BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Twelfthroot
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:40 am UTC
Contact:

BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Twelfthroot » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:05 pm UTC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18283689

Regarding lung cancer:
And 88% incorrectly thought tobacco cigarettes were more harmful than cannabis ones - when the risk of lung cancer is actually 20 times higher. [...] smoking one cannabis cigarette increases the chances of developing lung cancer by as much as an entire packet of 20 tobacco cigarettes, the BLF warned.


I thought this was a pretty concerning and eye-opening statistic, since it's both contrary to the evidence I was aware of and would mean smoking marijuana is incredibly dangerous. But when I tried to find their source (a report from the British Lung Foundation) all I saw is the familiar finding that marijuana cigarettes typically contain twenty times the concentration of carcinogenic compounds as tobacco cigarettes, without any evidence that this actually leads to higher cancer rates. And one can readily find large studies explicitly showing no such correlation.

The study also mentions correlations of smoking with acute bronchitis, which seems believable enough -- I'd imagine lighting things on fire and inhaling them is bad for your lungs -- but the info on the BLF website seems to be assuming a consumption rate of 3-4 joints a day, which I imagine (citation?) is well more than the majority of users smoke.

The article does mention at the very end that a marijuana advocate considered the study "misleading, inaccurate and dangerously irresponsible", but to me this hardly redeems the journalist's integrity for claiming the supposed risks of marijuana as fact. Reefer-madness fearmongering is nothing new (and I've seen plenty of pro-herb advocates making just as absurdly unsupported claims in the opposite direction), but I was bothered to see such a dramatic claim presented as fact by the BBC. Thoughts?

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:26 pm UTC

Isn't marijuana typically not filtered when smoked whereas tobacco typically is? I can imagine this having a pretty big effect if so...

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:34 pm UTC

Quite sure just about every stoner I met is also a smoker, so does the data account for that? And how large are the cannibettes (marijuana cigarettes) they are comparing? And to what cigarette brand as the base?

User avatar
Negated
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:31 am UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Negated » Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:05 pm UTC

The article is more about the lack of awareness of harmful effects of smoking marijuana than whether smoking marijuana is truly 20 times more harmful than a cigarette. I cannot find a link in the article that leads me to the actual study where the 20x more harmful claim originates. So it appears to be taking BLF's claims as true, at least implicitly. Then at the end it briefly mentions that a marijuana advocate group objects the finding, without actually pinpointing what are actually misleading. It is confusing and poorly-written, not of the quality I expect from BBC.

Twelfthroot
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:40 am UTC
Contact:

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Twelfthroot » Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Yeah, I agree that the point of the article is that many people underestimate the harm of smoking marijuana, but rather than claiming this is a problem because smoking (anything) is harmful for your lungs, they're claiming these people are wrong for thinking that smoking marijuana is less harmful than smoking tobacco, asserting that in fact it's much more dangerous, and backing it up with little or no data. It's not terribly surprising, but I was bothered to find it in a news source I relatively trust.

Since they don't explicitly cite their source, I don't know whether it accounts for coincident effects of tobacco. (I assume they're using the information from the British Lung Foundation, but the info on the BLF website doesn't support their claims.) As somebody who uses marijuana but not tobacco, I'm particularly interested in actual research regarding my health risk, but I've yet to find any study claiming that I'm at high risk for lung cancer, much less 20x that of a tobacco smoker. I hadn't considered that there might not exist enough non-tobacco-using marijuana users to establish a statistically significant connection, but I can't imagine such people are that uncommon.

Ceron
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:27 am UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Ceron » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:33 am UTC

I'd be much more interested in the article if they compared cancer rates between the average marijuana user and average tobacco user. Stating marijuana cigarettes are packed with twenty times that good ol' fashion cancer goodness isn't useful (and fairly alarmist), especially when the smoking habits of the two groups differ by so much.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Qaanol » Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:01 am UTC

I have long held the position that the smoking of anything—marijuana, tobacco, etc.—done in public, and also in private homes and businesses where children go, should be outlawed on grounds of the carcinogenic second-hand smoke.

Conversely, imbibing marijuana, tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, and other drugs should be completely legal. So, if you want to make brownies, or wear a patch, or drink a concoction, that is your prerogative. But if you spew cancer-causing particles into the air that other people breath, you are criminal.
wee free kings

iamspen
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby iamspen » Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:31 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:I have long held the position that the smoking of anything—marijuana, tobacco, etc.—done in public, and also in private homes and businesses where children go, should be outlawed on grounds of the carcinogenic second-hand smoke.


