A Possible Benefit to Vaping

[OO]

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20090623/marijuana-smoke-linked-to-cancer

I say possible, because no causal link has been established yet, though it is possible for acetaldehyde to act as a DNA adduct.

 

[pakalolo]

Oh FFS. If that DNA damage leads to cancer, where are all the cannabis-smoking cancer patients?

Scientists at the University of Leicester have discovered that marijuana (cannabis) smoke alters DNA, the genetic material located in cells of the human body. Some forms of DNA damage can lead to cancer.

Some forms of DNA damage can lead to a new super-species.

 

[Roger D]

The byproducts of any combustion are toxic. That doesn't meat that you can't get some good when you smoke some mj. You get a little bit of nice actives packaged with crap. Even with that fact the good effects can overcome the bad side effects, that's why there is so much smokers. But anyway, its safer to not combust. There are so many better ways to medicate

 

[OO]

Oh FFS. If that DNA damage leads to cancer, where are all the cannabis-smoking cancer patients?

um there alot of cannabis smoking cancer patients, at least in my state where it is Medical marijuana is legal.

ca5h I'm not saying there isn't a balance, all I'm saying is that there is a possible benefit to vaping.

 

[kingofnull]

um there alot of cannabis smoking cancer patients, at least in my state where it is Medical marijuana is legal.

ca5h I'm not saying there isn't a balance, all I'm saying is that there is a possible benefit to vaping.

I think pakalolo meant patients with cancer where cannabis was the cause.

 

[OO]

I think pakalolo meant patients with cancer where cannabis was the cause.

he was all too vague. but in the case which you refer to, just because it isn't documented as such, does not mean it has not occurred. it still remains a possibility, though a poorly documented/unsuspected one. when someone gets cancer, how do you know the cause with complete certainty?

you can't, and therefore the possibility cannot be ruled out.

 

[deadc0ffee]

I think he was referring to the anecdotal evidence of "I know of old smokers with cancer, but not old pot smokers"

 

[pakalolo]

he was all too vague. but in the case which you refer to, just because it isn't documented as such, does not mean it has not occurred. it still remains a possibility, though a poorly documented/unsuspected one. when someone gets cancer, how do you know the cause with complete certainty?

you can't, and therefore the possibility cannot be ruled out.

There have been many studies that attempted to link cancer to cannabis. Not a single one has been conclusive, and in fact several have indicated that there is no such connection. If there were the kind of link postulated in the study mentioned in your post, it would be obvious already. That was my point.

 

[chris 71]

i have been reading all the hype of pot smoking not causing cancer i dont belive it!! i think its the fact that when they look for pot smokers only, getting cancer its hard too find them BECAUSE!! its hard to find people that have only smoked pot i know they do exst but...
can you imagine tring too WEED them out of all the people that do have cancer.
i mean does a cancer patient who smoke 1 pack of cigs in there life get ruled out because they smoke cigs.
what if they smoked only 1 cig, what if they were exposed to second hand tabbco smoke. come on!!
its pretty clear too me how hard it would be to find such a small percent of users who fit into the quota. not to mention it can take 10 20 30 40 50 ect years of smoking anything to get it. if you do even get it.

my grand mother smoked gigs. chain smoked from the time she was 20 till she died at 90 she died of cancer it took 70 years to kill her. i just hope i have inherited her consitution.

i also think with the internet and all the voices we can read and here from we have to weed through ourselfs to decided what we belive and dont.

every pot head shouting from the roof tops see!! pot doesnt cause cancer.
because of some study report making it rounds over the net. that could be so easily flawed. some guy who smoke 1 pack of cigs but smoked pot for 30 oh... he didnt get cancer from pot no, it must have been the cigs.

this i dont know either because i dont know the study personely. if this could be a possibilty or not but...

im not gonna be a sheep and just follow the beat of the pot heads screaming from the roof tops that pot doesnt cause cancer

i know how i feel afftr long term use almost 30 years and something tells me if i keep smoking its gonna kill me and also who cares if its cancer that does it or you suffcate and die from copd ha both will kill ya bad..

as well.. we can jump up and down about vaping, while maybe it sneaks up behind us and kills us kindly with copd instead of cancer.

who knows.. i wish i didnt have all this internet knowledge at my finger tips lol or the old school additude to not give a shit and just enjoy life.

whats that quote i like oh ya
"there is no Paranoia only total awareness"

 

[pakalolo]

i have been reading all the hype of pot smoking not causing cancer i dont belive it!! i think its the fact that when they look for pot smokers only, getting cancer its hard too find them BECAUSE!! its hard to find people that have only smoked pot i know they do exst but...
can you imagine tring too WEED them out of all the people that do have cancer.
i mean does a cancer patient who smoke 1 pack of cigs in there life get ruled out because they smoke cigs.
what if they smoked only 1 cig, what if they were exposed to second hand tabbco smoke. come on!!
its pretty clear too me how hard it would be to find such a small percent of users who fit into the quota. not to mention it can take 10 20 30 40 50 ect years of smoking anything to get it. if you do even get it.

