|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
ph30n1x
the next jerry
Registered: 08/21/05
Posts: 201
Loc: just a few notes away
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
|
weed lung cancer
#4647670 - 09/11/05 08:07 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
lol sorry to waste ur guys' time, but my friend is arguing with me about pot and lung cancer. i keep telling him it doesnt cause lung cancer, but he doesnt believe me, so im gonna show him this page if a few people could just tell him taht it doesnt cause cancer, and if u wanna explain why u can but u dont have to. i hope hel come to his sences
|
Muppetz
Stranger
Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 44
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: ph30n1x]
#4647688 - 09/11/05 08:09 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Smoke in the lungs = can cause cancer. It's not so much the weed itself its the smoke.
|
iateshaggy
i haxor 360s
Registered: 05/20/05
Posts: 4,709
Loc: 612 Warf Avenue, next to....
Last seen: 18 days, 14 hours
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: ph30n1x]
#4647697 - 09/11/05 08:10 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
it's actually anti-carcinogous but smoking anything can lead to emphysema. eating weed, i.e. brownies etc. has no negative side effects other than the munchies and laziness.
-------------------- You are a filipina sex goddess who wants to fuck me until I fall asleep, so then you can tickle my balls and see if the legend of my diamond filled nutsuck is true. I am a white man from costa rica, who smells like lime jello. I can flash/jtag/repair 360's, pm for details.
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: ph30n1x]
#4647700 - 09/11/05 08:11 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Well, theoretically, smoking ANYTHING ain't the best thing for your lungs, but I've seen no research indicating any link between weed smoking and cancer...
|
dblaney
Human Being
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: ph30n1x]
#4647774 - 09/11/05 08:23 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
If you put smoke in your lungs, you're at risk for developing lung cancer. Certainly not as much risk as say, cigarettes or something along those lines, but it isn't impossible.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Jabbawaya
Registered: 07/10/05
Posts: 1,479
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: iateshaggy]
#4647778 - 09/11/05 08:24 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
It would be wrong at this point to believe what THC has anticarcinogenic properties. The evidence is far from conclusive. Even if it were, the effect of smoke inhalation would far outweight any benefits.
Any form of smoke inhalation is damaging to the lungs. Smoke, in any form, carries carbon monoxide and other dangerous molecules which will harm your lungs.
Marijuana generally contains more tar than tobacco smoke, so that can be hard on one's lungs as well. Tobacco, however, contains dangerous radioactive elements such as polonium-210 and radon, which marijuana is usually free of. It is believed that those radioactive elements are responsible for a significant amount of cancer proliferation, extending beyond simple smoke inhalation damage.
There is nothing that is safe to smoke. If you're going to smoke anything, be smart and do it infrequently.
--------------------
|
nonphixion
Stranger
Registered: 06/21/04
Posts: 75
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: dblaney]
#4647794 - 09/11/05 08:27 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Cigarettes keep the deteriorating and mutated tissues in your lungs where they are, instead of them being swept away and replaced like they normally would. One (or a few) of the numerous added chemicals in the cigarette smoke paralyzes them.
Weed on the other hand, doesn't have that chemical.. so you're not at as high of a risk.
|
iateshaggy
i haxor 360s
Registered: 05/20/05
Posts: 4,709
Loc: 612 Warf Avenue, next to....
Last seen: 18 days, 14 hours
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: Jabbawaya]
#4647806 - 09/11/05 08:28 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
i didn't say smoking weed was healthy, just that it isn't carcinogeous. i did say it causes emphazema which is just as bad. as far as the research goes, i'm going off of govt, research a college prof. showed me.
-------------------- You are a filipina sex goddess who wants to fuck me until I fall asleep, so then you can tickle my balls and see if the legend of my diamond filled nutsuck is true. I am a white man from costa rica, who smells like lime jello. I can flash/jtag/repair 360's, pm for details.
|
baraka
Registered: 07/15/00
Posts: 10,768
Loc: hyperspace
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: iateshaggy]
#4647847 - 09/11/05 08:34 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
The nicotine in ciggs them selves is what causes the cancer i believe. Atleast for the most part, smoke in your lungs could have a cancerous effect in the long run, but i believe tobbaccoo is considerably worse. People get mouth cancer from tobbacco and they are not smoking it.
