troll thread, or one of the most persistent arguments I've seen in a long long time.

1. Bob Marley was a marijuana smoker, and he died of cancer.
2. does marijuana smoke contain hydrocarbons, or not?
3. is the tar (from marijuana combustion) itself a carcinogenic substance?

The bronchial dilating effects expels the tar from the body. Tobacco has bronchial constricting effects, which keeps the tar and all of that other stuff trapped inside of the body.

4. Does the bud have less tar than the leaf, or about the same amount of tar?
Click to expand...

Bob Marley had cancer in his foot... I don't think he was smearing tar on his toes with regularity.

"Tar" is an artifact of combustion. If you burn or pyrolise almost *any* compound, especially uncontrolled (i.e. smoking it), it will produce tar, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and nasty ligh-ends (carbon monoxide, ammonia, cyanide etc). Combustion of THC produces some tar, but the non-volatile plant matter plays more of a role in tar generation (because e.g. sugars and protiens are nonvolatile and break apart easily).

Again, burning any organic matter produces carcinogenic tar and toxic substances. This includes cannabis. In cannabis smoke, there are carcinogenic substances. In smoke of any kind, even marijuana smoke, there are toxic compounds that have been produced from molecular rearrangements due to extreme heat.

In general, higher THC content = lower "tar", because for every gram of plant matter, there is more volatile THC versus "fuel". Not even accounting for the fact that smoking low-THC weed will need a greater amount to be smoked for an equal high to "the chron"...

At lower temperartures these molecular rearrangements either do not happen entirely, or happen at a greatly reduced rate, so that even hot vapouriser "smoke" contains primarily only THC and volatile oils with a minimum of "toxics" and polycyclics.

Have we cleared that up now? Good.

Now, THC has antineoplatic effects. This has been well-documented, and it happens regardless of route of administration. So when you deliver large doses of an antineoplastic, directly to the "affected area", a reasonable assumption might be that you would greatly reduce the risk of cancers. Not "precancerous changes" - you can observe "precancerous changes" if you drink too much hot tea, for instance. "Precancerous changes" do not immediately equate to cancer - hence, precancerous. If some downstream path of the cancer pathway is blocked these changes then cannot develop into cancer.

The combination of high potency (10%+ THC is a good "normal" figure for street weed, and the best push 25% by weight - the NIDA standard weed is maybe 1.5% THC at best) and antineoplastic effects helps mitigate the risks greatly. Empirical evidence is still fuzzy, but to my eyes cannabis smoking in moderation does not consistently increase the risk of cancer.

Also consider: I would wager a good portion of the weight of a cigarette is in water, volatile oils etc. I think the NIDA-study-weed is basically 95% dry cellulose....
 
^also, many of the free radicals that would bond to DNA are scavenged by the cannabinoid molecules, theoretically.

I mean, we should be trying to explain why cannabis smokers don't seem to be developing lung cancer. A series of experiments have consistently produced an unexpected result. The only arguments should be about why that result came about.
 
Last edited:
23536 said:
^also, many of the free radicals that would bond to DNA are scavenged by the cannabinoid molecules, theoretically.

I mean, we should be trying to explain why cannabis smokers don't seem to be developing lung cancer. A series of experiments have consistently produced an unexpected result. The only arguments should be about why that result came about.
Click to expand...

There is simply not enough information. It is impossible to draw such conclusions.

This is why the “grain of salt” mentality is hitting me real hard on this subject and its studies...

I simply can’t support inhaling products of combustion, especially when there is only theoretical ideas floating around.

Correct pre-cancerous changes do not mean cancer, but saying that THC is an anti-mutagen is making people minimize the actual damage they ARE doing to their lungs.

These pre-cancerous changes can be damaged alveoli, and scarring... This is still rather irreversible damage. Not caused by the active constituents, but just inhaling smoke.

We need more studies....
 
[numbers said:
]
I mean, we should be trying to explain why cannabis smokers don't seem to be developing lung cancer. A series of experiments have consistently produced an unexpected result. The only arguments should be about why that result came about.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd really like to wait ~20 years for definitive answers, as it is at that point that we will have a large enough cohort of multi-decade, heavy marijuana users to provide reliable statistical data on cancer-incidence. However, your position appears to be the reasonable one to take in the interim.

ebola
 
Psychedelic Jay said:
There is simply not enough information. It is impossible to draw such conclusions.

This is why the “grain of salt” mentality is hitting me real hard on this subject and its studies...

I simply can’t support inhaling products of combustion, especially when there is only theoretical ideas floating around.

Correct pre-cancerous changes do not mean cancer, but saying that THC is an anti-mutagen is making people minimize the actual damage they ARE doing to their lungs.

These pre-cancerous changes can be damaged alveoli, and scarring... This is still rather irreversible damage. Not caused by the active constituents, but just inhaling smoke.

We need more studies....
Click to expand...

Does the bud have less tar than the leaf, or is it about the same amount of tar?

Also, I got this information from another thread. The bronchial dilating effects of marijuana smoke expels the tar and all of that smoke from the body. Tobacco has bronchial constricting effects, which keeps the tar and all of that other stuff trapped inside of the body. Is this true or false?
 
Elven Warriorr said:
Does the bud have less tar than the leaf, or is it about the same amount of tar?

