Smoking Cannabis is not as Safe as you Think

slimvictor

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,477
Location
"Darkness cannot be dissipated with more darkness.
If you think smoking cannabis is safer than using normal cigarettes, think again. A new report from the British Lung Foundation, (BLF), found that one third of all people believe smoking marijuana is harmless. This is despite the BLF finding that a single cannabis cigarette contains 20 times the amount of carcinogens as a tobacco cigarette.

The misconception that smoking cannabis is less harmful than normal cigarettes may explain some of the BLF’s date. In their research, they discovered almost 9 in 10 people think tobacco cigarettes are more damaging than marijuana ones.

Dame Helena Shovelton, chief executive of the British Lung Foundation, said: “Young people in particular are smoking cannabis unaware that, for instance, each cannabis cigarette they smoke increases their chances of developing lung cancer by as much as an entire packet of 20 tobacco cigarettes.”

Smoking Cannabis is also linked to diseases including lung cancer, tuberculosis, acute bronchitis, suppression of the immune system and heart disease.

While this does not imply that smoking normal cigarettes is safe or that all types of cannabis use are dangerous, it does shed some light on the lack of knowledge around recreational drug use.


(...)

Cannabis is the most popular illicit drug used in Britain and 40% of British people under 35 believe smoking cannabis is not harmful to health. This is troubling as cannabis smoke contains nearly all of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke but at levels 50% higher than a normal cigarette.

Cont at
http://www.lifeworkscommunity.com/news/blog-wordpress/smoking-cannabis-is-not-as-safe-as-you-think/
 
Last edited:
Interesting how, in the first paragraph, they say that cannabis has 20 times the carcinogens of a regular cig, but in the last paragraph that I posted above, it says that the levels of carcinogens are 50% higher in cannabis smoke (that is 1.5 times the carcinogens).
 
It's ignorant to think that marijuana is completely harmless - you're inhaling combusted plant matter and usually some butane. But I don't think we've had enough data to say just HOW harmful chronic cannabis use is, and certainly not enough to say that its worse than cigarettes.
 
In their research
Click to expand...
....

That's the thing with research, it's not always going to be the same result is it? Depends on who's doing and who they they study and probably lots of factors. Humans have been smoking tobacco and cannabis for how long now? And we still get all these varying results from various research.

I guess it is really complex, because some people can smoke shit loads their whole life and not get any major illness and some people can smoke just for a short while and get cancer and die.
 
I've also noticed that a lot of people who smoke weed also smoke tobacco. In fact where I live, most people who smoke weed also smoke cigarettes so I assume it's hard to get a control group of people who only smoke weed.
 
isnt this realy old news, i remember reading like almost 10 years ago that marijuana smoke contained much higher levels of tar than tabacco, the only reason stated for pot being less harmfull was because people generally dont smoke 20 joints a day
 
If i remember correctly tar is pretty much the only thing mj has more of (besides MORE MUNCHIES!) than tobacco. From my experience, smoking 20 joints in a day didnt make me feel nearly as shitty as smoking a pack of cigs (when i was a new smoker).
 
obviously weed isnt HARMLESS but I definitely think that cigs are worse for you than pot. obviously theres tar in it because you ARE SMOKING something which is going to have carbon residue (which when mixed with bodily fluids is gonna make a tar like substance) but yeah, I think this article didnt have enough research done in the proper manner
 
Liter for liter, cannabis smoke contains roughly twice the amount of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as tobacco smoke, but contains almost zero nitrosamines, unlike tobacco smoke which contains large quantities. Papers comparing the level of carcinogens in smokes typically omit nitrosamines entirely -- it would be a waste of time -- which is fine for the researchers but is subsequently misinterpreted by the media.

While they're more infamous, the levels of nitrogen oxides and aldehydes are highly dependent on the method of smoking and even the lighter used regardless of substrate and will be more affected by using e.g. a bong than by smoking pine needles (don't smoke pine needles). I also personally doubt they're the main cause of smoking-associated cancer since they're not present at much higher levels than ordinary exposure and you get far more acetaldehyde by drinking alcohol or eating charred meat. As for ammonia, cyanide, and carbon monoxide, those don't cause cancer and only make it onto the list of chemicals in cigarette smoke to scare you.

Regardless, typical consumption of cannabis smoke is less than 2% of tobacco consumption -- a regular cannabis user might not even smoke every day, whereas a smoker usually consumes at least half a pack a day. That is believed to be the major reason lung cancer is not seen in cannabis users.

THC induces but also competitively inhibits CYP1A1 which metabolizes benzo(a)pyrene in tobacco and cannabis smoke into benzo(a)pyrene-7,8-diol-9,10-epoxide, a powerful carcinogen which binds to the antitumor gene p53, and p53 damage is common in tobacco-related lung tumors; it is found in 70% of small-cell lung cancers and many other lung cancers. The impact of this on the carcinogenicity of cannabis is not clear.

Cannabidiol is a known chemopreventative, working through a number of mechanisms but the short of it is that it protects DNA from oxidative damage and inhibits enzymes that degrade protective endocannabinoids. It also does a whole lot of weird stuff that is not entirely related to cannabinoid or vanilloid activity. It has been suggested that this may also be partially responsible for the absence of lung cancer in cannabis users, though it is not immediately obvious that the levels of cannabidiol in cannabis smoke are high enough to do so.

The multiple mechanisms of cannabidiol are astounding and difficult to list much less explain. It even inhibits metastasis. I sort of wonder what God was thinking.

But the kicker is this: activation of cannabinoid receptors is demonstrably anticarcinogenic w.r.t. non-small cell lung cancer, and it doesn't seem to matter if it's THC or a JWH series compound activating them.

However, in those cancers which do not express cannabinoid receptors and consequently are not vulnerable to cannabinoids, THC can negatively affect the antitumor immune response. In particular CB2 activity seemed to cause problematic but reversible immunosuppression.

There is, still, not likely to be anything that cures all forms of cancer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top