Minnesota says "Fuck Combustion", strips smoking from medical pot bill, allows vaping and edibles

[tuk]

I'll go find the link to that study, okay? I'll be back

EDIT: Back. Here's one

That's a link to an article about a single study yet to be published( never mind peer reviewed ) ....not a link to the actual study as you suggest.

One study(if it exists) is not enough to prove smoking cannabis carries the same cancer risk as not smoking anything at all.

Even though the author of your linked article had not laid eyes on said study ...the opening paragraph is interesting nonetheless:

A forthcoming review to be published in journal Annals of the American Thoracic Society reiterates that the ingestion of cannabis smoke poses nominal pulmonary risks compared to those associated with tobacco smoke. ....which is a bit like saying George Bush isn't really a mass murderer when you stand him alongside Hitler.

Not really the same as : A new study say smoking cannabis is non-carcinogenic!


Dr. Tashkin found that regular smoking of marijuana by itself causes visible and microscopic injury to the large airways that is consistently associated with an increased likelihood of symptoms of chronic bronchitis that subside after cessation of use. He also found that the evidence does not indicate that habitual use of marijuana leads to significant abnormalities in lung function when assessed either cross-sectionally or longitudinally, except for possible increases in lung volumes and modest increases in airway resistance of unclear clinical significance.

Dr. Tashkin would be better served spending a couple of decades combusting bongs of raw plant matter on a daily basis, then ask himself if his lungs feel fucked! ...a much cheaper and more accurate conclusion might be had.

 

[grokit]

Vaping flowers is the way to go for many of us, and this bill is regressive in that sense.
I agree that it's another tactic designed to take the good feeling (thc) away from our medicine.
No happiness allowed, bitches!

 

[aesthyrian]

Making growing illegal and saying this concentrate supplied by a monopoly is the only legal cannabis is not 'leading the way'. Colorado is leading the way.

Yes, that's just stupid as all hell.

It's also dumb to not allow flowers at all.

 

[EveryDayAmnesiac]

As a recovering Minnesotan, I can certainly say that those people are fucking weird. Sadly, I still consider myself a Northerner...

Anyway, this seems like the best of both worlds for the government. They can be taxing the people on the concentrates, while still letting the police make their busts on those who won't be able to legally purchase the concentrates and keep their jails / prisons full and profitable while keeping any "good folks" approved to buy completely under their thumb.

And anyone who "whines" about it will just seem unreasonable and unwilling to compromise to the "average" folks.

Is this progress? I dunno.

 

[tuk]

Is this progress? I dunno.

Compared to the UK where every aspect of cannabis is illegal & expensive low quality, polluted product supplied by criminals is the norm ..then yeah its progress. But you don't have to come as far as the UK, you can think back a decade or so & ask yourself the same question.

And anyone who "whines" about it will just seem unreasonable and unwilling to compromise to the "average" folks.

Some people forget this war has been raging for over half a century & still not over yet, there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel, still too early to say if that's a train coming or not.

Expecting overnight change and having all your expectation met in every state might be seen as unreasonable if not a little irrational, what we want to happen doesn't really come into it....the landscape is tricky and uncertain, not everybody is behind the change, slow and steady with a healthy dollop of patience will win the day, once people see the sky doesn't fall in & the revenue pouring into the public purse they will become more mailable to other changes further down the line.

 

[PoisonousHydra]

If I read that right, this only refers to consumption in private, so there is no second hand smoke issue at all. (Never mind that there is no evidence cannabis smoke causes cancer).

Smoking anything causes tar deposits to form in the lungs, which eventually lead to all sorts of medical issues, cancer amongst them.

Saying that there is no evidence cannabis smoke causes cancer is like saying there is no evidence that guns kill people, since we all know it's the bullets .

 

[Gunky]

That's a link to an article about a single study yet to be published( never mind peer reviewed ) ....not a link to the actual study as you suggest.

One study(if it exists) is not enough to prove smoking cannabis carries the same cancer risk as not smoking anything at all.

Even though the author of your linked article had not laid eyes on said study ...the opening paragraph is interesting nonetheless:

A forthcoming review to be published in journal Annals of the American Thoracic Society reiterates that the ingestion of cannabis smoke poses nominal pulmonary risks compared to those associated with tobacco smoke. ....which is a bit like saying George Bush isn't really a mass murderer when you stand him alongside Hitler.