-------------------- This is the only time I really feel alive.
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK
Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: ph30n1x]
#4647852 - 09/11/05 08:34 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
the amount of misinformation in this thread is rediculous.
This thread should be locked or something.
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
Edited by LiquidSmoke (09/11/05 08:41 PM)
|
HeavyToilet
The Heaviest OfThem All
Registered: 08/06/03
Posts: 9,458
Loc: British Columbia
|
|
Hook up the real information.
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK
Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
|
|
Quote:
it's actually anti-carcinogous
Wrong. That couldn't be more opposite from the truth. Stop reading pro-legalization propaganda.
Quote:
Tobacco, however, contains dangerous radioactive elements such as polonium-210 and radon, which marijuana is usually free of. It is believed that those radioactive elements are responsible for a significant amount of cancer proliferation, extending beyond simple smoke inhalation damage
The majority of radioactive cancer causing chemicals are oxygen free-radicals, which completely outnumber the amount of plolnium and radon in terms of proliferation, penetrance into human lung cells, and overall reactivity.
Quote:
Cigarettes keep the deteriorating and mutated tissues in your lungs where they are, instead of them being swept away and replaced like they normally would. One (or a few) of the numerous added chemicals in the cigarette smoke paralyzes them.
Weed on the other hand, doesn't have that chemical.. so you're not at as high of a risk.
The direct exposure to ANY form of smoke/combustion biproducts, or radioactive elements leads to the loss of functional cells within your bronchial epithelia. It's part of your body's defense from damaging its vital tissues. Originally your lungs are lined with uni-layered cuboidal epithelial cells, which posess the gas-diffusing properties that allow you to breath. When they come in contact with any form of the above mentioned factors, may of those tissues are converted to non-ciliated squamous epithelia, which is a permanent modification. These cells are there to protect the inner tissues of your lung capiliaries from the combustion biproducts, but in essence, decrease the efficiency of your lungs, because there are less gas-diffusable, ciliated epithelia. And regions in your lungs which are altered in this manner will continue to grow layers of nondiffusable squamous epithelia.
Quote:
i didn't say smoking weed was healthy, just that it isn't carcinogeous
Once again, any form of combustion which is inhaled, as long as it is still at a high temprature, can lead to the explusion of oxygen free radicals, which can directly alter individual nucleic acids in your cell's DNA. When these mutations insert into areas which are naturally regulatory sequences, it leads to an uncontrolled growth function, hence, cancer.
Quote:
The nicotine in ciggs them selves is what causes the cancer i believe. Atleast for the most part, smoke in your lungs could have a cancerous effect in the long run,
It can happen on the first experience of smoking, or it could never happen amongst people who have smoked their entire lives. the probablility of a cancer-causing mutation doesn't change each time you smoke. It's just, you are more likely to develope cancer by running the same risk each time. Nicotine is the least of your worries, in terms of carcinogens.
People, I really think you should try and look at the credibility of the sources from which you gather your information. There are MANY pro-marijuana websites out there which claim to have all kinds of unfalable proof that weed is harmless. You have to realize that propoganda exists on both sides of the debate...
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
Edited by LiquidSmoke (09/11/05 08:59 PM)
|
Innominate
Registered: 06/12/05
Posts: 2,136
|
|
Quote:
LiquidSmoke said: The majority of radioactive cancer causing chemicals are oxygen free-radicals, which completely outnumber the amount of plolnium and radon in terms of proliferation, penetrance into human lung cells, and overall reactivity.
Could you explain that a bit more?
|
ninsega
Lucky Bastard
Registered: 09/12/04
Posts: 73
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
|
Is there proof of someone getting lung cancer from Marijuana use, or is it simply possible? I don't hear about those old hippy pot smokers dropping from lung cancer. Agencies would definitely use a Marijuana/cancer link in anti-drug propaganda if they could.
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK
Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: Innominate]
#4648014 - 09/11/05 09:17 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Okay,
so Oxygen free radicals are basically a highly reactive molecule/atom (depending on the composition) which possesses an unpaird electron group. They come about under high temperatures and generally from rapidly breaking-down of various organic molecules which possess oxygen atoms.
