Calif. Regulators Find Pot Smoke Causes Cancer

[BobbleheadJed]

Since when did the feds start allowing research studies on cannabis in the US? Did the California regulators have permission to possess cannabis to study it? Why didn't the DEA raid the California research labs just like anyone else? Why the double standard?

But seriously, its probably true that if you smoke or inhale too much of almost anything it is not going to be good for you. However, this means medical cannabis packaging in Calif is going to have to come with big ol warnings on it. If only our ballots had warnings on them also.

The biggest polluter in the United States is.......... the federal government. And its not even close.

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

Bubble, mainly because there was no research lab and no experiments.

what the goverment did was look through 30 papers and scan them as if they were a buffet to find anything that they could mis-quote and spit as fact.

 

[Jeff Lebowski]

The uneducated hacks who wrote this shit on the CA gov website need to go back to school. The first fucking rule in academic writing is to cite your sources.
As you can see, the only citation of evidence is in reference to what laws they are amending. The publisher did not source the scientific studies, or even link to a website with information regarding such said information. As wannabe jeff said above, why didn't the DEA bust this lab? If they did have such evidence, where did it come from? It is complete and utter bullshit. It doesn't change anything but makes challenges for the opposition to prove their statements.

On a side note, fuck smoking! I've lost a few family members to lung cancer, with all of them being smokers, including weed. Fuck smoke! Vape through a water filter and you're golden.

GMT, can you elaborate on your vodka and water statement? Sounds fucking cool or just bullshit. Either way I excited to find out.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposition 65
Marijuana Smoke Listed Effective June 19, 2009 As Known To The State Of California To Cause Cancer
[06/19/09]

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California Environmental Protection Agency is adding marijuana smoke to the Proposition 65 list1, effective June 19, 2009.

Marijuana smoke was considered by the Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) of the OEHHA Science Advisory Board2 at a public meeting held on May 29, 2009. The CIC determined that marijuana smoke was clearly shown, through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles, to cause cancer. Consequently, marijuana smoke is being added to the Proposition 65 list, pursuant to Title 27, California Code of Regulations, section 25305(a)(1) (formerly Title 22, California Code of Regulations, section 12305(a)(1)).

A complete, updated chemical list is published elsewhere in this issue of the California Regulatory Notice Register.

In summary, marijuana smoke is being listed under Proposition 65 as known to the State to cause cancer:
Chemical

CAS No.

Toxicological Endpoint

Listing Mechanism

Marijuana smoke


---


Cancer


State’s Qualified Experts

A complete, updated Proposition 65 list is available for download as a pdf file here.

If you would like to sort the list by CAS number or date, please download the list as a Excel, hyphenated and with the associated Safe Harbor Levels here. You can then sort the list by date, CAS number or chemical name using MS Excel.

1 Health and Safety Code section 25249.5 et seq., Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986,

2Health and Safety Code section 25249.8(b) and Title 27, Cal Code of Regs., section 25302 et seq.

 

[bens lab]

Our tutor at university informed us that cancer was genetic and if it's in your family you will probably get it regardless of whether you smoke or not.

Smoking will increase your chances i'm sure, but i'm more scared about emphysema and heart disease to be honest.

 

[movingtocally]

I don't have the determination in me needed to correct all of these remarkably dumb comments, but I did have the determination to read the abstract and a bunch of wiki links. The worst part is that it doesn't really seem to indicate much of what the article tries to imply, or most of the things you idiots are assuming about it.

Keep in mind, this is just what I think it's saying, based only on the abstract:
Acetaldehyde is a chemical in cigarette and pot smoke(dunno how much is in them) that can bond to certain spots on DNA, which can become cancerous. Exposing this chemical, via pot smoke, to calf thymus DNA(yes, seriously) shows a direct increase of these bonds, relative to the amount of smoke. I guess that'd be the bad news. The good news is that they found no difference in the number of these bonds in the lung DNA of smokers and nonsmokers. The bad news there is that there were only 4 of each subject.

Really, all I see in this study is the raising of some interesting questions and potential directions, nothing big or profound. We know this stuff causes cancer, we know the mechanism of bonding to DNA, and we've seen it happenDNA(we have to assume there are many other studies showing this, though). If we can get better sampling and testing, we can find out whether or not it happens to smokers, and both of those possibilities are interesting in their own ways.

 

[danut]

I don't have the determination in me needed to correct all of these remarkably dumb comments, but I did have the determination to read the abstract and a bunch of wiki links. The worst part is that it doesn't really seem to indicate much of what the article tries to imply, or most of the things you idiots are assuming about it.

Keep in mind, this is just what I think it's saying, based only on the abstract:
Acetaldehyde is a chemical in cigarette and pot smoke(dunno how much is in them) that can bond to certain spots on DNA, which can become cancerous. Exposing this chemical, via pot smoke, to calf thymus DNA(yes, seriously) shows a direct increase of these bonds, relative to the amount of smoke. I guess that'd be the bad news. The good news is that they found no difference in the number of these bonds in the lung DNA of smokers and nonsmokers. The bad news there is that there were only 4 of each subject.