Not really the same as : A new study say smoking cannabis is non-carcinogenic!


Dr. Tashkin found that regular smoking of marijuana by itself causes visible and microscopic injury to the large airways that is consistently associated with an increased likelihood of symptoms of chronic bronchitis that subside after cessation of use. He also found that the evidence does not indicate that habitual use of marijuana leads to significant abnormalities in lung function when assessed either cross-sectionally or longitudinally, except for possible increases in lung volumes and modest increases in airway resistance of unclear clinical significance.

Dr. Tashkin would be better served spending a couple of decades combusting bongs of raw plant matter on a daily basis, then ask himself if his lungs feel fucked! ...a much cheaper and more accurate conclusion might be had.

Tuk, I'm afraid you really have the wrong end of the stick on this one. I repeat, there is no evidence that smoking cannabis causes cancer! Not for lack of trying, either. There is plenty of money and permission for research projects designed to prove a causal link (and precious little for studies checking possible benefits). http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/large-study-finds-no-link/

Tashkin, by the the way, is the man . He started out helping the feds prove cannabis was bad and after 30 years of peer reviewed research, declared that he couldn't find much harm.

 

[EveryDayAmnesiac]

You can say it's progress on the legality, sure. I'm not so sure it's actually progress on the matter of control.

My fear is that the government is realizing they can't stop the wave coming for legalization, so they are going to institute new means of controlling the situation to similar ends; i.e., busting minorities, keeping the poor with criminal histories from voting, keeping jails full, and keeping a tight grip on research and use.

In all honesty, this bill sounds more like a lateral move to me, a strategic one... not progess in my mind. More of a "Throw the people a few coins to shut them up" move while they figure out a more modern way of fucking the people over. They look good by seeming to care for those who need it medicinally, yet decide that those medicinal users can only use certain types?

Doesn't pass my smell test. But I have a deviated septum, so... FWIW.

My other fear is that people will be so relieved at ANY movement regarding legality that they might be blinded to the bigger issues, in this case, why flowers are not being included in this bill.

But I see what you're seeing here, and I certainly could be wrong.

 

[KidFated.]

I'll be dead before the government can take away Mother Natures magical flower.

 

[tuk]

Tuk, I'm afraid you really have the wrong end of the stick on this one. I repeat, there is no evidence that smoking cannabis causes cancer! Not for lack of trying, either. There is plenty of money and permission for research projects designed to prove a causal link (and precious little for studies checking possible benefits). http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/large-study-finds-no-link/

Can you begin by linking to the actual study you're referring to instead of an article about said study? its all just hearsay until then. I'm assuming you've actually read the study..

Nonetheless the opening paragraph of the article you linked to is somewhat interesting:

The smoke from burning marijuana leaves contains several known carcinogens and the tar it creates contains 50 percent more of some of the chemicals linked to lung cancer than tobacco smoke. A marijuana cigarette also deposits four times as much of that tar as an equivalent tobacco one.

 

[Gunky]

Can you begin by linking to the actual study you're referring to instead of an article about said study? its all just hearsay until then. I'm assuming you've actually read the study..

Nonetheless the opening paragraph of the article you linked to is somewhat interesting:

The smoke from burning marijuana leaves contains several known carcinogens and the tar it creates contains 50 percent more of some of the chemicals linked to lung cancer than tobacco smoke. A marijuana cigarette also deposits four times as much of that tar as an equivalent tobacco one.

Way to cherry pick quotes, tuk. I'm trying hard to believe you are not a plant. Look around if you want to get into the research. You will find that I am correct in saying there is no link between smoking cannabis and cancer. Combusting causes chronic bronchitis for me so I vape. Fuck Combustion, as we say. But let's be accurate about the real harms based on real science.

 

[tuk]

My fear is that the government is realizing they can't stop the wave coming for legalization, so they are going to institute new means of controlling the situation to similar ends; i.e., busting minorities, keeping the poor with criminal histories from voting, keeping jails full, and keeping a tight grip on research and use.