This is why they can be derived from burning and inhaling any type of smoke from a combusting source. They are abundant simply because any form of combustion possessing oxygen atoms have the potential to create free radicals.
They generally react INCREDIBLY fast because of their unpaired electron, but because of the high heat nature of burning/smoke, they can be somewhat stabilized long enough to still be reactive by the time they enter the lungs.
The cancer causing mechanism of free radicals is when the oxygen free radical lodges into guanine residues in your cell's DNA. Now, Guanine almost always pairs with Cytosine in your genetic code, but when an oxygen residue is added, your cell recognizes it as an Adenine nucleic acid. These means during replication, instead of being matched up with a new Cytosine, it is matched up with a Thymine. This is where the actual discrepency/mutation in your genetic code occurs.
Alot of these mutations can be fairly harmless, simply because 90% of your DNA is non-coding sequences. It's only when the mutation lands on that 10%, and would have to mutate a specific, inhibitory/regulatory sequence where it can lead to cancer.
Unlike Polonium and Radon, oxygen free radicals are much MUCH smaller atoms/molecules, making them easier to enter your cell's membranes and penetrate into your DNA.
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK
Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: ninsega]
#4648029 - 09/11/05 09:22 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ninsega said: Is there proof of someone getting lung cancer from Marijuana use, or is it simply possible? I don't hear about those old hippy pot smokers dropping from lung cancer. Agencies would definitely use a Marijuana/cancer link in anti-drug propaganda if they could.
The incidence of recorded cases of cancer from marijuana smoke are pretty much negligible for several reasons.
-Most patients with lung cancer from marijuana smoking usually also smoked cigarettes. It is practically impossible to trace the actual source of cancer when it's already grown and proliferated.
-There's no record of any direct causing of lung cancer from marijuana smoke simply because it's all based on probabilities and experiments using isolated tissue samples or non-human lab animals. Although plenty of experiments have been done exposing tissue to combustion, which has lead to the development of cancerous cells in vitro.
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
ph30n1x
the next jerry
Registered: 08/21/05
Posts: 201
Loc: just a few notes away
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: ninsega]
#4648049 - 09/11/05 09:32 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
lol so much info, liquidsmoke poses good points. i duno how credible this link is, i think very credible tho. since liquidsmoke seems to be very knowlegable, if u could read the article in this link and tell me what u think of it id appreciate it. and also some of ur argument was about cigaretts, completly forget abuot cigaretts. id like u to explain to me how smoking weed harms the lungs, and which chemicals (if u know em) are the harmful ones in the smoke. and if weed in particular is cancerous, like aside from the fact that smoke in general can cause lung cancer. thanks btw, what do u think about vaporizers, particualrly the volcano (top of the line vapoizer), as far as minimizing health risk.
Edited by ph30n1x (09/11/05 09:35 PM)
|
ph30n1x
the next jerry
Registered: 08/21/05
Posts: 201
Loc: just a few notes away
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: ph30n1x]
#4648052 - 09/11/05 09:32 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
|
ninsega
Lucky Bastard
Registered: 09/12/04
Posts: 73
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: ph30n1x]
#4648056 - 09/11/05 09:34 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
How harmful do you suppose weed is compared to smog?
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK
Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: ph30n1x]
#4648064 - 09/11/05 09:39 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
i'll address this stuff tommorrow, i need to get some sleep for class.
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
veggie
Registered: 07/25/04
Posts: 17,504
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: ph30n1x]
#4648080 - 09/11/05 09:45 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Here is a link to a story I posted back in July: Study: Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer and here is a somewhat related story: 'Smokeless' medicinal pot has its advocates but I don't think there is definite "proof" one way or the other.
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK
Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: veggie]
#4648274 - 09/11/05 10:25 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
that first paper is pretty misleading in its wording, compared to the actual study conducted.
Marijuana 'not' causing cancer doesn't mean it increases the risk of lung cancer compared to someone who doesn't smoke at all.
