What are the true risks of taking cannabis?

Smoke causes lung cancer. When you burn organics at a low heat, you produce partially combusted carbon free radicals. Poly-cyclic ones are particularly bad, because the radical is stable enough to hang around long enough to really tear up your lungs. It's a very simple mechanism.

Whether you smoke tobacco, marijuana, rope, wood, or just breath in smoke from a poorly ventilated cooking fire you are exposing yourself to the substances that cause lung cancer. You are playing Russian roulette. Puff enough, you'll win the prize.




​

 

Saying I would wait and see long term effects on college and H.S. grad rates is much different than saying it's going to effect H.S. and college grad rates. Your saying I'm worried about something that's a non issue. Actually I think it won't effect the youth negatively ,but who the hell are me and you to say we know it all. I'm one that tends to lean towards getting as much data(long term in this case) as I can before I jump to conclusions. My point is simply let's wait and see since we have a guinea pig.

 

You ever had a boot on your neck? Like an honest to god size 12 boot on your neck? For simple possession? It happens every day and most aren't lucky enough or rich enough to be able to avoid most of the negative consequences. People have a substantive right to put (*)(*)(*)(*) in their bodies. See privacy, and the fact that making alcohol federally barred took a constitutional amendment. I'm telling you it wouldn't matter WHAT the effect was, they'd still have that right. Good thing their use rates are down. If fewer are using than in the black market that's a net positive on any metric. Including grad rates because, and I cannot stress the simple logic of this point, enough, LESS of them will be using the drug. Essentially none of them will be getting jammed up for possession and having to slog through with that turd on their record. The data is in. If less use, less can (*)(*)(*)(*) up, plus it being legal removes the true danger ie that boot I was talking about earlier.

People aren't guinea pigs. Without the fed pushing this horse(*)(*)(*)(*) and wasting money by the truckload, no state would have prohibition.

 

Let's just legalize all drugs than , (*)(*)(*)(*) it. Less users then right?

 

It's smoke, if taken that way. Lungs are designed to filter it out, so logically forcing something that doesn't belong in your body means there is a lack of intelligence there.

It does impede your ability to do just about anything so the impact on work is obvious. It can be addicting so again, not good.

The only real benefit is the sedation. And unless you have a REAL medical problem, relying on being relaxed just to perform daily tasks is NOT good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Going by the data from both rounds of prohibition, yes.
When it's regulated it's 1)lless likely to be cut with (*)(*)(*)(*) necessitating a hospital visit which no junkie pays for. Guess who does? That's right. You and I. Prohibition Makes no economic sense. 2) feeds a white market that pays TAXES instead of a black market the fuels street gangs and territory wars. Prohibition Makes no sense from a security standpoint either. 3) drug pushers intentionally give kids a free taste of the hard stuff and you know damn well why if you were an addict as you've claimed. When was the last time you saw a guy at the 711 give a 13 yr old a 40oz and a pack of Marlboro reds for free? Or at all? Eh? If you want to "protect the children" get the dope out of the hands of the pushers as much as is humanly possible. Repealing prohibition is how you do that. It won't be perfect but it will be closer to moonshine than prescription pills if it's legal for recreational use. 4) needle exchanges help prevent needle sharing and the waves of hiv hepatitis herpes etc shared along with them. Less money we have to spend, less people getting diseased, sounds like a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing win to me. 5) if they made Crack legal RIGHT NOW and there were stores selling it, are you going to go smoke crack? Is legality what holds you back? No, it's not. Making it legal doesn't make it acceptable to polite society, like abortion, or tobacco use today, or drinking everclear out of the bottle or stumbling around hammered on listerine.

The same should be done with gambling and prostitution, as well as drugs. Prohibition creates black markets. Black markets create crime lords (see capone, cartels, street gangs, et al), open the market to children because unlike the guy on camera at the 711 pushers don't card, waste billions every year in outlays, waste billions a year in lack of market participation (because they're jailed and not buying things like food, or blunt wraps), waste billions a year to incarcerate, separate families, take fathers out of homes where they can't teach their children not to be (*)(*)(*)(*) up idiots who join a street gang looking for that male role model denied to them, creating fertile ground not just to push drugs but for murders, witness intimidation, rape, assaults, thefts etc.
The list goes on, I was just done beating that dead horse.
Drugs used to be legal, you know that right? They used to market hashish candies as fun for the whole family and I'm not exaggerating. You could buy morphine pills over the counter (that was one of the cases we did in crim law, actually. Was it murder of some form if your crazy mistress popped like 15 tabs and you didn't take her to the hospital? It was.). The world did not end.

