Cannabis and Small Cell Lung Cancer: Case Report
- Thread starter spurr
- Start date
Good_KarmA
Member
^Of course he means smoking, but I have always wondered the same thing. It's one of the reasons my volcano has been packed away in the closet for a couple years. I just use my bong. I recall one time in particular when I had a cold but wanted a smoke.
I packed a vape bowl thinking it would be nice and easy. When I hit it I felt like someone was ripping my lungs out. My throat was on fire and I couldn't finish the volcano bag. When I loaded up a bong and took a small rip though, hardly anything. In fact It really made me realize how much harsher it was that just smoking. I don't understand it.
back on topic...
Your body is constantly developing cancer. It's when your immunities are lowered from eating garbage foods (meat) and being unhealthy that you cannot fight off that cancer and you develop tumors.
I believe smoking burning plant material increases your risk, but not anymore then smoking any other dried plant. And nowhere near as much as smoking things like tobacco.
I packed a vape bowl thinking it would be nice and easy. When I hit it I felt like someone was ripping my lungs out. My throat was on fire and I couldn't finish the volcano bag. When I loaded up a bong and took a small rip though, hardly anything. In fact It really made me realize how much harsher it was that just smoking. I don't understand it.
back on topic...
Your body is constantly developing cancer. It's when your immunities are lowered from eating garbage foods (meat) and being unhealthy that you cannot fight off that cancer and you develop tumors.
I believe smoking burning plant material increases your risk, but not anymore then smoking any other dried plant. And nowhere near as much as smoking things like tobacco.
Last edited:
AGBeer
Active member
It could be due to the concentrations of (X) actives that are released in higher concentrations when vaping, as opposed to being destroyed when combusting.
These said actives that may be less harmful, may also be more 'irritating' if you will.
When I cook something in the microwave, my taste buds are 'irritated' one way with the flavors. When I take the time to slow cook it (say in the oven or crock pot) that same said dish 'irritates' my taste buds in another fashion.
In other words, its one of the great mysteries of the vaping universe. You eventually get over it and learn to gauge your hits so you dont choke.
These said actives that may be less harmful, may also be more 'irritating' if you will.
When I cook something in the microwave, my taste buds are 'irritated' one way with the flavors. When I take the time to slow cook it (say in the oven or crock pot) that same said dish 'irritates' my taste buds in another fashion.
In other words, its one of the great mysteries of the vaping universe. You eventually get over it and learn to gauge your hits so you dont choke.
As well you should.
My wife came across a paper that "showed" that cannabis smoking cured brain tumors.
However, it was based on a population of two teens, whose tumors stopped growing or regressed after they had smoked cannabis for a period of time. Which could have happened regardless.
Proves nothing, and I was kind of surprised it was even published...
GanjaPharma
Member
there are enough cannabis only smokers who meet the criteria of "chronic users" for a proper study.
if someone put the word out in any big city (west coast anyway) they would find quite a few folks, who put no substance harsher than caffeine into their bodies...yet smoke large amounts of ganja. does anyone disagree with that?
I also wanted to point out the "crack baby" studies of the late 80's:
the same kind of statistical adjustment was made in studies that PROVED, women addicted to crack , gave birth to babies born addicted to crack.
turns out, they were addicted to nicotine. studies done with cigarette using moms that did not smoke crack showed their babies had the same symptoms as the "crack babies"
i use the crack baby example because it is a case of the government paying for studies that support their message, because its error was due to statistical manipulation, and because with hindsight (and distance from a personal topic like ganja) it should be obvious to everyone that QUALITY science is whats needed here.
if someone put the word out in any big city (west coast anyway) they would find quite a few folks, who put no substance harsher than caffeine into their bodies...yet smoke large amounts of ganja. does anyone disagree with that?
I also wanted to point out the "crack baby" studies of the late 80's:
the same kind of statistical adjustment was made in studies that PROVED, women addicted to crack , gave birth to babies born addicted to crack.
turns out, they were addicted to nicotine. studies done with cigarette using moms that did not smoke crack showed their babies had the same symptoms as the "crack babies"
i use the crack baby example because it is a case of the government paying for studies that support their message, because its error was due to statistical manipulation, and because with hindsight (and distance from a personal topic like ganja) it should be obvious to everyone that QUALITY science is whats needed here.
Good_KarmA
Member
I think I might have to look into that. I'm pretty into being healthy, the constant toking sometimes gets to my conscience.
I have had some nice cash offers of my volcano (it's mint), but I decided to hold on to it. If I were to part with it, What would you recommend?
