Smoking Cannabis and the associated lung cancer

[Leifer]

You’re aware that air and water are chemicals right?

Oooh passive aggressive attack!
Pull in your claws....you know what I mean.

[Glacier]

A friend of mine works with lung issues, and tells me that cement is really about as bad as asbestos, but politically it's not something they can label as such because there are no alternatives to concrete, and forcing everyone to shower every time they leave the construction zone would greatly increase construction costs. Exposure to asbestos, silicate (cement), or air pollution is one thing, but add in smoking of tobacco or marijuana, and you greatly increase your risk for lung cancer.

Legalize, sure, but we can all agree that recreational use of smoke is harmful to your lungs (even if cannabis has healing properties). A substance can still be legal and become less popular to use. That's how smoking has gone, and hopefully MJ rates will also drop after legalizing.

[gman313]

A friend of mine works with lung issues, and tells me that cement is really about as bad as asbestos, but politically it's not something they can label as such because there are no alternatives to concrete, and forcing everyone to shower every time they leave the construction zone would greatly increase construction costs. Exposure to asbestos, silicate (cement), or air pollution is one thing, but add in smoking of tobacco or marijuana, and you greatly increase your risk for lung cancer.

Legalize, sure, but we can all agree that recreational use of smoke is harmful to your lungs (even if cannabis has healing properties). A substance can still be legal and become less popular to use. That's how smoking has gone, and hopefully MJ rates will also drop after legalizing.

anything ground and in the air could give you an issue, especially if repeatedly exposed.

[LordEd]

It kills cancer cells. why is that so hard to believe

[Poindexter]

I dont want to compare joints to cigarettes but the math and composition is revealing when calculating risk.

The average cigarette smoker has a pack a day and at 10 hits per cig that works out to 200 hits a day. Far more than any chronic would ever come close to with marijuana, probably 10 times more.

Then there is the composition of the two. While marijuana burnt causes ash, as well as some insecticides and fertilizer that may be left over after cleaning, are carcinogenic, it's a far cry from what cigarettes contain. As if cigarettes weren't bad enough the recent addition of carpet glue to the papers to make them less likely to cause fires when left unattended, is a good indication of the chemical cocktail contained in a cigarette.

So while technically, yes smoking ash of any kind may cause lung cancer, the risk from smoking marijuana is not on the same level one would associate with smoking cigarettes.

[Gilchy]

I dont want to compare joints to cigarettes but the math and composition is revealing when calculating risk.

The average cigarette smoker has a pack a day and at 10 hits per cig that works out to 200 hits a day. Far more than any chronic would ever come close to with marijuana, probably 10 times more.

Then there is the composition of the two. While marijuana burnt causes ash, as well as some insecticides and fertilizer that may be left over after cleaning, are carcinogenic, it's a far cry from what cigarettes contain. As if cigarettes weren't bad enough the recent addition of carpet glue to the papers to make them less likely to cause fires when left unattended, is a good indication of the chemical cocktail contained in a cigarette.

So while technically, yes smoking ash of any kind may cause lung cancer, the risk from smoking marijuana is not on the same level one would associate with smoking cigarettes.

Exactly. There's a saying in chemistry: "the dose makes the poison".

[hobbyguy]

I suspect that in the end, we will find that there are two source causes of cancer that are exacerbated by other factors, like smoking, air pollution etc.

Number 1, I suspect viruses as the main root cause.

Number 2 on the root source would be radiation.

When you consider that the deaths per 100,000 from lung cancer were about half of what they are today in 1950 - when the majority of people smoked tobacco, whenever and wherever, it is a real puzzle as to why deaths per 100,000 are nearly double the 1950 rate today.

I suspect the nuclear bomb testing in the 1950s and 1960s into the 1970s has an effect. I also suspect that the rise of easy world travel has spread the viruses at the root. People didn't travel all that much before the 1950s.

Why do I suspect viruses? Because we have some links now. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/cancercausing_viruses_508.pdf

and medical science is incomplete in its understanding of cancer.

Why do I think the current "group think" on cancer is likely to be off the mark? Because the medical "group think" on ulcers was that they were caused by stress etc. and treatment was special diets (they had me drinking creamo fer cryin' out loud) that most often did nothing or took years to deal with ulcers. Now a couple of weeks meds - and gone.

I suspect a similar scenario with cancers.

[flamingfingers]

I submit that there is a genetic component to the predisposition of cancers.

[hobbyguy]

I submit that there is a genetic component to the predisposition of cancers.

Quite possible - a predisposition to the virus attack or?

20% of lung cancer deaths are non smokers....

I have the feeling we know less than what we don't know as far as that subject goes.

[flamingfingers]

What virus attack? I'm not sure that it has been proven a specific virus attack is necessary for an individual to develop a cancer. I suspect there are more environmental factors (nature of air pollution) that play a more significant role.

Eg, for many years, it was thought that stress produced stomach ulcers until it was proven that a bacteria was the culprit (Heliobacter pylori) that could be successfully treated with medication.

[Glacier]

HPV is a virus that causes cancer (cervical, throat and mouth).

[flamingfingers]

HPV is a virus that causes cancer (cervical, throat and mouth).

Granted. But do all cancers arise from a virus attack? I think genetics prove a more clear picture. If your parents or immediate family died from cancer, you have a greater chance of acquiring the same type(s) of cancer.

[hobbyguy]

What virus attack? I'm not sure that it has been proven a specific virus attack is necessary for an individual to develop a cancer. I suspect there are more environmental factors (nature of air pollution) that play a more significant role.

Eg, for many years, it was thought that stress produced stomach ulcers until it was proven that a bacteria was the culprit (Heliobacter pylori) that could be successfully treated with medication.

If you look at my previous posts, you will see a link to some known viruses that cause cancer. One, I believe, is in the herpes family.

[Hurtlander]

Granted. But do all cancers arise from a virus attack? .

Unlikely, what about cancer caused from radiation exposure.

I think genetics prove a more clear picture. If your parents or immediate family died from cancer, you have a greater chance of acquiring the same type(s) of cancer.

Agreed.

[Hurtlander]

If you look at my previous posts, you will see a link to some known viruses that cause cancer. One, I believe, is in the herpes family.

Herpes virus is also responsible for cold sores, chicken pox, shingles, and the latest research suggests that herpes virus might be responsible for Alzheimer’s.. It wouldn’t be surprising to discover herpes can also lead to certain cancers.