The study is incredibly fallable because
1. they used survey-based data to come to a new conclusion, rather than conducting any actual experiments. If you ask most medical researchers, they will tell you this is an incredibly fallable approach to
2. one of the major points of the paper is that "46% of lung cancer patients never smoked marijuana" well guess what? there are OTHER causes of marijuana also
3. "Tashkin himself has long believed in a causal relationship, despite a study in which Stephen Sidney examined the files of 64,000 Kaiser patients and found that marijuana users didn't develop lung cancer at a higher rate or die earlier than non-users. " Once again, a survey-based study with absolutely ZERO experimental design. The entire wording in that sentence is completely skewed also. "didn't develop lung cancer at a higher rate". Well lets see, maybe it's because the probability of onset is independent of proliferation rates? Or that the CAUSE of lung cancers is almost COMPLETELEY UN TRACEABLE????
4. "His study was funded by the University of California's Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research." That pretty much spells it all out.
There's a very good reason why these studies were never published in a scientific journal. Because it lacks any true credibility towards the conclusion drawn from the title of the paper.
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
Edited by LiquidSmoke (09/11/05 10:26 PM)
|
Asante
Omnicyclion prophet
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,298
|
|
LiquidSmoke, the wide variety of your posts amazes me
To add to our discussion, here is a link talking about atypical cancers occurring in Cannabis smokers. Please note that they state that Delta 9 (= Delta 1) THC is unexpectedly likely to be a carcinogen itself, adding to the carcinogenity of Cannabis smoke, but perhaps vaporized and eaten cannabis too.
Several publications have recently suggested a relationship between cannabis use and certain types of cancer. We gathered information on the latest findings on the subject. A manual and computerized bibliographic search on cannabis and cancer was conducted. In users under 40 years of age, cannabis is suspected to increase the risk of squamous-cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract, particularly of the tongue and larynx, and possibly of lung. Other tumours being suspected are non-lymphoblastic acute leukaemia and astrocytoma. In head and neck cancer, carcinogenicity was observed for regular (i.e. more than once a day for years) cannabis smokers. Moreover, cannabis increases the risk of head and neck cancer in a dose-response manner for frequency and duration of use. Interaction was observed with cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Delta9-THC seems to have a specific carcinogenic effect different from that of the pyrolysis products.
The threadstarter wanted ammo. He wanted us to help him prove that he was like he wanted things to be. I hope he'll show this page despite it giving other results than he'd like.
It's high time we did away with the "harmless" BS. in the seventies or eighties you could get away with that, but in the nineties the medical reports started pouring in. Pot is not harmless. If you accept that you are taking a serious risk you should in my opinion be free to do so, but don't lull yourself into a false sense of security but let the "harmless" lobby blot out your sense of responsibilty. Either you accept the risks or you don't use cannabis at all. Just Say Know.
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
baraka
Registered: 07/15/00
Posts: 10,768
Loc: hyperspace
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: Asante]
#4649717 - 09/12/05 10:35 AM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
What do you think of this study.
I a friend of my grandparents got mouthcancer and in his voice box and he never smoked cigs. Just dipped. I think there are cancerous properties in tobbaccoo unlike marijuana.
If you can get mouth cancer from chewing tobbacco, then can i get stomach and intestine cancer from eating it? Explain
-------------------- This is the only time I really feel alive.
|
sunshine
Sin18DwireWuTang
Registered: 04/03/04
Posts: 43,592
Loc: higher plane of sex
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: ph30n1x]
#4649847 - 09/12/05 11:11 AM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I once had trouble breathing from smoking too much pot.
-------------------- One Love True Indeed. Have Good Trips. Mike/sunshine's mom.
|
Young_but_cool
Stranger
Registered: 08/16/02
Posts: 1,726
Loc: Old Europe
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: baraka]
#4649875 - 09/12/05 11:18 AM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Swedish snus (Sweden's traditional form of oral tobacco) has been proved not to cause cancer, as opposed to the American dip. The difference lies in the preparation. Nicotine is not the cause of cancer in dip, but rather the high levels of nitrosamines, which are very low in the Swedish snus. Nicotine is not a carcinogen.
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK
Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: ph30n1x]
#4650534 - 09/12/05 02:06 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ph30n1x said: http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_health2.shtml
It's already pretty well known that tobacco is more harmfull than marijuana in terms of the level of carcinogens. Alot of it has to do with the additives and stuff people have already mentioned in this thread.
I'm basically going to break down the vissible bias in this article, the details which they choose to leave out.
"tobacco smoke causes the bronchi to constrict for long periods of time, which obstructs the lung's ability to clear itself of these residues.
