Is this propaganda?
- Thread starter narrowsparrow
- Start date
Maitri
Deadhead, Low-Temp Dabber, Mahayana Buddhist
From the essay:
"Vaping" Marijuana
There is little known on the potential lung health effects of inhaling marijuana or products made from it through routes other than smoking. However:
- Use of "vape-pens" to inhale cannabis concentrates or liquids may have similar respiratory health effects as e-cigarette use.
- "Dabbing" (inhaling flash-vaporized cannabis concentrates) may also cause respiratory problems.
Until there is quite a bit more research on vaporizing cannabis, I will not be particularly concerned.
narrowsparrow
Well-Known Member
It makes tar, though, right?
habitat-fc
Well-Known Member
Smoking it does, vaping it at correct temperature won't.
biohacker
H.R.E.A.M
Some truth, mainly propaganda IMO. The real concerns are the effects on the Dopaminergic Systems of the brain for heavy long term users such as myself!
Dopamine levels/sensitivity isn't something that should be fucked with/ taken lightly.
Siebter
Less soul, more mind
I am far from being a fan of The American Lung Association as they are part of the evil movement against e cigarettes, but in this article I find not much I'd tag as propaganda. Smoking kills. Whether it's cigarettes, bongs, Js or blunts with or without tobacco, it seriously kills.
Edit: Okay, the segment about vaping is utter bs, they should know better and probably even do. I always wonder why those anti smoke groups don't welcome e cigarettes, vaping and the like and still expect to appear credible.
Edit: Okay, the segment about vaping is utter bs, they should know better and probably even do. I always wonder why those anti smoke groups don't welcome e cigarettes, vaping and the like and still expect to appear credible.
Last edited:
Planck
believes in Dog
No study I have read has ever tied smoking cannabis to anything more then a slight decrease in overall lung capacity with complete recovery of the lost function in 30 days.
They tried and tried and nope, just can't find any evidence.
The American Lung Association are a waste of breath IMO, self serving, bought and paid for shills. No if have not read this particular article. "May have", "may also" ffs GTFO with this pop slop ALA.
They tried and tried and nope, just can't find any evidence.
The American Lung Association are a waste of breath IMO, self serving, bought and paid for shills. No if have not read this particular article. "May have", "may also" ffs GTFO with this pop slop ALA.
Siebter
Less soul, more mind
I honestly doubt that. When plant matter is burned, be it weed, tobacco or peppermint leaves, it creates (among other harmful substances) tar. That's why smoking cigarettes is connected to various lung diseases including cancer, because the tar alone contains a number of various carcinogens. The same should apply to smoking weed, or am I missing something? I was quite sure that we are quite sure that smoking *in general* kills. I don't know about the studies you mention, but I'm sure they are not long term.
Last edited:
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
This is the fingerprint of fearmongering: despite decades of dedicated search for real harm from cannabis use, they’re not even grasping at straws any longer, they’re just imagining that graspable straws may have eluded them - and are worth searching for. Terrible misuse of imagination!
Siebter
Less soul, more mind
Could anyone give me a study or the like that actually investigates the *long term* risks of cannabis smoking? Because I don't know of any – keep in mind that certain diseases, including cancer, happen with long term usage, so short term studies can't make any assumptions about for example cancer risks from cannabis smoking. It's true, smoking cannabis will not lead to cancer and you might recover from its harmful effects after 30 days or whatever, but pretty much the same applies to cigarettes. One cigarette will not kill you and most likely after 30 days you will have fully recovered. But when we are talking about a daily usage over decades, things look a bit different.
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
The British government did a multigenerational study in Jamaica and in India (I believe) back in the 1800s.
Their conclusions were very much ‘nothing to see here’.
I’m sorry to have lost the books and papers that would let me guide you more directly, but it’s most definitely in the wild, so you should be able to track it down without too much trouble. I did have the pleasure of spending time going over it, but that was many years ago.
per the latest I’ve read (and again, no reference stands out), the effect of cannabis smoke on the lungs has been shown to have protective effects, in specific contrast to tobacco smoke, I will not exaggerate, but the indication was two different cascades, of different character.
Strictly personally, I am and have been a smoker for more than 50 years, both tobacco and cannabis. I can tell you I perceive a difference within myself between them; I will not pretend to rate them, but I will say that I feel tobacco does much more to clog my airways, and cannabis does much more to clear them. Take it as any other anecdote.
Their conclusions were very much ‘nothing to see here’.