my grand mother smoked gigs. chain smoked from the time she was 20 till she died at 90 she died of cancer it took 70 years to kill her. i just hope i have inherited her consitution.

i also think with the internet and all the voices we can read and here from we have to weed through ourselfs to decided what we belive and dont.

every pot head shouting from the roof tops see!! pot doesnt cause cancer.
because of some study report making it rounds over the net. that could be so easily flawed. some guy who smoke 1 pack of cigs but smoked pot for 30 oh... he didnt get cancer from pot no, it must have been the cigs.

this i dont know either because i dont know the study personely. if this could be a possibilty or not but...

im not gonna be a sheep and just follow the beat of the pot heads screaming from the roof tops that pot doesnt cause cancer

i know how i feel afftr long term use almost 30 years and something tells me if i keep smoking its gonna kill me and also who cares if its cancer that does it or you suffcate and die from copd ha both will kill ya bad..

I don't think you've read any of the studies. Researchers are perfectly aware of the difficulties of establishing a control group and isolating the effects of cannabis.

 

[chris 71]

ha i probably seen the same videos and read some of the same stuff as you. researchers should be aware of these things. and like i said i dont know the studies personnely and am not able to ask the researchers these type of questions are you?
i would like too know more of before i would jump on the band wagon.
also what you said here
"Researchers are perfectly aware of the difficulties of establishing a control group and isolating the effects of cannabis."
is exactly my point.
imagine how hard it would be too get a large enough group of patients together that had not been expoused to any other type of smoke. like i said not even 1 cig or second hand smoke juast what was there creteria.
this is were i think for my self i just dont belivee it. i think its wish full thinking and alot of people jumping on the flag waving wagon

 

[pakalolo]

ha i probably seen the same videos and read some of the same stuff as you. researchers should be aware of these things. and like i said i dont know the studies personnely and am not able to ask the researchers these type of questions are you?
i would like too know more of before i would jump on the band wagon.
also what you said here
"Researchers are perfectly aware of the difficulties of establishing a control group and isolating the effects of cannabis."
is exactly my point.
imagine how hard it would be too get a large enough group of patients together that had not been expoused to any other type of smoke. like i said not even 1 cig or second hand smoke juast what was there creteria.
this is were i think for my self i just dont belivee it. i think its wish full thinking and alot of people jumping on the flag waving wagon

I don't need to ask the researchers when I can read the studies and see for myself how they established control groups.

You seem to think it's a binary thing where exposure to just a single other possible cause means you can't be part of a control group. Of course that's impossible; life's not like that. That's why these studies apply the principle of statistical significance. This is well understood and forms a key part of studies of this sort. You might want to read up on how it is applied.

 

[chris 71]

ok i looked at your links thanks.. would you kindly be able to link me to where the info regarding how the selection process was applied for this study, i would really like too see it in detail as this is were im having a hard time grasping how the parameters for it being reliable enough to so easily professed to the world on the internet that pot doesnt cause cancer lies. im assuming the study in question is the one by Donald Tashkin . even he doesnt go so far as to say it DOESNT cause cancer. unless to you him saying that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought is enough. i agree its good news but.... appear to be to me doesnt and cant say it doesnt for sure right?

i should say i relize that your arent saying it doesnt or cant either pakaklolo. i just get tired of how it gets throwen around online soo much.
in all honesty i really dont think it is that harmfull at all.
as a prime example my self, i have been smoking and in such dusty crappy enviorments all through out my life i cant belive that i am not in much worse shape my self. says a lot about the human lungs.
and i think there is plenty evidence that it is harmless enough that no one should be able to tell me i shouldnt be able to do it if i want.
and also i bet i have smoke a lot of other crappy shit mixed in with the weed hash and oil i have smoked do to the fact its against the law. which is inpart why people are talking about the harm of it. so im not really sure why im arguing here lol that is of coarse if dont run into some trouble before the next 25 years i figure if i make it to 65 then it must have been pretty benign for me anyways

Sorry, I didnt know how to post the pics, and when I figured it out I accidently posted it twice, then I couldnt delete it. I am not computer savvy

 

[pakalolo]

Well my original point was simply that if smoking cannabis damages DNA in a way that leads to cancer at a statistically significant level, then it should have shown up in studies. What we have, however, are studies that struggle to reach any conclusion about the cannabis-cancer link, let alone one that involves DNA damage. I therefore feel that it is ridiculous and irresponsible to jump from their actual finding that something in cannabis smoke can damage DNA to the conclusion that this damage causes cancer. Since the study in question is behind a paywall I don't know for sure, but I suspect that their study doesn't actually reach this conclusion, only the headline does.