I can see where he's coming from, he's basically describing the harms of closing off certain lung vessels from using their ciliary upstream to clear out the lungs. BUT... There is also a beneficial aspect of bronchial constriction. This is a simple defense mechanism used to assure your lungs do not continue to coat their more vital bronchi with tar. And either way, the bronchi will eventually open back up and clear out the tar coating, it's not like they PERMANENTLY close. As compared to...
"In fact, marijuana has been shown to be an expectorant and actually dilates the air channels it comes in contact with. This is why many asthma sufferers look to marijuana to provide relief."
WOW now that's completely bullshit (in terms of health potential). First of all, dilating the air channels also dilates/opens up bronchial airways, which leaves your most distal lung vessels to smoke exposure. This INCREASES the amoung ot tar coating in your lungs, in retrospect to tobacco. Sure this helps open up a continuous channel for ciliary upstream to clean out the tar, BUT, he failed to mention a MUCH MORE significant point, which is that ANY type of smoke, whether it be tobacco OR marijuana, STILL alters your lung's ciliary epithelia, causing you to LOSE alot of that "cleaning out" function to BEGIN WITH.
DO NOT FUCKING USE MARIJUANA SMOKE FOR ASTHMA. THIS IS VERY VERY DANGEROUS, ask ANY pulmonologist(whose research isn't funded by a medicinal marijuana grant).
Studies even show that due to marijuana's ability to clear the lungs of smog, pollutants, and cigarette smoke, it may actually reduce your risk of emphysema, bronchitis, and lung cancer. Smokers of cannabis have been shown to outlive non- smokers in some areas by up to two years.
Even MORE biased bullshit. Exposure to ANY smoke decreases the amount of ciliated cuboidal cells which are RESPONSIBLE for the cleaning out of your lungs. AND NO WAY IN HELL is there a credible or even viable experiment to show cannabis users outliving non users. That's a load of horse shit.
Over half of the radioactive materials emitted by a burning cigarette are released into the air, where they can be inhaled by non-smokers. In addition to lead 210 and polonium 210 it has been proven that tobacco smoke can cause airborne radioactive particles to collect in the lungs of both smokers and non-smokers exposed to second hand smoke.
one detail he so strategically left out is that when radioactive materials are in the air, which tends to be a much cooler environment, the reactivity of these compounds GREATLY decreases.
Water pipes, or "bongs," are quite often the target of such efforts. Claiming that water pipes are constructed to allow marijuana smokers to inhale "dangerous" marijuana smoke deeper into their lungs, many states and towns have passed laws controlling the sale, manufacture, and possession of these items for "health" reasons. The sad fact is, water pipes have been shown to be extremely effective in removing harmful materials from smoke before it reaches the lungs. They also cool the smoke and prevent injury and irritation to lung passages.
He hasn't disclaimed the fact that water pipes DO cause smoke to reach deeper vessles within your lungs. This is true when people take large deep breaths of smoke, which is generally the case with bongs/pipes.
Water pipes are pretty good at removing harmful chemicals, but ALOT still get through, including most tar. The air bubbles coming from a burning bowl are VERY VERY MINIMALLY emulsified with the water, so the amoung of "cleaning out" of the smoke is pretty small. In addition, the cooling effect he mentions is also pretty minimal, even when you're using an ice bong. Sure it helps, but that's still hot smoke that's coming up into your lungs. If it was cooled to a circumstantial level, most of the smoke would just condense back into tar, which generally is what happens inside of your lungs.
So potentially it can be MORE harmfull, because it is at a cloaser optimum temperature of re-condensation when it enters your lungs. Although that's just speculation.
The article is fairly biased, although it does provide lots of data on how tobacco smoke is harmfull, something that's considerably obvious. They fail to go into the harmfull effects of marijuana distinct from tobacco smoke...