The best available indicator is how alcohol was regulated post prohibition ...how did that play out? it started with stringent licensing which was eroded over time to the point where quality alcohol is available everywhere in multiple formats at very low cost.

Way to cherry pick quotes, tuk.

It's simply the beginning of the article you linked to.

I'm trying hard to believe you are not a plant.

Did I give it away when I requested a link to the study your using to promote the idea: combustion cannabis is no more carcinogenic than not smoking anything ?

Damn my cover is blown!

 

[Gunky]

It's simply the beginning of the article you linked to.

Yeah, it just tells the joke but leaves out the punch line:

Scientists were therefore surprised to learn that a study of more than 2,000 people found no increase in the risk of developing lung cancer for marijuana smokers.

I guess Scientific American was just publishing hearsay though and you must be right because you are a scientist and study these matters, eh?

To get back to the original topic, there is no medical evidence that cannabis smoking causes cancer. Even if there were, I don't see government prohibition of cannabis smoking in the privacy of ones own home as justified, particularly when governments allow and tax tobacco smoking, which really does cause cancer. I don't need government to be my parent and stop me from using smoking as a delivery method. There are instances where it is damned convenient to light up a bone and the government has no business telling me not to.

[/cranky old pothead mode]

 

[DOOM]

I'm sure there's an MJ only smoker who developed LC due to f*cked up genetics.

 

[grokit]

Cancer is a fungus that feeds on sugar, ban sugar lol.

 

[olivianewtonjohn]

I see alot of claims in this thread of smoking MJ giving people cancer, "exhaled smoke can and will give cancer". Im sorry but I dont believe the science backs up what you are saying. Sure I am for vaping and would much rather pick the healthier alternative but that does not mean I am going to start ignoring the science and push an agenda. You might be able to find a study or two but the science is far from settled, there is no consensus or majority of papers agreeing with you. Also just based off of common sense, if MJ caused lung cancer just like cigarettes then why can they directly link over 100,000 deaths in the US to cigarettes but cant for MJ. If your theory is correct, and your worried about second hand smoke then fine; why not treat it like cigarettes, no smoking in public enclosed places.

I think taking away a delivery method is ignorant. Maybe smoking treats the patient better, who are we or the politicians to say otherwise.

 

[tuk]

...and you must be right because you are a scientist and study these matters, eh?

I made no such claim.

I guess Scientific American was just publishing hearsay though

We can only speculate since you and others backing this study have yet to provide a link to the actual study which means you/they have not even bothered to read the study...so to recap your referencing a study you've never laid eyes on to support the premise that combustion/smoke does not cause cancer? ...you might want to look up the definition of hearsay.

You do realise that Scientific American is a magazine ..not a research body?

Scientific American (informally abbreviated SciAm) is an American popular science magazine.

Emphasis on popular!

.....there is no medical evidence that cannabis smoking causes cancer.

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.

A rigorous case-control study by Aldington and
colleagues in 2008 made significant progress in
showing that the link exists. The authors analysed the
smoking habits of people diagnosed with lung cancer
and a control group without lung cancer. Their major
finding was that smoking cannabis increases the risk of
developing lung cancer in young adults. The study also
suggests that smoking one cannabis cigarette a day for
one year increases the risk of lung cancer by 8 per cent.
Importantly, researchers took variables including tobacco
smoking into account when calculating this figure.
By way of comparison, the same study suggests that
smoking one pack of tobacco cigarettes (20 cigarettes)
a day for one year increased the risk of lung cancer by 7
per cent. This suggests that smoking just one cannabis
cigarette increases the risk of developing lung cancer
by a similar amount as smoking 20 tobacco cigarettes.
The study also concluded that 5 per cent of lung cancers
in those aged 55 or under may be caused by smoking
cannabis.

A study by Berthiller and colleagues looking at cannabis
smoking in North African men showed a 2.4-fold increase
in the risk of lung cancer among men who had smoked
cannabis compared with those who had never smoked
it. This was after adjustment for age, tobacco smoking,
occupational exposures and country.

 

[tuk]

I see alot of claims in this thread of smoking MJ giving people cancer, Im sorry but I dont believe the science backs up what you are saying.