Better not drive a car or have a backyard fire or have a barbeque...

User avatar
KestrelLowing
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:57 pm UTC
Location: Michigan

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby KestrelLowing » Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:26 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:
Qaanol wrote:I have long held the position that the smoking of anything—marijuana, tobacco, etc.—done in public, and also in private homes and businesses where children go, should be outlawed on grounds of the carcinogenic second-hand smoke.


Better not drive a car or have a backyard fire or have a barbeque...


That is a point - my brother's doctor actually asked my brother if he was a smoker. He's not, but he was working at a camp that summer and often had the task of setting and tending to all the campfires if the campers were not old enough to do it themselves. But I guess the big thing is that BBQ's etc. are fairly limited and while driving a car isn't, it's often the only way of getting around in a somewhat timely manner in USian cities. Smoking, on the other hand, tends to be frequent and isn't necessary.

User avatar
Plasma Man
Posts: 2035
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:27 am UTC
Location: Northampton, Northampton, Northampton middle England.

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Plasma Man » Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:31 pm UTC

From the report:
Cannabis smoke has up to twice the concentration of cancer-causing polyaromatic hydrocarbons as tobacco smoke.
In addition, people tend to inhale higher concentrations of cancer-causing components when smoking cannabis because they tend to smoke the cigarettes without filters and to a smaller butt size than tobacco cigarettes. Cannabis smokers also inhale more deeply and hold their breath for longer, so carcinogenic products deposit in the lower respiratory tract. Taken together, this evidence forms a legitimate rationale that smoking cannabis may have greater potential to cause lung cancer than smoking tobacco.
As I suspected, it seems that most of the difference comes from the different smoking methods. It's not good that the BBC has simplistically reported this as cannabis being 20 times more harmful. I suppose "smoke what you want, it's how you smoke it that has the biggest affect on your lung cancer risk" wouldn't be as newsworthy. It might be related to their being a fairly big public awareness campaign running about lung cancer as well.
Please note that despite the lovely avatar Sungura gave me, I am not a medical doctor.

Possibly my proudest moment on the fora.

iamspen
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby iamspen » Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:38 pm UTC

Frequent, yes, but a puff of secondhand smoke in a park isn't detrimental to your health at all. A crowded bar full of smoke in which you spend 3-4 hours a week? Yeah, that isn't good for you. My point is, if releasing carcinogens and toxins into the atmosphere is a criminal act, the entirely of humanity would have to be thrown in jail. Puffing the occassional cigarette is at the lowest end of the totem pole as far as that is concerned. That's not to say, of course, smoking should be encouraged or even shouldn't be discouraged, but secondhand smoke has been so overly demonized nowadays that warnings against it have become almost caricature.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby nitePhyyre » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:17 pm UTC

Ceron wrote:I'd be much more interested in the article if they compared cancer rates between the average marijuana user and average tobacco user. Stating marijuana cigarettes are packed with twenty times that good ol' fashion cancer goodness isn't useful (and fairly alarmist), especially when the smoking habits of the two groups differ by so much.
A 2006 study found that lifetime use of cannabis was not positively associated with cancers of the lung or aerodigestive tract, and further noted that certain moderate users of the drug experienced a reduced cancer risk compared to non-using controls. ie: Moderate pot users have less lung cancer than non-smokers.

Additionally, 10 to 20 years of marijuana use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNDCC).here

A recent Harvard study showed that marijuana cuts lung cancer tumor growth in half.

Oddly enough however, long-term use of cannabis to an increased risk of 70 percent for testicular cancer (The risk of cancer is increased from 0.4% to roughly 0.6%).here

Plasma Man wrote:
Cannabis smoke has up to twice the concentration of cancer-causing polyaromatic hydrocarbons as tobacco smoke. In addition, people tend to inhale higher concentrations of cancer-causing components when smoking cannabis because they tend to smoke the cigarettes without filters and to a smaller butt size than tobacco cigarettes. Cannabis smokers also inhale more deeply and hold their breath for longer, so carcinogenic products deposit in the lower respiratory tract. Taken together, this evidence forms a legitimate rationale that smoking cannabis may have greater potential to cause lung cancer than smoking tobacco.
Who cares about data that explicitly proves me blatantly wrong when I can form a 'legitimate' 'rationale'???