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
ph30n1x
the next jerry
Registered: 08/21/05
Posts: 201
Loc: just a few notes away
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
|
|
i still showed it to him, there was alot of stuff that supported me and quite a bit that supported him. i know that smoke can potentially cause lung cancer, any kind of smoke can. i was just telling him that marijuana smoke doesnt cause cancer in particular, where as cigarette smoke does. but as i said, smoke in general has the potential to cause lung cancer. btw, lol sry to keep pestering u liquidsmoke, but what do u think of vaporizers (ones that work, i.e. the volcano) as far as minimalizing health risk, do u think they do in fact almost completly destroy or minimalize cannabis heath risks? and since THC extracted into brownies is a smoke-less alternative, doesnt that completly destroy cancer risk? and one more question if i may, regarding hash. ive never smoked it before, but from what i gather it is the THC crystals that are "shaved" off the leaves/bud of the plant and compressed. since there is really no leaf matter in the hash, is there less of a health risk in smoking hash? wow, thanks alot man, many thanks to you.
Edited by ph30n1x (09/12/05 03:30 PM)
|
StickyWater
Stranger
Registered: 06/09/05
Posts: 1,680
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: ph30n1x]
#4651271 - 09/12/05 04:57 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Been wondering that about hash myself... then again, now a days everything can give you cancer.
|
unearth
Stranger
Registered: 03/09/05
Posts: 260
Last seen: 17 years, 10 months
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: Jabbawaya]
#4651472 - 09/12/05 05:46 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Jabbawaya said: It would be wrong at this point to believe what THC has anticarcinogenic properties. The evidence is far from conclusive. Even if it were, the effect of smoke inhalation would far outweight any benefits.
Any form of smoke inhalation is damaging to the lungs. Smoke, in any form, carries carbon monoxide and other dangerous molecules which will harm your lungs.
Marijuana generally contains more tar than tobacco smoke, so that can be hard on one's lungs as well. Tobacco, however, contains dangerous radioactive elements such as polonium-210 and radon, which marijuana is usually free of. It is believed that those radioactive elements are responsible for a significant amount of cancer proliferation, extending beyond simple smoke inhalation damage.
There is nothing that is safe to smoke. If you're going to smoke anything, be smart and do it infrequently.
accoring to erowid radio activity is 90 percent the cause of cancer,while tar is 10 percent the cause of cancer
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK
Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: unearth]
#4651515 - 09/12/05 05:54 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
erowid is an incredibly biased source.
and tracing sources for cancer directly is nearly impossible.
hence, they're BS.
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
leery11
I Tell You What!
Registered: 06/24/05
Posts: 5,998
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
|
we need a sticky cannabis/cancer thread where the first post states the general "truthful" information that we've come upon.
So what is the deal then with vaporizers, eating, and the studies that show that THC helps prevent cancerous growths as well as helps prevent brain cell damage. (or something to that extent)
why is marijuana not a good asthma solution, anyway, asthma is about the bronchial airways constricting, and THC counteracts that. It's not good for the LUNGS but it would be good to take a puff if you were having asthma difficulties once in a while.
and what about it's use as an expectorant, if you have a nasty chest cold and hit the vaporizer, it can really help you clear all that gunk out in one session.
-------------------- I am the MacDaddy of Heimlich County, I play it Straight Up Yo! ....I embrace my desire to feel the rhythm, to feel connected enough to step aside and weep like a widow, to feel inspired, to fathom the power, to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain, to swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human...... Om Namah Shivaya, I tell you What!
|
Littlewing70
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 63
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: sunshine]
#4652378 - 09/12/05 09:10 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
you would never wanna eat chewing tobbaco lol
|
leery11
I Tell You What!
Registered: 06/24/05
Posts: 5,998
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
|
or smoking tobacco especially, i heard that could kill you since its more concentrated.
-------------------- I am the MacDaddy of Heimlich County, I play it Straight Up Yo! ....I embrace my desire to feel the rhythm, to feel connected enough to step aside and weep like a widow, to feel inspired, to fathom the power, to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain, to swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human...... Om Namah Shivaya, I tell you What!