See previous post also,

It's widely accepted that inhaling smoke from combusted material is carcinogenic ...some smoke is more carcinogenic than others depending on the material being combusted, as I understand it there is no such thing as safely inhaling smoke from any kind of combustion.

It's also widely accepted that burning cannabis plant matter produces carcinogens.

If we remind ourselves of Gunky's Scientific American article:

The smoke from burning marijuana leaves contains several known carcinogens and the tar it creates contains 50 percent more of some of the chemicals linked to lung cancer than tobacco smoke. A marijuana cigarette also deposits four times as much of that tar as an equivalent tobacco one.

A rational & unbiased person might then conclude there is high probability that inhaling carcinogenic cannabis smoke is cancer causing since that smoke contains carcinogens which are inhaled into the lungs.

The premise that cannabis smoke is excluded from the above and is somehow magically non-carcinogenic on the basis that it's cannabis...is comparatively improbable.

Science say cannabis smoke contains carcinogens, as I understand it that is undisputed, if cannabis smoke does not cause cancer then Science is wrong by definition.

A carcinogen is any substance, radionuclide, or radiation that is an agent directly involved in causing cancer.

if MJ caused lung cancer just like cigarettes then why can they directly link over 100,000 deaths in the US to cigarettes but cant for MJ.

One has never been illegal...the other has always been illegal. Collecting the necessary data for one is fairly straight forward...for the other almost impossible.
---------------------------------


Fuck Combustion!

 

[Gunky]

"It is widely accepted that...." = hearsay. You also don't practice what you preach - where are the links to the studies?

Doubts about Aldington study

Tashkin (Hashibe et al) study

Tashkin abstract:

Background: Despite several lines of evidence suggesting the biological plausibility of marijuana being carcinogenic, epidemiologic findings are inconsistent. We conducted a population-based case-control study of the association between marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers in Los Angeles.

Methods: Our study included 1,212 incident cancer cases and 1,040 cancer-free controls matched to cases on age, gender, and neighborhood. Subjects were interviewed with a standardized questionnaire. The cumulative use of marijuana was expressed in joint-years, where 1 joint-year is equivalent to smoking one joint per day for 1 year.

Results: Although using marijuana for ≥30 joint-years was positively associated in the crude analyses with each cancer type (except pharyngeal cancer), no positive associations were observed when adjusting for several confounders including cigarette smoking. The adjusted odds ratio estimate (and 95% confidence limits) for ≥60 versus 0 joint-years was 1.1 (0.56, 2.1) for oral cancer, 0.84 (0.28, 2.5) for laryngeal cancer, and 0.62 (0.32, 1.2) for lung cancer; the adjusted odds ratio estimate for ≥30 versus 0 joint-years was 0.57 (0.20, 1.6) for pharyngeal cancer, and 0.53 (0.22, 1.3) for esophageal cancer. No association was consistently monotonic across exposure categories, and restriction to subjects who never smoked cigarettes yielded similar findings.

Conclusions: Our results may have been affected by selection bias or error in measuring lifetime exposure and confounder histories; but they suggest that the association of these cancers with marijuana, even long-term or heavy use, is not strong and may be below practically detectable limits. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(10):1829–34)

See previous post also,

It's widely accepted that inhaling smoke from combusted material is carcinogenic ...some smoke is more carcinogenic than others depending on the material being combusted, as I understand it there is no such thing as safely inhaling smoke from any kind of combustion.

It's also widely accepted that burning cannabis plant matter produces carcinogens.

If we remind ourselves of Gunky's Scientific American article:

The smoke from burning marijuana leaves contains several known carcinogens and the tar it creates contains 50 percent more of some of the chemicals linked to lung cancer than tobacco smoke. A marijuana cigarette also deposits four times as much of that tar as an equivalent tobacco one.

A rational & unbiased person might then conclude there is high probability that inhaling carcinogenic cannabis smoke is cancer causing since that smoke contains carcinogens which are inhaled into the lungs.

The premise that cannabis smoke is excluded from the above and is somehow magically non-carcinogenic on the basis that it's cannabis...is comparatively improbable.

Science say cannabis smoke contains carcinogens, as I understand it that is undisputed, if cannabis smoke does not cause cancer then Science is wrong by definition.