Clown, while it may not be the most healthy activity in the universe smoking cannabis does NOT cause cancer.
There are thousands of daily smokers in this ICmag community. I read a shit ton of "I've been busted threads" but ZERO fucking "I've got lung cancer and never smoked tobacco" threads.
My supposition is that cannabis SMOKERS have lower rates of lung cancer than NON SMOKERS. The percentage of smokers in the USA and other parts of the world are scientifically significant. IF there was a link between cannabis only smoking and lung cancer WE in this community would be getting cancer all the fucking time. Where are the ICmag members that got cancer from smoking cannabis and NOT tobacco?
You grow with LED's
I like laughing at his non-sense as well but at least the clown does grow cannabis.
That is not proven to be factual, no matter how much anecdotal evidence you provide. Just like it hasn't been proven smoking (not vaping) raw cannabis does cause cancer.
I believe smoking raw cannabis over many years can't be good for you in terms of inhalation of dirty smoke. I can see why there is evince smoking raw cannabis can cause, or be part of the cause, of cancer. That is why I posted this thread, with peer-reviewed and published studies.
To those that question the studies ethics, it's more a question of the journal's ethics in allowing a study to be published. The journal editors/reviewers are the gate keepers, so sourcing studies in reputable and respected journals is key.
There is a strong misunderstanding about peer-reviewed and published scientific studies, in this thread. I'm not claiming studies should not be critically analyzed, but I am claiming some people in this thread are way too biased toward cannabis, to critically analyze studies in this thread.
FWIW, the first file I uploaded was not a study, and it was not peer-reviewed.
Yes brotha it is. Hey bro ya grow, that's more than I can say about most here. Looks like ya have some good smoke there. Sorry, once in a while the asshole in me comes breaking on through. Keep up the good work Clowd
Is eating bacon every day or smoking cannabis more dangerous? 1
Is eating bacon every day or smoking cannabis more dangerous? 1
I'm almost 100% sure the answer is "eating bacon every day".
As delicious as it can be...!
Speaking of bacon-
most of the "nitrate/nitrite free" bacon, which uses celery as a natural source of nitrates, actually has MORE nitrates than "traditional" bacon.
G
Godless
It hasn't been proven at all, and we all know that there is a huge interest on the part of the government to be able to prove it. To me, that means that the chance of it is not worth worrying about. Also, I seem to remember reading a few studies that were calling out possible anti-cancerous properties of cannaboids. Were those all BS? Certainly no more BS than this statistically insignificant study.
I smoked a pack a day from 12-22. I know exactly what that did to my immediate health (i.e. how my lungs felt, how often I'd catch colds, etc...). I started smoking weed (again) as a tool to help me quit ciggs. I know what weed does to my immediate health and it is 1/20th of what those fucking ciggs did. I have caught 2 colds in 20+ years of being cigg free and pot smoking. When I smoked ciggs, I had a cold >30% of my life.
Obviously, I'm talking about my experience and I should add that I am an endurance athlete (thanks to weed) and I think that making them work hard is good for keeping my lungs clean.
C
CLOWD11
As noted below, those tests dont invovle pulling bongs.
http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk....-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer
No, I meant what I said- this paper is about smoked cannabis:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336992
Most of these studies use subjects who are cannabis + tobacco users.
Therefore, when trying to use them to conclude that cannabis has a link to cancer, they are the scientific equivalent of dogshit.
Therefore, when trying to use them to conclude that cannabis has a link to cancer, they are the scientific equivalent of dogshit.
it wouldnt suprise me if it did cause cancer. smoke aint good for ya.but i aint quitting any time soon
You know this is a problem for some obviously but they aren't talking about the 4 deaths that happened with Deet, or the lead they put in lipstick or cadium they put in childrens toys that are only dangerous when they put them in their mouths or the nanoparticals that they have put in everything since the 1990's with no regulations! Lets get real here ffs.. they need to get a grip.. peace out Headband707
! Smoking Cannabis Does Not Cause Cancer !
sorry it's big but I had to get that out.
There isn't a single study out there that can prove a link.
This guy below wanted to prove 'smoking' cannabis does cause cancer...however he found the opposite.
I can bring many studies to the table but I'll start with just one....the biggest one of it's kind.
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.
They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.
"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."
Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.
While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.
The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.
sorry it's big but I had to get that out.
There isn't a single study out there that can prove a link.
This guy below wanted to prove 'smoking' cannabis does cause cancer...however he found the opposite.
I can bring many studies to the table but I'll start with just one....the biggest one of it's kind.
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.
They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.
"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."
Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.
While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.
The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.