|
ph30n1x
the next jerry
Registered: 08/21/05
Posts: 201
Loc: just a few notes away
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: leery11]
#4652587 - 09/12/05 09:41 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
liquidsmoke, why is every possible good thing about marijuana "biased" and everything thats bad about marijuana sad but true. i dont see how a study could be biased, numbers arnt biased, only the language and how the language is used is biased, i.e. wording the sentences to eggagerate the facts, but if one can just analyze the wording, these eggadurations can easily be seen through. who cares if an actual experement was conducted or not, if a group of scientists analyze a large population of people with cancer (numerous lung related types etc.) and the numbers illustrate that marijuana smokers have less of a chance of developing cancer (and in one instance equal chance) than the conrol group [the control group is a group of people who smoked less than one joint a year/virually no pot smoking history]. also, if marijuana smoke dialates your bronchi and helps flush out all the crap in your lungs how is that in any way bad, even if more bronchi tissue is exposed to smoke, then there would be many more of those cells that help flush out the crap in the bronchi. plus, lol as much BS as this next statement may sound, snoop dog smokes extreme quantities of weed everyday, as sickening as it is, the figures are up in the half ounce to one ounce a day. and altho id bet hes not the healthiest fellow, he doesnt have cancer as of now, and hes had this routine for many years now. a more personal example would be a friend of mine whos been smoking about 3-4 blunts a day for that past 4 years, these blunts probably have a good 2-3.5 grams in em. and when he went to the doctor for a checkup (hasnt gone to one in years prior) and his vitals were fine, particularly his oxygen saturation levels, which were 99%, which is perfectly normal. and another thing, most of the DNA codes in the body are just nothing, like there are DNA codes for the color for your eyes etc, but most of the DNA codes in the body are just nothing, they dont account of anything. so smoke particles altering them doesnt affect anything. even if u do change the last nucleotide of a sequence, very commonly the code will not be affected. the radioactive particles in the smoke must stabalize long enough [and radioactive particles are not stable particles] to completly bind with a certain part of a DNA code secquence, in a DNA code that accounts for something (small percentage of them do), and actually have the change of that last part of the secquence affect the DNA code. so the overall risk is very minute, especially if u smoke recreationally/moderately as opposed to heavily/habitually. and this already very minute risk is scaled down tremendously if you use a vaporizer, and no risk if orally injested (i.e. brownies) because no radioactive particles or tars are created.
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK
Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: ph30n1x]
#4653288 - 09/12/05 11:14 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
yeah you basically summarized alot of what I said.
But let me reiterate this point one more time.
Your lung surface tissue consists of a delicate single layer of cuboidal ciliated epithelia. These cells provied two functions.
1. they allow gas diffusion, which is the machanism of breathing
2. their cilia is what creates the upstream to help clean out your lungs
When you expose your lung tissue to ANY type of smoke/heated particles, as a defense mechanism, these cells are converted to squamous epithelia. Now, this tissue in these micro regions are permanently altered, now they will ONLY produce squamous cells, rather than the normal cuboidal epithelia. This does two things.
1. Squamous cells are less efficient at gas diffusion, making your breathing less efficient.
2. Squamous cells (of this manner) are NON CILIATED, meaning they have lost their ability to clean out and contribute to the ciliary upstream of your lungs.
When you open your bronchial pathway, you are exposing more lung surface area towards the risk of this type of tissue damage.
About the studies mentioned, of course the survey tests are obviously credible data, but as you mentioned, ALOT can be skewed based on simply the wording of the experiments, and the conclusions which are drawn out from them. Example, the article mentioned above "Marijuana does not cause cancer", if you look at the actual experiments conducted, not ONCE do they test a non-smoking controll group against a stricly marijuana (tobacco free) smoking group. That is the only possible way you would be able to come to such a strong conclusion. Instead, they take a bunch of indirect studies, no new experimental design, simply based on survey information (which can also prove to be fallable simply due to the nature of a survey), and draw a conclusion which is MUCH more far-fetched than what the actual conclusions of the experiments state.
I already talked about the DNA issue, it's up there somewhere in that huge mass, how 90% of your DNA is non coding, and it takes a mutation to enter specific regulatory sequences for the non-controlled growth patterns of cancerous cells to occur.
Of course the risk of actually developing cancer from smoking marijuana is incredibly low. But what do you consider low? How is it at all subjective? Of course compared to tobacco it's considerably less.
But bottom line, is that there is still a general risk of developing cancer from ANY kind of smoke, inhaling any sort of hot, combustion based compounds can lead to mutations in your lung tissue. To say that smoking marijuana COMPLETELY does not EVER cause cancer is just false.
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
leery11
I Tell You What!