Qaanol wrote:But if you spew cancer-causing particles into the air that other people breath, you are criminal.
So by extension, spewing cancer preventing chemicals into the air makes me a superhero, amirite?
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:24 pm UTC

Plasma Man wrote:As I suspected, it seems that most of the difference comes from the different smoking methods.

Would lack of filters/larger butts (teehee larger butts) really fall under different smoking methods? To me that seems to be more a property of marijuana being illegal. As far as I know, you can't really roll your own with filters in them. To me, this increase in risk seems born mostly from the fact that it's illegal.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Ormurinn » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:30 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Plasma Man wrote:As I suspected, it seems that most of the difference comes from the different smoking methods.

Would lack of filters/larger butts (teehee larger butts) really fall under different smoking methods? To me that seems to be more a property of marijuana being illegal. As far as I know, you can't really roll your own with filters in them. To me, this increase in risk seems born mostly from the fact that it's illegal.


http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keyw ... hqxtgale_b

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Packets-Filter- ... B002UO5IQU

There you go - for a little over a fiver all told. a couple oz of weed will put you out a lot more than that.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

Arrian
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:15 am UTC
Location: Minnesota

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Arrian » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:36 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Plasma Man wrote:As I suspected, it seems that most of the difference comes from the different smoking methods.

Would lack of filters/larger butts (teehee larger butts) really fall under different smoking methods? To me that seems to be more a property of marijuana being illegal. As far as I know, you can't really roll your own with filters in them. To me, this increase in risk seems born mostly from the fact that it's illegal.


You can get filters to roll into hand rolled cigarettes, I don't see any reason you couldn't use those for joints. They'd be Big joints, but that's not exactly a negative. >.>

User avatar
jakovasaur
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby jakovasaur » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:41 pm UTC

It's pretty tough to get high by smoking through a cigarette filter.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby lutzj » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:44 pm UTC

jakovasaur wrote:It's pretty tough to get high off of smoking through a cigarette filter.


Could this be because cigarette filters are optimized for tobacco? It might (might not) be possible to create a filter that would block more carcinogens and/or admit more active ingredients from marijuana.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

Arrian
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:15 am UTC
Location: Minnesota

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Arrian » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:47 pm UTC

jakovasaur wrote:It's pretty tough to get high by smoking through a cigarette filter.


You learn something new every day.

lutzj wrote:Could this be because cigarette filters are optimized for tobacco? It might (might not) be possible to create a filter that would block more carcinogens and/or admit more active ingredients from marijuana.


Like water? I wonder if it has any effect on either tobacco or marijuana smoke aside from cooling it. I've been to a hooka bar and the smoke there was much smoother than from a cigarette, but I don't know if that's the water or the tobacco used.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:51 pm UTC

Well, my ignorance of anything that involves the practice of smoking has struck again. I had thought filters would have been harder to include. I'm curious at the possibility for high-optimized filters though -- if that was possible, than it'd still be a factor of it being illegal. If not, then I guess my original post would seem to have little (any?) merit.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Ormurinn » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:52 pm UTC

Arrian wrote:
jakovasaur wrote:It's pretty tough to get high by smoking through a cigarette filter.


You learn something new every day.

lutzj wrote:Could this be because cigarette filters are optimized for tobacco? It might (might not) be possible to create a filter that would block more carcinogens and/or admit more active ingredients from marijuana.


Like water? I wonder if it has any effect on either tobacco or marijuana smoke aside from cooling it. I've been to a hooka bar and the smoke there was much smoother than from a cigarette, but I don't know if that's the water or the tobacco used.


same here wrt getting high through a filter.

as for the hookah, its probably a bit of both - hookah tobacco tends to be damp and full of fruit if i remember correctly.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Zamfir » Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:05 pm UTC

At least in school they taught us that water pipes are deceptive. They feel smooth because the smoke is cooled, but the smoke actually contains (roughly) the same ingredients as other forms of tobacco smoke (or marihuana smoke). And the cooler smoke makes you inhale deeper and longer, with the associated risks.

So there's little reason to assume that water pipes are helathier or less addictive than other forms of smoking, at least when compared per event.

The difficulty comes with life-time comparisons. Cigarettes are such killers partially because cigarette smokers smoke a lot. Every day, throughout the day, everywhere, and the habit itself becomes addictive. Water pipes are more cumbersome, and that alone is probably a health benefit.