Also, I got this information from another thread. The bronchial dilating effects of marijuana smoke expels the tar and all of that smoke from the body. Tobacco has bronchial constricting effects, which keeps the tar and all of that other stuff trapped inside of the body. Is this true or false?
Click to expand...

Weed has more tar.

Bronchial dilation has nothing to do with the expectorant nature of THC. You do not cough up everything... Nothing makes you trap anything, the way your lungs are built they are spongy masses...

It’s like spilling dye on your favorite t-shirt.... You never can totally get rid of that stain...
 
Psychedelic Jay said:
Weed has more tar.

Bronchial dilation has nothing to do with the expectorant nature of THC. You do not cough up everything... Nothing makes you trap anything, the way your lungs are built they are spongy masses...

It’s like spilling dye on your favorite t-shirt.... You never can totally get rid of that stain...
Click to expand...

What makes you think that marijuana smoke has more tar than tobacco smoke? Which studies are you getting this information from?

Regardless of how much tar marijuana smoke has in comparison to the amount of tar which tobacco smoke has, which has more tar-the bud, the leaf, or about the same?
 
FWIW, the lungs do have little pac-man cells that eat some foreign matter. They're called alveolar macrophages.

I'd be interested in knowing how much tar persists in my lungs. I haven't smoked a thing since 2011, but was a moderate cigarette and weed smoker for like 8 years before that.



These types of threads need reply trees. I wish this forum's software supported that.
 
Elven Warriorr said:
What makes you think that marijuana smoke has more tar than tobacco smoke? Which studies are you getting this information from?

Regardless of how much tar marijuana smoke has in comparison to the amount of tar which tobacco smoke has, which has more tar-the bud, the leaf, or about the same?
Click to expand...

You are the biggest troll on planet earth?

Have you looked at your smoking equipment?

Weed clogs the shit out of pipes. Tobacco isn’t as nearly quantitive on tar in the same mass of material...
 
sekio said:
This is either a very elaborate troll thread, or one of the most persistent arguments I've seen in a long long time.



Bob Marley had cancer in his foot... I don't think he was smearing tar on his toes with regularity.

"Tar" is an artifact of combustion. If you burn or pyrolise almost *any* compound, especially uncontrolled (i.e. smoking it), it will produce tar, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and nasty ligh-ends (carbon monoxide, ammonia, cyanide etc). Combustion of THC produces some tar, but the non-volatile plant matter plays more of a role in tar generation (because e.g. sugars and protiens are nonvolatile and break apart easily).

Again, burning any organic matter produces carcinogenic tar and toxic substances. This includes cannabis. In cannabis smoke, there are carcinogenic substances. In smoke of any kind, even marijuana smoke, there are toxic compounds that have been produced from molecular rearrangements due to extreme heat.

In general, higher THC content = lower "tar", because for every gram of plant matter, there is more volatile THC versus "fuel". Not even accounting for the fact that smoking low-THC weed will need a greater amount to be smoked for an equal high to "the chron"...

At lower temperartures these molecular rearrangements either do not happen entirely, or happen at a greatly reduced rate, so that even hot vapouriser "smoke" contains primarily only THC and volatile oils with a minimum of "toxics" and polycyclics.

Have we cleared that up now? Good.

Now, THC has antineoplatic effects. This has been well-documented, and it happens regardless of route of administration. So when you deliver large doses of an antineoplastic, directly to the "affected area", a reasonable assumption might be that you would greatly reduce the risk of cancers. Not "precancerous changes" - you can observe "precancerous changes" if you drink too much hot tea, for instance. "Precancerous changes" do not immediately equate to cancer - hence, precancerous. If some downstream path of the cancer pathway is blocked these changes then cannot develop into cancer.

The combination of high potency (10%+ THC is a good "normal" figure for street weed, and the best push 25% by weight - the NIDA standard weed is maybe 1.5% THC at best) and antineoplastic effects helps mitigate the risks greatly. Empirical evidence is still fuzzy, but to my eyes cannabis smoking in moderation does not consistently increase the risk of cancer.

Also consider: I would wager a good portion of the weight of a cigarette is in water, volatile oils etc. I think the NIDA-study-weed is basically 95% dry cellulose....
Click to expand...

Some cigarette smokers don't get lung cancer, they get cancers in other parts of their body, which is because when they smoke, their body carries the smoke into other parts of their body, which causes the cancers in those areas of their bodies. When marijuana smokers smoke, their body probably circulates all of that smoke to the other parts of their bodies also, just like with cigarette smokers. Smoking doesn't just causes lung cancers, it causes other sorts of cancers also.

All of those carcinogens from the smoke was probably circulating throughout Bob Marley's body, which is probably what gave him cancer.
 
Elven Warriorr said:
Some cigarette smokers don't get lung cancer, they get cancers in other parts of their body, which is because when they smoke, their body carries the smoke into other parts of their body, which causes the cancers in those areas of their bodies. When marijuana smokers smoke, their body probably circulates all of that smoke to the other parts of their bodies also, just like with cigarette smokers. Smoking doesn't just causes lung cancers, it causes other sorts of cancers also.

All of those carcinogens from the smoke was probably circulating throughout Bob Marley's body, which is probably what gave him cancer.
Click to expand...

Not to mention he did not get cured of his cancer smoking...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top