You're willing to treat people as guinea pigs when their lives and liberty are at stake, so you can drag your feet waiting on data that you already have.

 

Studies have shown no permanent damage to the lung, even at the heaviest daily use and longest term. Stop smoking and the lung bounces back. No copd, no cancer. Smoking isn't GOOD for you, but smoking pot is not like smoking tobacco. Though I tend to prefer edibles myself because you're not wasting weed on an inefficient absorbtion.
Weed spikes your blood pressure, it is not a sedative.
Regular smokers are not qualitatively impaired.
It's psychologically addictive, just like anything else that feels good. Candy crush? Psychologically addicting. Beating your meat? Same. Sex? Same. Internet use? Same.
I notice you posted this from your phone. Do you find that you look at your phone often? You're probably addicted and we should take that phone away for your own good and lock you up for a bit, make you pay some fines etc.

 

Again studies have not shown even a CORRELATIVE EFFECT between heavy daily long term weed smoking and cancer, and they have done quite a number LOOKING for it specifically. You and i both know that a scientist looking for a particular result is liable to find it. What does it say to you that they went looking knowing they'd find x and instead they found the opposite? Thcs unique quality of inducing autophagy in cancerous cells is posited to be the explanation.

 

One minute you say it's harmless and the next you their lives and liberty are at stake?

 

The real danger is when a person has no idea that there has been mental illness in their family. Older folks tended not to talk about it much.

 

Respiratory Effects of Marijuana

Marijuana smoke contains a similar range of harmful chemicals to that of tobacco smoke (including bronchial irritants, tumor promoters and carcinogens) (Hoffmann et al, 1975). As inhaled smoke comes into contact with airway and lung before being absorbed into the bloodstream, it is likely to affect the respiratory system (Novotny et al, 1982).

Risk of respiratory effects from inhaling marijuana smoke are heightened by the more intensive way in which marijuana is smoked -- when smoking marijuana compared to tobacco, there is a prolonged and deeper inhalation and it is smoked to a shorter butt length and at a higher combustion temperature. This results in approximately 5 times the carbon monoxide concentration, 3 times the tar, and the retention of one-third more tar in the respiratory tract. Higher levels of ammonia and hydrogen cyanide have also been found in marijuana smoke, compared to tobacco (Moir, et al., 2008; Wu et al., 1988; Tashkin et al., 1991; Benson & Bentley, 1995).

http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/respiratoryeffects.htm

Inhaling smoke of any kind isn't very goo\d for the body.

 

You didn't do so hot in elementary school science class did you chief?
Do you know what a control group is? Can you tell the class? No? Well that's OK champ, it's not like the scientific method is something taught in elementary schools nationwide for decades, and that you should feel deeply ashamed for not knowing. It's not anything like that. They're the ones you don't do anything to. The ones you keep status quo. They are also guinea pigs. The control group is still under every law, and guess what that means? Hey look you got one!! That's RIGHT champ that means they get PROSECUTED. As well as all the other negative effects I mentioned, see above.

 

I'll see your old studies and raise you a current one and article explaining it. http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/study-smoking-marijuana-not-linked-with-lung-damage/

The study is linked in the article. This study was found to have far better methodology than prior studies. You're welcome.

I'll also note: your studies use words like LIKELY and simply point to carcinogens. Whereas my study went the extra mile and actually examined the lungs and didn't simply assume it's result.

You'll also need to quote me where I said smoking was GOOD for a body. Unless you were being intentionally misleading?
I said no cancer, and no copd. I did not say smoking was good for you. I did not say it had no depressive effect on the lung while smoking, in fact I said the opposite. I also did not say that there were no carcinogens in pot smoke. READ. Reading is good for you.

 

That's like arguing because you have not read the study showing dropping a red bowling ball on your head will cause brain damage, red ones are safe.