Registered: 06/24/05
Posts: 5,998
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
|
"When you expose your lung tissue to ANY type of smoke/heated particles, as a defense mechanism, these cells are converted to squamous epithelia. Now, this tissue in these micro regions are permanently altered, now they will ONLY produce squamous cells"
how severe is this, though? Would smoking pot do any more significant damage than breathing in smog and other pollutants, is it due SPECIFICALLY to heat? If so wouldn't bongs prevent the problem almost entirely as the only issue is volume of smoke consumed, rather than heat and irritation? how hot does the smoke have to be?
-------------------- I am the MacDaddy of Heimlich County, I play it Straight Up Yo! ....I embrace my desire to feel the rhythm, to feel connected enough to step aside and weep like a widow, to feel inspired, to fathom the power, to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain, to swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human...... Om Namah Shivaya, I tell you What!
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK
Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: leery11]
#4653451 - 09/12/05 11:42 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
it's not specifically due to heat, it's the biproducts of combustion which are stabilized by the heat. And no, bongs would not prevent the problem entirely because as long as smoke is SMOKE, and not cooled down to the point of tar residue condensation, there still runs the risk of epithelial tissue alterations.
As for experiments to obtain the known temperatures, it's nearly impossible to do, simply because you won't find any human experimental subjects willing to sustain permanent lung damage for research purposes...
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
stefan
work in progress
Registered: 04/11/01
Posts: 8,932
Loc: The Netherlands
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
|
if there was still a rating system this thread would get 5 shrooms from me
Thanks liquidsmoke for explaining all this! I bet it clears a lot of mis-minformation for a lot of userd here.
we should put this in the FAQ/archives and I also agree with you about the non-scientific misleadingness of those articles
|
scatmanrav
Brainy Smurf
Registered: 05/08/04
Posts: 11,483
Loc:
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: stefan]
#4653647 - 09/13/05 12:41 AM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
But smoking marijuana doesnt cause cancer, smoking period does, and smoking alot of things does it more. When someone says smoking marijuana cuases cancer, theyre talking about smoking that particular thing causing cancer more then something else or theyd just say "smoking causes cancer". Its not the marijuana but the smoking, so smoking should be the subject of the sentence..its not, its the verb and marijuana is the subject.
Thats why I would have argued with the original posters thread. I dont disagree with anything youve said really Liquid, very informative..but it only showed how smoking causes cancer, not smoking POT specifically, like was mentioned.
|
dismahshitznigga
Stranger
Registered: 09/13/05
Posts: 27
Last seen: 18 years, 6 months
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: ph30n1x]
#4653775 - 09/13/05 01:34 AM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
i aint neva hearda no niggas getin cancer off no blunt dogs but i b readin this shit tho
|
stefan
work in progress
Registered: 04/11/01
Posts: 8,932
Loc: The Netherlands
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
|
try again in normal english, hit the "check spelling" button next time you post
|
ph30n1x
the next jerry
Registered: 08/21/05
Posts: 201
Loc: just a few notes away
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: scatmanrav]
#4655129 - 09/13/05 01:18 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
scatmanrav said: But smoking marijuana doesnt cause cancer, smoking period does, and smoking alot of things does it more. When someone says smoking marijuana cuases cancer, theyre talking about smoking that particular thing causing cancer more then something else or theyd just say "smoking causes cancer". Its not the marijuana but the smoking, so smoking should be the subject of the sentence..its not, its the verb and marijuana is the subject.
Thats why I would have argued with the original posters thread. I dont disagree with anything youve said really Liquid, very informative..but it only showed how smoking causes cancer, not smoking POT specifically, like was mentioned.
exactly, thats kinda what i ment, like smoking in general can cause cancer, but smoking marijuana doesnt particularly cause cancer. and also given that the bud of the plant has 1/3rd of the tar tobacco does and there may be some anti-canerous properties (mild properties of course) in THC, its pretty safe as far as smoking is concerned
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK
Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 8 months, 24 days
|
Re: weed lung cancer [Re: ph30n1x]
#4655950 - 09/13/05 04:26 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
there is NO type of safe smoke. Period.
If you're burning ANYTHING and it gets into your lungs, there is a risk for cancer to develope. So burning weed, which causes smoke to arise, can also cause cancer.
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
|