I’m sorry to have lost the books and papers that would let me guide you more directly, but it’s most definitely in the wild, so you should be able to track it down without too much trouble. I did have the pleasure of spending time going over it, but that was many years ago.
per the latest I’ve read (and again, no reference stands out), the effect of cannabis smoke on the lungs has been shown to have protective effects, in specific contrast to tobacco smoke, I will not exaggerate, but the indication was two different cascades, of different character.
Strictly personally, I am and have been a smoker for more than 50 years, both tobacco and cannabis. I can tell you I perceive a difference within myself between them; I will not pretend to rate them, but I will say that I feel tobacco does much more to clog my airways, and cannabis does much more to clear them. Take it as any other anecdote.
Last edited:
Siebter
Less soul, more mind
A study from the 1800s, way before it was clear that smoking creates carcinogens, is not quite what I was thinking of.
This →
...suggested to me that you have some studies at hand.
This →
...suggested to me that you have some studies at hand.
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
Within the modern legal and logistical framework, no such research is possible, sad to say.
The study I mention is hardly valueless, and technically IS what you asked for. I certainly agree that MODERN research is very worth doing.
The study I mention is hardly valueless, and technically IS what you asked for. I certainly agree that MODERN research is very worth doing.
Siebter
Less soul, more mind
There has been quite a bit of research on the harms of smoking. It became clear that while nicotine is the substance that makes us keep smoking, it's not what kills us. What kills us is (mainly) the tar that is produced, and we know that tar is produced whenever plant matter is being burned. How is it even possible that this does not apply to cannabis?
TheThriftDrifter
Land of the long vapor cloud
It's quite possible that Polonium-210 is the culprit, it is readily taken up by the growing tobacco plant. My understanding is that it comes from the fertilizers that are used commercially.
Apparently Polonium-210 is reasonably inert if eaten or if you get some on your skin, but in your lungs is a different story.
You get little radioactive polonium particles trapped in the lungs and tar from the plant matter stops them from clearing that shit out.
https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2008/08/29/radioactive-polonium-in-cigarette-smoke/
The stupid thing is, if you grow tobacco using nutrients that don't contain radioactive elements, then the plant can't take them up!
So in summary, most tobacco cigarettes are literally radioactive.
Mind you so are most bananas.
But bananas have a better track record.Edit. I got it wrong regarding eating/ingesting polonium-210. Its toxic as. No es bueno.
Last edited:
CANtalk
Well-Known Member
kuzko
Well-Known Member
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/large-study-finds-no-link/
Couldn’t find the actual UCLA study but I remember reading about it years ago. Take all 2nd hand knowledge with a grain of salt but I remember reading a theory that the anti-cancer properties of cannabis counteracted the harms of smoking. Personally, I still believe smoking anything is harmful and that’s mainly why I vaporize.
Couldn’t find the actual UCLA study but I remember reading about it years ago. Take all 2nd hand knowledge with a grain of salt but I remember reading a theory that the anti-cancer properties of cannabis counteracted the harms of smoking. Personally, I still believe smoking anything is harmful and that’s mainly why I vaporize.
TheThriftDrifter
Land of the long vapor cloud
Here is another link re polonium-210 and tobacco, it's a bit more of a read.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136189/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136189/
Siebter
Less soul, more mind
Again: these are interesting facts for sure, but while they show in what ways tobacco smoke is harmful, it doesn't really say other smoke is harmless, does it?
I've heard that cannabis components can act anticarciogenic, but if it would reverse the harmful aspects of smoking fully, we'd probably know. Smoking kills millions of people each year.
kuzko
Well-Known Member
Again, I feel smoking is harmful. And there’s a difference between being anti carcinogenic and “fully” reversing the harm. But would we know though? Research into cannabis has been federally blocked for a while in the US. And recent overseas research IS finding anti cancer properties, like this one from Spain.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/279571.php#1
I think as research progresses things will be more clear but for now we just don't know. There are no human trials or solid long term studies other than unreliable self reporting studies. Also, smoking is not the best way to take your medicine, so if cannabis is indeed an anti-cancer medicinal option, we should probably let science figure out the best way to utilize/administer it.
Last edited:
Siebter
Less soul, more mind
Note that the article, while suggesting anticarciogenic properties of THC, doesn't make any assumptions about weed being smoked; „administering THC to mice with human tumors“ doesn't sound like a bong party to me. I will not deny these findings of course, but we should be carefully asking which scenarios they apply to.
That is not quite true. We know quite a lot about the harmful aspects of smoke in general. I'm not sure any type of actual smoke is considered as harmless.
Planck
believes in Dog
Also from this article:
an overall significant increased risk /= marginally statistically significant association.