I think a similar agument applies to marihuana: there is little reason to believe it is healthy, but very few people turn marihuana smoking into a similarly constant habit as cigarette smoking.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby nitePhyyre » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:06 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:At least in school they taught us that water pipes are deceptive. They feel smooth because the smoke is cooled, but the smoke actually contains (roughly) the same ingredients as other forms of tobacco smoke (or marihuana smoke). And the cooler smoke makes you inhale deeper and longer, with the associated risks.

So there's little reason to assume that water pipes are helathier or less addictive than other forms of smoking, at least when compared per event.
Bong water starts to smell really damn bad after not too many uses. If there are any water soluble chemicals in the smoke some of them would stay in the water, thus making the smoke cleaner? I don't know if any of the by products are water soluble though.

lutzj wrote:
jakovasaur wrote:It's pretty tough to get high off of smoking through a cigarette filter.
Could this be because cigarette filters are optimized for tobacco? It might (might not) be possible to create a filter that would block more carcinogens and/or admit more active ingredients from marijuana.
My guess is that the filters are designed to filter out tar. THC is a thick, sticky, almost tar-like substance.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Twelfthroot
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:40 am UTC
Contact:

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Twelfthroot » Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:24 pm UTC

If reputable, this literature review suggests that water filtration may reliably remove compounds from cannabis smoke that are toxic to good alveolar bacteria. Subjectively, water filtering definitely makes the smoke more pleasant to inhale, and I've never noticed a significant difference in the high from water-filtered smoke -- though as mentioned, one does tend to inhale more of cooler smoke. It's hard to say whether that would balance or negate any benefits of filtered toxins (or resp. losses of filtered active ingredients).

Thanks for the links, nitePhyyre. It's good to see that information so well backed up. To me it almost seemed too good to be true -- "Yeah, it's full of cancer, but it doesn't give it to you, you know?"

Ah well. If the BBC reported valid scientific information regarding cannabis it's not like that would likely impact how politicians would feel about legalization. Would be nice to not play into the social stigma though.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Qaanol » Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:48 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:
Qaanol wrote:I have long held the position that the smoking of anything—marijuana, tobacco, etc.—done in public, and also in private homes and businesses where children go, should be outlawed on grounds of the carcinogenic second-hand smoke.


Better not drive a car or have a backyard fire or have a barbeque...

Cars are already subject to emissions regulations, and I would support stronger regulations, including zero-emissions for carcinogens.

Backyard barbecues are another matter, and I agree the government should not in general prevent people from having fires on their own property. Nonetheless, in circumstances where such cooking fires are exposing children, and adults who have not consented, to cancer-causing particles in the air, I believe we all have a vested interest in keeping the harm to a minimum. Hence, cookout grills should be subject to emissions restrictions, certainly in cities and dense neighborhoods where the fumes affect many other people.

Furthermore, I hold the position that industrial processes, including power plants and mineral exploration, should be held to even more stringent standards than private citizens. For instance, I would fully support a zero-toxicity standard for emissions into water and air from all corporate activity. That means no carcinogens, no PCBs, no neonicotinoids, and so forth.
wee free kings

iamspen
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby iamspen » Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:02 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:Cars are already subject to emissions regulations, and I would support stronger regulations, including zero-emissions for carcinogens.

Backyard barbecues are another matter, and I agree the government should not in general prevent people from having fires on their own property. Nonetheless, in circumstances where such cooking fires are exposing children, and adults who have not consented, to cancer-causing particles in the air, I believe we all have a vested interest in keeping the harm to a minimum. Hence, cookout grills should be subject to emissions restrictions, certainly in cities and dense neighborhoods where the fumes affect many other people.

Furthermore, I hold the position that industrial processes, including power plants and mineral exploration, should be held to even more stringent standards than private citizens. For instance, I would fully support a zero-toxicity standard for emissions into water and air from all corporate activity. That means no carcinogens, no PCBs, no neonicotinoids, and so forth.


I guess in a perfect world, but we don't live in a perfect world and none of that is feasible. Fire requires burning stuff, and it's awfully hard to change that. And if I want to use fire to cook my burgers, I'm not going to tell my kids to go inside 'cause CANCER! And I get that we need to restrict the amount of junk we put in the air, because in sufficient quantities, that junk leads to dead people, but walking past a guy smoking a cig isn't any more harmful than having a campfire or cooking a burger over charcoal, and is probably actually less harmful than those things.

Edit: Quote fail.

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby AvatarIII » Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:58 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:
Arrian wrote:
jakovasaur wrote:It's pretty tough to get high by smoking through a cigarette filter.