Slow burning complex hydrocarbons produces a soup of partially combusted free radicals (for that go to freshman chemistry). The free radical soup in tobacco smoke has been extensively analyzed and characterized.* Cancer has been seen to occur in lung cells exposed to this soup.** Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) radicals seem to be particularly effective (probably because they are stable enough to hang around and reactive enough to chew up pretty much any cell they get a hold of). As an example, spiking smoke with 1,4-naphthoquinone shows a 5 fold increase in small cell cancer incidence. ***

There are differences in the soup composition when burning different hydrocarbons, but PAH radicals will result from burning pretty much any plant. The particular PAH composition that results from tobacco and marijuana smoke has been shown to be qualitatively similar (the worst 50 things are in both).**** and ****** It has also been shown to be quantitatively similar (similar concentrations of bad stuff), ******* although some exist in marijuana at 3-5 times the concentration as in tobacco. ******* Not that surprising, stuff that get's you high tends to have a polycyclic hydrocarbon skeleton.

There is no research that will prove smoking marijuana cigarettes will give you lung cancer. There is no research that will prove smoking tobacco cigarettes, stoking a furnace, or working in a coal mine will give you lung cancer. There is no study proving playing Russian roulette will cause your death. Science doesn't work that way. Science is about organizing observations to reveal patterns which suggest explanations that might offer useful models of the physical world. You need to use your brain to connect the dots.

We can identify the cause of most lung cancers. We can understand the process by which it happens. We can demonstrate that stuff exists in pot smoke. If you don't find these observations compelling... then *shrug* puff away. It's your lungs.

​

* Church, D. F., Pryor, W.A. Free-Radical Chemistry of Cigarette Smoke and Its Toxicological Implications Environmental Health Perspectives 64 : 111-126, (1985)

** Lyons, M. J., Gibson, J. F., and Ingram, D. J. E. Free-radicals in cigarette smoke. Nature 181: 1003-1004 ( 1958 ).

*** Pryor, W. A., Hales, B. J., Premovic, P. I., and Church, D. F. The radicals in cigarette tar: their nature and suggested physiological implications. Science 220: 425-427 (1983).

**** Ingram, D. J. E. ESR studies of the free radicals produced in tobacco pyrolysis and in other related compounds. Acta Med. Scand. (Suppl.) 369: 43-62 (1961).

****** Lee, M. L., Novotny, M., and Bartle, K. D. (1976) Gas chromatography/mass spectrometric and nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometric studies of carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in tobacco and marijuana smoke condensates. Anal. Chem. 48 (2), 405–416.

****** Hoffmann, D., Brunnermann, K. D., Gori, G. B., and Wynder, E. L. (1975) On the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry (Runeckles, V. C., Ed.) pp 63–81, Plenum, New York.

******* Moir, D., Rickert, W., Levasseur, G., Larose, Y., Maertens, R., White, P., Desjardins, S. A comparison of mainstream and sidestream Marijuana and Tobacco Cigarette Smoke Chem. Res. Toxicol 21: 494-502 ( 2008 )



​

 

http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/study-smoking-marijuana-not-linked-with-lung-damage/

You're welcome. Anything I can do to help stem the spread of ignorance.


"(*)“There are clearly adverse effects from tobacco use and marijuana smoke has a lot of the same constituents as tobacco smoke does so we thought it might have some of the same harmful effects.(*)It’s a weird effect to see and we couldn’t make it go away,” he adds, explaining that the researchers used statistical models to look for errors or other factors that could explain the apparent benefit and did not find them."

Tashkin, however, has studied this issue extensively. He says,(*) “The largest epidemiologic (case-control) study of the association between marijuana use and lung cancer failed to demonstrate that marijuana increases the risk of developing lung (or, for that matter, upper airway) cancer.”

He notes that a much smaller, recent study from New Zealand did claim to find a link, but only in very heavy users.(*) He says, “The authors’ interpretation of their data can be faulted because of the small numbers of their subjects exhibiting such heavy use, which rendered their estimates of risk imprecise.”

But Tashkin argues that specific properties of marijuana also matter.(*) He says that THC has anti-inflammatory and immune suppressing properties, which may prevent lung irritation from developing into chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a devastating lung disorder frequently caused by tobacco smoking.

As for cancer, he says, “the THC in marijuana has well-defined anti-tumoral effects that have been shown to inhibit the growth of a variety of cancers in animal models and tissue culture systems, thus counteracting the potentially tumorigenic effects of the procarcinogens in marijuana smoke.”

It's almost like marijuana is somehow different than tobacco smoke... almost like they're 2 different compounds!! It's as if marijuana has some sort of well established anti tumor and anti inflammatory property that makes the science a bit more complicated than carcinogens equal cancer risk. Almost like you can't just assume things. Terribly unfair that, eh?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23802821

Tashkin in 2013, still can't find copd, or cancer risk. Mentions a few you might like to argue down near the end but they have problems you'll see when you read.

 

That's an article by a journalist about a scientific study, go read the study.

Pulling smoke into your lungs is harmful, it causes cancer. THC may help reduce that harm. Chug both cyanide and a chelating agent for cyanide and you may get lucky. Or you may not. Puff away, it's your lungs.



​

 

The article links to the study, I've read the study, the article is accurate, and above I've provided a followup study confirming the findings. You're welcome.

Thank you, I will, though as stated I prefer edibles for efficiencies sake.

 

You have read the study... and you think both smoke from tobacco and marijuana are single compounds? We know what the substances are in both. They are well characterized. We know the relative cancer risks of each of those components. The 50 most deadly ones come into your lungs each time you puff a joint.

The chemistry here is pretty simple. Free radicals chew up organic matter. Cancer is damaged cells. You can try and mitigate that damage or help the body get rid of damaged cells through various methods... but those radicals will still damage cells. As surely as wood burns.

But keep digging for a good reason to believe it's safe to puff away. Bob Kehoe probably has a grandson working hard to get you some new numbers.



​

 

Your only reading what you want to. I clearly stated I don't think recreational pot smokers should be prosecuted. You say we have long term results already yet it has only been legal for a year or 2. Comparing apples to oranges to fit your argument does not work with me. The fact is Colorado and others have not been in business long enough to have long term studies done. You want everything legal and I don't. Your know it all attitude won't change my mind and my better safe than sorry approach wont change yours. So we will have to agree to disagree.

From your immature posts I can tell you probably don't have children(at least ones who are older). One day that will change and hopefully so will your mindset. Good luck to ya CHAMP.

 

O my I do beg your pardon I wasn't clear enough. They CONTAIN different compounds. There is that better?
And again what else comes in? What is unique to Marijuana smoke that is not present in tobacco? Eh? What have the studies actually shown causes a different effect no matter how they tried to make the effect go away through data manipulation? Eh?

Go ahead and quote me where I said there were no carcinogens or that they didn't act upon the body. I'm not going to hold my breath though since I didn't say that and you'll be looking awhile. What I said was the studies, even with the data purposefully manipulated to try to minimize or otherwise account for the effect, show no correlative much less causative link between pot smoking and cancer or copd. If you'd bother to read the study I linked you'd find the basis for this claim supported by data. You'll also find that they don't claim smoking is magically good for you and nor have I, nor do they claim a lack of irritation and nor have I. Do stop attempting to put to me claims I have not made. It's rather annoying.

 

Marijuana smoke contains carcinogens. Inhaling those PAH radicals damages lungs. *shrug* Seems we've come to the same place.

The only difference is how we act on that information. I'll hold my breath around that crap, you are free to inhale. Your lungs, your life, your choice. Puff away.



​

 

You said let's wait and see since we have guinea pigs, likening this to a scientific experiment. Colorado would be the experiment group, the rest the control. Both are being tested, only one is being altered. Your callous view of real persons whose liberty and lives are at stake, disgusts me. The population at large are not your test subjects. I truly hope you're lying about having kids, because such an attitude towards people indicates an abandoned and malignant heart in my opinion.

So when I have kids I'll feel entitled to experiment with real persons whose lives and liberty are at stake? Ill refer to these people having their rights trampled upon as guinea pigs? Ill ignore data and simple logic? Odd, that's not how my father or his father or any of my relatives acted. Quite the opposite really. Having kids made them less callous towards others, more open to differing arguments especially where someone's life or liberty was at stake. Perhaps I come from a differing tradition of parenting and family (they're all conservative republicans, christians, hetero, many former military, non drug users... were yours different?) but my people or folk or whatever you want to call them, don't turn into mad scientists who want to experiment on the population when life and liberty are at stake, just because they've procreated.

 

Depending on the damage you are claiming for marijauana, perhaps we have. Irritation, and slight, reversible damage that can lead to bronchitis and related issues? Sure. If you're linking it to cancer or copd, then we've come full circle and you're on the wrong side of the data which is not my problem.

 

Full circle it is.



​

 

Just thinking about it gives me the munchies. After I post this I'm going to get the Cheetos...