A carcinogen is any substance, radionuclide, or radiation that is an agent directly involved in causing cancer.


One has never been illegal...the other has always been illegal. Collecting the necessary data for one is fairly straight forward...for the other almost impossible.
---------------------------------


Fuck Combustion!

 

[DOOM]

I made no such claim.

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.

A rigorous case-control study by Aldington and
colleagues in 2008 made significant progress in
showing that the link exists. The authors analysed the
smoking habits of people diagnosed with lung cancer
and a control group without lung cancer. Their major
finding was that smoking cannabis increases the risk of
developing lung cancer in young adults. The study also
suggests that smoking one cannabis cigarette a day for
one year increases the risk of lung cancer by 8 per cent.
Importantly, researchers took variables including tobacco
smoking into account when calculating this figure.
By way of comparison, the same study suggests that
smoking one pack of tobacco cigarettes (20 cigarettes)
a day for one year increased the risk of lung cancer by 7
per cent. This suggests that smoking just one cannabis
cigarette increases the risk of developing lung cancer
by a similar amount as smoking 20 tobacco cigarettes.
The study also concluded that 5 per cent of lung cancers
in those aged 55 or under may be caused by smoking
cannabis.

A study by Berthiller and colleagues looking at cannabis
smoking in North African men showed a 2.4-fold increase
in the risk of lung cancer among men who had smoked
cannabis compared with those who had never smoked
it. This was after adjustment for age, tobacco smoking,
occupational exposures and country.

I dont want to get into a debate here but that report was critiqued by medical experts due to several methodological flaws.

The report displays its partisan nature when it says Aldington made
"significant progress in showing that the link exists".

A critique of Aldington's report in the European Respiratory Journal
from several eminent doctors said:

We read with interest the article by ALDINGTON et al. [1] entitled
‘‘Cannabis use and risk of lung cancer: a case–control study’’.
However, we are concerned that the conclusion stating that
‘‘long-term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in
young adults’’ is inadequately supported by the data, given the
study’s several methodological flaws..... Finally, an observational
study such as ALDINGTON et al. cannot establish causality, only
correlation. Even presupposing that the study was methodologically
impeccable, the strongest conclusion that could be drawn would be that
‘‘long-term cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of lung
cancer’’, not that cannabis use causes lung cancer.

Given the acrimonious debate over the role of cannabis in
society, and the substantial chance that this paper will
contribute to public policy decisions, we feel it is important
to keep conclusions that are stated in abstracts and papers as
close to the actual scientific findings as possible.

 

[grokit]

In a nutshell: Smoke bad, secondhand smoke worse, vapor good!

 

[KidFated.]

Fuck this governor and fuck all the LEO's that treat cannabis the same as meth. FUCK YOU!!!!

(I realize which thread this is, but this belongs here.)

 

[VapechickV]

I read something a few weeks ago about NYC doing the same thing, only allowing MMJ in vapor or edible forms. And then I read another article last night about another state wanting to ban concentrates because of their stealthy, non-odorous natures. I hate cigarettes, they make me sick just walking past a smoker on the street, so I'm all for public bans on cigarettes. And so I have to be fair and admit that just because I don't mind the smell of pot smoke doesn't mean it doesn't bother anyone else. Still, it will be interesting to watch and see how all of this unfolds.

 

[KidFated.]

Minnesota puts synthetic cannabinoids in the same category as bud. What a joke.

 

[Jared]

For the same reason that most places are now in the process of banning smoking cigarettes in public. My exhaled vapour can't give you cancer. My exhaled joint smoke can, and will.

Can and will? Find me one case of a person getting cancer and the doctor or hospital being able to directly attribute it to cannabis and only cannabis. I guarantee you will not find one case where the person got cancer by only using cannabis without alcohol cigarettes or other drugs. Not one.


Disclaimer: I never smoke.

Saying that there is no evidence cannabis smoke causes cancer is like saying there is no evidence that guns kill people, since we all know it's the bullets

Guns don't kill people. Guns are inanimate objects that on their own cannot move a hair. It take a person with the intent to kill, with or without a gun, to kill another person. To say otherwise would be foolish.