You learn something new every day.

lutzj wrote:Could this be because cigarette filters are optimized for tobacco? It might (might not) be possible to create a filter that would block more carcinogens and/or admit more active ingredients from marijuana.


Like water? I wonder if it has any effect on either tobacco or marijuana smoke aside from cooling it. I've been to a hooka bar and the smoke there was much smoother than from a cigarette, but I don't know if that's the water or the tobacco used.


same here wrt getting high through a filter.

as for the hookah, its probably a bit of both - hookah tobacco tends to be damp and full of fruit if I remember correctly.


apparently smoking hookah for 1 hour is the equivalent of smoking 100 cigarettes.... (sorry for daily mail link :( )
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... ettes.html

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Jave D » Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:55 am UTC

KestrelLowing wrote:
iamspen wrote:
Qaanol wrote:I have long held the position that the smoking of anything—marijuana, tobacco, etc.—done in public, and also in private homes and businesses where children go, should be outlawed on grounds of the carcinogenic second-hand smoke.


Better not drive a car or have a backyard fire or have a barbeque...


That is a point - my brother's doctor actually asked my brother if he was a smoker. He's not, but he was working at a camp that summer and often had the task of setting and tending to all the campfires if the campers were not old enough to do it themselves. But I guess the big thing is that BBQ's etc. are fairly limited and while driving a car isn't, it's often the only way of getting around in a somewhat timely manner in USian cities. Smoking, on the other hand, tends to be frequent and isn't necessary.


I find the "driving a car is necessary" argument extremely non-compelling. First, there are such things as public transportation, bicycles, even carpooling to minimize the health and environmental impact - yet the vast majority of drivers seem (this is anecdotal, of course) to have and use their own car and tend to drive just about anywhere more than, say, a block away. Third and mostly - is the argument that "hey, this thing is really dangerous and doing it can cause other people to get fucking CANCER" really modified by "but hey, you totally have to do it, so the cancer's totally fine after all nevermind!"?

It's one thing to argue something is dangerous, a health hazard - another to argue that it is by some nebulous definition 'unnecessary.' Believe me, to someone addicted to smoking (or to any substance), that cigarette is very necessary too! That really shouldn't have any impact on whether it is a) dangerous to others and b) should therefore not be done. If something is dangerous to others, it shouldn't be done period; and if we're going to accept something dangerous to others as 'necessary' thus acceptable the argument becomes open to other exceptions; like the idea that personal freedom to buy and use cigarettes is also necessary.

Personally, my main issue with the 'smoking cigarettes around people is a crime' notion is the rather self-righteous indignant blindness about it. People can be walking down a city street filled with cars putting out all sorts of harmful and potentially harmful chemicals, yet they don't howl about how the drivers are killing them. Cigarette smokers in particular seem to be unfairly vilified. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of carcinogens. But emissions regulations are a bit to me like the idea of filters on cigarettes, and just about as easy to get around anyway; at least they are in the US.

I mean let's talk comparisons - how does the average cigarette smoker's number of cigarettes and quantity of carcinogens output into the air per hour compare with say, the average automobile's exhaust fumes for an hour's use? Are there numbers here on this that might prove enlightening to all the criminal car owners out there who are not yet made by society to feel as appropriately criminal as tobacco smokers?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby sardia » Wed Jun 20, 2012 3:06 am UTC

Automobiles exhaust water, carbondioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides.
Spoiler:
The Real World Chemistry

An engine does not really burn gasoline under ideal conditions. Each piston performs a power stroke hundreds of times per minute, so there is very little time in each ignition cycle for the fuel to burn. Atmospheric nitrogen is burned with the fuel-air mixture, and gasoline usually contains impurities such as sulfur. This results in a more complex chemistry for the car exhaust. Car exhaust usually contains carbon dioxide, water, carbon monoxide, and various nitrogen or sulfur oxides. The first two components are harmless. The last two can cause serious problems.

Dangerous Gasses

The pollutants in car exhaust, carbon monoxide and nitrogen and sulfur oxides, impact us in different ways. Carbon monoxide gas is what makes car exhaust so dangerous. Even if it's inhaled in moderate doses it can cause death. Nitrogen and sulfur oxides combine with other gasses in the atmosphere to form acid rain.