Really, all I see in this study is the raising of some interesting questions and potential directions, nothing big or profound. We know this stuff causes cancer, we know the mechanism of bonding to DNA, and we've seen it happenDNA(we have to assume there are many other studies showing this, though). If we can get better sampling and testing, we can find out whether or not it happens to smokers, and both of those possibilities are interesting in their own ways.

Have you read the Tashkin report?

Cannabinoids kill cancer cells.

This simple fact was first discovered in 1974. The testing was done against lung and breast cancers.

 

[dongle69]

Have you read the Tashkin report?
Cannabinoids kill cancer cells.
This simple fact was first discovered in 1974. The testing was done against lung and breast cancers.

Not such a simple fact.
Read beyond the little google snippets.
Tashkin said that he still believes marijuana is harmful.
He said it causes lesions in the lungs.
I've been smoking quite a bit of weed since about 1985 and I had breast cancer.
Weed did nothing for the cancer but it helped me deal with the chemo.
We shouldn't propagandize on either side of the issue.
Smoke is harmful, cancer causing or not.
Any kind of smoke.

 

[Blue Dot]

Smoking will increase your chances i'm sure, but i'm more scared about emphysema and heart disease to be honest.

MJ has vasodilators in it that help negate some of the negative effects of "smoke" on the arteries, unlike cigarettes, which have no vasodilators.
Nicotine, like caffeine, is actually a potent vasoconstrictor, which is a contributor for the much higher incidence of heart disease in cigs, due to secondary hypertension (high blood pressure).

 

[NorCalFor20]

are these the same people that made carls jr put up a sign in there restruant saying that there FOOD and DRINKS cause cancer!?

 

[devilgoob]

hey peeps, calm down.

notice nowhere it says that the smoke causes cancer, it only states marijuana smoke contains carcinogenic substances. They did not test users. How much toxicity do these chemicals hold, especially with the anti-tumoral and programmed cell death THC, CBD and probably other cannabinoids hold?

OH FUCK, my sprayed down vegetables will cause me cancer because of small amounts of carcinogenic substances in it!!!

It's a joke, I'd like to see them reason against me. Politics =/= science, it seems they like to augment their egos and their perfect lives with any study that can be misconstrued as being in their favor.

EDIT@ anyone just quoting theory and not an actual marijuana study AKA practice.

 

[Harpo]

Political propaganda

Political propaganda

Our lungs weren't designed for smoke. If you smoke anything, you aren't as healthy as you could be.
That being said,
There have been many studies through the years looking for anything bad they can be used to discriminate against marijuana users.
Researchers have published studies in which they carefully examined the health and history of tens of thousands of real life, long time smokers in Jamaica and India.
They were studied for the reason that these populations use large amounts of pot all their lives and have done so for many generations.
Researchers have never been able to identify cancers or any other disease that can be attributed to using marijuana in populations that use marijuana.

 

[justalilrowdy]

It makes me sick to see the government news agencies (like CNN) gearing up for a propaganda war against marijuana but it sure looks to be the direction its going... Obama isnt going to push the conventional drug war tactics but is moving it in an old, ugly and untrue propaganda direction... We all know the truth and it will prevail but I cant even stand to watch such bullshit shows as the news channels have been blowing up recently.
Our Local Lake County Newspaper..

State regulators add marijuana smoke to list of carcinogens
Written by Lake County News Reports
Saturday, 20 June 2009

SACRAMENTO – State officials announced Friday that they're adding marijuana smoke to the list of items known to cause cancer.
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California Environmental Protection Agency said they're adding marijuana smoke to the Proposition 65 list. The listing was effective as of Friday.
Marijuana smoke was considered by the Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) of the OEHHA Science Advisory Board at a public meeting held on May 29.

The CIC determined that marijuana smoke was clearly shown, through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles, to cause cancer.

Consequently, marijuana smoke is being added to the Proposition 65 list, pursuant to Title 27, California Code of Regulations, section 25305(a)(1) (formerly Title 22, California Code of Regulations, section 12305(a)(1)).

Items on the 18-page list include tobacco products, lead, hexavalent chromium, benzene and sulfuric acid, along with numerous other chemicals.
Also listed: Aspirin.

 

[danut]

Not such a simple fact.
Read beyond the little google snippets.
Tashkin said that he still believes marijuana is harmful.
He said it causes lesions in the lungs.
I've been smoking quite a bit of weed since about 1985 and I had breast cancer.
Weed did nothing for the cancer but it helped me deal with the chemo.
We shouldn't propagandize on either side of the issue.
Smoke is harmful, cancer causing or not.
Any kind of smoke.

Some studies have shown that the anti cancer properties of cannabinoids are dose dependent.

1. dosage These studies seem, to me, to indicate a threshold level of about 1000 mg of cannabinoids per day.
2. duration. studies in mice, reported just a few weeks ago, had a series which lasted 26 days. Out in the field, the program runs for 60 to 90 days.
3. administration. Smoking seems to be the least effective method of administration if the target is to attack the cancer itself. When eaten, there are different body functions involved that cause changes in the cannabiniods. The result is a new set of cannabinoids that the smoker does not get.

The Rick Simpson program starts out a patient with about 50mg-75mg of cannabinoids four times per day. Then ramps up in dosage until the patient is consuming about 1000mg per day.

I understand that you had cancer. And that you smoke marijuana.
A joint would have ..
say 10% THC herb and 1/10 gram for a joint. That would be 10mg in that joint. About 1% of the target dosage.

 

[Blue Dot]

Our lungs weren't designed for smoke.

I beg to differ.

Actually I have my own pet theory that are lungs are specifically designed for smoke.

From the time man first appeared on earth, for eons after that, there was one single quest that kept the human species alive, the quest for fire.

Without fire and the heat, light and ability to "cook" game, man would have simply not survived.

Many of the tribes either lived in caves or tents (for protection from predators) and they almost always had some sort of fire going (because it was damn hard to start a new one if it went out) so for eons man evolved in parallel with fire smoke in the proximate vicinity. I believe the lungs evolved mechanisms to cope with this.

It's also the reason I believe people seek out smoke today, whether in cigs, cigars or joints.

I believe there are atavistic genes in the human body (kinda like the apendix if you will) that are leftover from that long gone era and that they are active in some people and these people are the smokers of the world.

 

[lordbudly]

that is an actual well thought out theory, aint seen one of those thingys in a long time yes sir

 

[nnnnghhhhgnnngh]

Blue Dot has a good point I think. One theory of human advancement and my favorite stresses that cooking was a pivotal skill to gain for primitives. Cooked meat is a better fuel for the body since it is easier to digest. Cooking would promote cooperation, cleanliness, generally better conditions by the fire and so it makes sense better lungs would be superior in smoke-filled caves where nobody invented ventilation yet.

 

[dongle69]

Y'all are too funny!

 

[meduser180056]

I agree that smoking anything could be a cause for cancer. I think a lot of heavy marijuana smokers are in denial about how much tar is in their lungs. Hot smoke is not good for your lungs it damages the little scilia thingies in your lungs and those are really important for the health of your lungs. They clean them up. I stopped smoking and now I only vaporize thru water filtered bongs. When I stopped smoking I was coughing up black shit for months. I smoked heavily thru waterpipes and bubblers for 15 years. I'm a lot healthier since I stopped. Any black nasty tar buildup on your pipes and bongs is also in your lungs accept it! haha
^^^
That being said I don't know why they are making a big story out of it. Definetly an attack against the MMJ movement.

As far as the sitting by the fire inhaling smoke goes it's not like taking a hit directly from a pipe. Stick a tube up to the fire smoke and inhale that for awhile and see how sick you get... haha jk don't do it.

 

[meduser180056]

Fire creates a lot of carcinogens. Shit if you heat up olive oil too much it creates carcinogens. So the more you heat up your herb the more potentially cancer causing chemicals are released, benzine for instance starts being released around 400degrees faranheit. Flame from a lighter is around 1200 degrees faranheit. So lighting it on fire is going to release the most carcinogens from it and create thick tar.

I was a heavy smoker and the whole volcano and other vaporiser setups don't really do it for me plus if there is no water filtration there is still hot smoke which I avoid at all costs. I like to use around 900degrees to melt my hash without actually setting it on fire. This gives me the smoothest rips from my bong and leaves no tar residue just a slight yellowish goo residue. Add to that the fact that the smokes goes thru three water chambers filled with refrigerated water and a total of 50 diffusion slits and ice on top well lets just say it's a smooth fucking rip!

 

[Blue Dot]

As far as the sitting by the fire inhaling smoke goes it's not like taking a hit directly from a pipe. Stick a tube up to the fire smoke and inhale that for awhile and see how sick you get... haha jk don't do it.

Don't do it? That's what homo sapiens and Neandertals basically had to do for thousands, wait, 100,000's of years, wait, scratch that, MILLIONS of years (People, at least in the form of homo sapiens and Neandertals have been around a REALLY long time).

Imagine your a caveman and that the only thing that keeps you alive is the fire inside your cave, hut, tepee (tipi), etc.

Every night you must keep it going. Ventilation systems weren't exactly perfected yet.

You get the idea, you'd be breathing an awful lot of second hand smoke if not many wiffs of first hand smoke just from being in the proximity to the fire every night, all night, for MILLONS of years.

You can bet the homo sapien lungs evolved some defense mechanisms to negate some of the harmful effect of the smoke.