Cleaning up the Exhaust

To ameliorate the damage that exhaust pollutants can cause, modern cars are equipped with a catalytic converter. This device "scrubs" the exhaust by forcing the gasses into a secondary series of chemical reactions before they are released into the atmosphere. The carbon monoxide is forced to complete its reaction with the air, to become carbon dioxide. Nitrogen and sulfur oxides are converted into less damaging compounds, and any unburned hyrdocarbons are converted into carbon dioxide and water. It's not a perfect system, but it works reasonably well.

If cigarettes emitted those chemicals and then ran it through a catalytic converter, I'd be ok with it. Don't forget to bring it to the emission control facility every year.

Antimon
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Antimon » Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:36 pm UTC

I'm curious about how studies on marijuana are done, so that whatever data you get can be compared to that on smoking nicotine. Since cannabis etc is illegal in a lot of places, could that pose problems when doing studies on this topic?

Ceron
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:27 am UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Ceron » Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:42 pm UTC

Antimon wrote:I'm curious about how studies on marijuana are done, so that whatever data you get can be compared to that on smoking nicotine. Since cannabis etc is illegal in a lot of places, could that pose problems when doing studies on this topic?


You'd either have to get government permission (which in some places is probably quite hard, and requires a lot of oversight) or do the study completely underground. Since it's an official-sounding British organization that did the study, I'd imagine it's the former.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Qaanol » Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:32 pm UTC

It has recently come to my attention that numerous past studies have shown no correlation whatsoever between smoking marijuana and incidence of lung cancer. Moreover, there are significant links between marijuana and decreased incidence of other cancers, for reasons that are believed to relate to THC preferentially killing cancerous cells while leaving healthy cells intact.

Tobacco, on the other hand, has been repeatedly shown to increase rates of lung cancer up to 20-fold. I don’t know of studies on second-hand marijuana smoke.

In other words, even if smoke itself contributes to lung cancer, the anti-tumor effects of marijuana counteract that entirely, and help prevent cancer throughout the rest of the body at statistically significant rates. The policy of marijuana prohibition is, therefore, directly criminalizing an effective way to prevent cancer, and to minimize its growth. (As well as infringing on the individual right to imbibe what you want into your own body, and to buy and sell what you want, and punishing people for something that doesn’t hurt others, and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars, and funneling money to foreign cartels, and incarcerating Americans who could otherwise be contributing to the economy, etc.)
wee free kings

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Thesh » Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:56 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:At least in school they taught us that water pipes are deceptive. They feel smooth because the smoke is cooled, but the smoke actually contains (roughly) the same ingredients as other forms of tobacco smoke (or marihuana smoke). And the cooler smoke makes you inhale deeper and longer, with the associated risks.


http://www.growkind.com/vaporizer-study.html

This study indicates that unfiltered joints are actually better than bongs or filtered joints in respect to health, since bongs and filters reduce cannabinoids at a higher rate than they reduce tars and the entire point of smoking pot is for the cannabinoids.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby morriswalters » Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:26 am UTC

I always liked brownies, the buzz is faster when inhaled, but it can be ingested. Mind you that's an old habit, back in the day when they didn't shoot each other as much.

TechiesGoBoom
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:25 am UTC

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby TechiesGoBoom » Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:10 am UTC

As I understand it this is why using a Vaporizer is a healthier method of using marijuana.

On a side note; I remember years ago in high school I came across the website below arguing that all of the research into second hand smoke points to it not really being a problem. This site is written in the tone of a conspiracy theory, so my initial thought is to disbelieve it; but with my admittedly limited knowledge and lack of skills in internet sleuthing I can't find reason to. It really shouldn't take more than 10 minutes for someone more knowledgeable to find the flaws in the facts or reasoning backing the arguments put forth; otherwise the implications would be relevant to this discussion.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: BBC asserts link between marijuana and lung cancer

Postby Max™ » Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:16 pm UTC

TechiesGoBoom wrote:As I understand it this is why using a Vaporizer is a healthier method of using marijuana.

On a side note; I remember years ago in high school I came across the website below arguing that all of the research into second hand smoke points to it not really being a problem. This site is written in the tone of a conspiracy theory, so my initial thought is to disbelieve it; but with my admittedly limited knowledge and lack of skills in internet sleuthing I can't find reason to. It really shouldn't take more than 10 minutes for someone more knowledgeable to find the flaws in the facts or reasoning backing the arguments put forth; otherwise the implications would be relevant to this discussion.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html

I was going to point out this, if I was able to find pot still, I'd vape it.

Smoking is easy, but harsh, and not required.
mu


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests