6 ms·

I can't help but feel that statistic they're using is a little disingenuous. Yes cannabis has a ridiculously high lethal dose, more than you could ever smoke or

by trose 12y ago

I can't help but feel that statistic they're using is a little disingenuous. Yes cannabis has a ridiculously high lethal dose, more than you could ever smoke or consume. You'd basically have to create a concentrate and inject it directly or something. I don't think you should be saying that cannabis is 114 times less deadly than alcohol. There are other contributing factors that could cause harm. There seems to be no research into carcinogenic qualities of cannabis smoke for example. I'm an avid user of cannabis but I dont think we need to go around pretending like there are no side effects and its completely harmless.

DanBC 12y ago
> There seems to be no research into carcinogenic qualities of cannabis smoke for example. We know that cannabis smoke contains a bunch of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke. But tobacco smokers smoke a lot more than cannabis smokers; and you don't have to smoke cannabis.
- misiti3780 12y ago
  and you can use a vaporizer - which further reduces those carcinogenic qualities - most people i know that smoke cigarettes do not smoke e-cigs
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  Do we really know that? I mean, it stands to reason that combustion produces carcinogens, but cannabis is not tobacco. I think this is one of the basic assertions that must be validated by quantitative analysis.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    Soot from bits of stalk in a spliff is going to be little different from breathing in soot from any other bit of dry burning wood.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    You make it sound like noone has analyzed cannabis smoke. Do you really believe that? Obviously they have. Here's an easy read summary. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=636 http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?question... The interesting one is: > Dale Gieringer, PhD, State Coordinator of the California National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), stated in his 2004 article "Cannabis Vaporizer Combines Efficient Delivery of THC with Effective Suppression of Pyrolytic Compounds," published in the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, where he compared the chemical constituents of marijuana smoke (from a glass pipe) with marijuana vapor (from a vaporizer machine): [...] > Comparison runs using combusted [burned] cannabis presented a strikingly different picture... Review data from the gaseous headspace detected 111 tentatively identified compounds, including THC and CBN. Included were five known PAHs [polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons]. Cannabinoids represented only 12% of the inferred recovered mass; the remaining 88% consisted of extraneous products of combustion." And that is followed by a different study: > Donald P. Tashkin, MD, Director of the Pulmonary Function Laboratories at the University of California, Los Angeles, stated in his article "Effects of Marijuana on the Lung and its Immune Defenses," published in the Mar. 1997 "Secretary's Youth Substance Abuse Prevention Initiative: Resource Papers" by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention: > With regard to the carcinogenic potential of marijuana, it is noteworthy that the tar phase of marijuana smoke contains many of the same carcinogenic compounds contained in tobacco smoke, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, such as benz[a]pyrene, which was recently identified as a key factor promoting human lung cancer... Preliminary findings suggest that marijuana smoke activates cytochrome P4501A1, the enzyme that converts polycyclic hydrocarbons, such as benz[a]pyrene, into active carcinogens."
    - spacemanmatt 12y ago
      > You make it sound like noone has analyzed cannabis smoke. That's your interpretation, but it's not my assertion. I've long wondered where the measurable health impact of marijuana smokers is. At the rates Americans consume it, shouldn't we be able to measure it the way we measure effects of tobacco and alcohol? Or is that more opportunity lost to prohibition?
      - 12y ago
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Cannabis is thought to have an anti-carcinogenic effect, which is neat, but you'd still be at risk for emphysema and other kinds of lung diseases just from the physical impact of the smoke. Edible cannabis seems a lot safer in that respect but of course it's harder to gauge the dose, it's longer-lasting due to the different metabolic pathway, and it doesn't have the instant gratification of smoking. On the up side you won't have to worry about toting an oxygen cylinder around.
    - Raphmedia 12y ago
      Vaporization.
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        I was going to include that but I don't really know whether or not it's safer - inhaling cleaner but hotter vapor also strikes me as potentially problematic.
        Raphmedia 12y ago
        It is safer. When you vaporize, you (hopefully) only vaporize the molecules that you want. The machine should be set at a temperature that is low enough to vaporize only the THC and CBD. No carbon, no icky tar, no lighter fluid. It is even better if you can vaporize an extract. You begin with the plant, extract the molecules that you want, and then vaporize said extract. Filter this vaporization through water since the molecules that you want aren't water soluble. This also cools down the vapours. It is a lot safer than blindly setting a plant on fire. The downside is that you will pay a premium in order to get quality medicinal extracts and you will need to invest money ($500+) in order to get a decent vaporizer. Source: I am no expert, but I have family members that use cannabis as a legal medication.
- techpeace 12y ago
  Could you reference a study that makes that claim? I've never heard that before.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    There are a couple listed here; some are from pro-cannabis campaigners. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=636 http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?question... Erowid has a nice chart. See benzene. https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info3.shtml https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info3.shtml The british pro-drug site has a summary of some research: http://www.ukcia.org/research/smoke-contents.php http://www.ukcia.org/research/smoke-contents.php This UK National health service "behind the headlines" report looks at one study and how it was reported. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/06june/Pages/cannabis-lung-health-risks-underestimated.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/06june/Pages/cannabis-lung-healt... > The report says that the constituents of cannabis smoke are similar to those of tobacco smoke apart from the presence of THC (which is only in cannabis) or nicotine (which is only in tobacco). This means that cannabis smoke has the same carcinogens (substances that cause cancer) as tobacco smoke, although concentrations of these may be up to 50% higher. Like tobacco, cannabis also contains toxic carbon monoxide. > It also points out that although people generally smoke cannabis less often than tobacco cigarettes, the way they inhale means the amount of smoke reaching the lungs is greater. The respiratory tract and the rest of the body may also retain far more of the products of cannabis smoke than when smoking a similar quantity of tobacco. Given the similarities in their constituents, there is concern that regularly smoking cannabis could have similar health risks as regular tobacco smoking, says the BLF. > Also, people often mix cannabis with tobacco. There is strong evidence that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer and chronic lung disease. This makes it difficult to isolate whether health problems are specifically caused by cannabis or tobacco, says the report.
    - techpeace 12y ago
      Thanks!
commandar 12y ago
>There seems to be no research into carcinogenic qualities of cannabis smoke for example. Isn't part of the problem the fact that marijuana is scheduled as a drug so dangerous that it's incredibly difficult to do that research?
- notahacker 12y ago
  Illegality doesn't help, but there are jurisdictions where marijuana is legal. In fact there are plenty of studies, but the answers are so disparate that the original study authors reasonably chose not to factor them in: depending on whose studies you believe, a couple of joints a day could be a bit more likely to induce lung cancer than a few cigarettes, pose a negligible risk or even mildly reduce the risk if you're already smoking the tobacco. A bigger (although not entirely unrelated) problem than legal status is that controlling for appropriate variables is an absolute minefield when studying usage of something as heavily correlated with certain demographics, behaviours and attitudes as cannabis.
- leeoniya 12y ago
  Marijuana and Heroin are both Schedule 1. the reasons for this cannot possibly be objective (and aren't).
cnp 12y ago
Out of the zillions and zillions of weed smokers over the past 100 years, there has never once been a reported case of someone dying due to carcinogenic responses to the smoke. Granted, there has never been a formal study, but there have been adjacent studies and by all intents and purposes it appears to be safe. Google around: https://www.google.com/search?q=marijuana+lung+cancer https://www.google.com/search?q=marijuana+lung+cancer
- Fdndjxjxr 12y ago
  That's a nice, made-up anecdote you have there.
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    Fair enough. I suppose you are sitting on the evidence belying it?
    - mod 12y ago
      An assertion on either side needs evidence, right? He simply pointed out that it's an anecdote.
- benologist 12y ago
  Today we have have vastly stronger, concentrated wax/oil that can be up to 99+% THC enabling much faster and bigger consumption. Weed consumption and delivery will continue to be refined, a fatal dose is "impossible" only until it is not.
  - cnp 12y ago
    Consuming anything with a sort of deadly, self-destructive intent can lead to death, one way or another. But I'm sorry, if you're going for an LD50 experience with weed, you're not going to get there --ever. Its just not possible unless you've created a medical experiment designed to kill the subject, and to get to that place I'm quite certain additional drugs would be required. Another fruitful Google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=ld50+marijuana https://www.google.com/search?q=ld50+marijuana
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
The connection to mental illness in teen usage is particularly worrisome. http://www.futurity.org/teen-marijuana-abuse/ http://www.futurity.org/teen-marijuana-abuse/ memory issues as well: http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2013/12/marijuana-users-have-abnormal-brain-structure--poor-memory.html http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2013/12/marij... The problem here is that the age that you'd most likely use drugs is the age where you probably shouldn't. That said, of course the currenly policy is madness, but when I speak to "drug culture" people they seem 100% unaware of the risks and often tell me pot is a magical healing herb that can fix just about everything and, of course, is completely safe to drive on. The activists have painted this false picture of it being this ultra-safe magic drug and I think its time we started building a rational view of it, as well as discussing with people what it means to be high and drive a car, and building out breathalyzer-like devices for police enforcement. It should be treated the same as a DUI.
vasilipupkin 12y ago
That's what I am wondering. I believe that Marijuana is safer in terms of unconditional risk of death. But suppose, I am a responsible adult choosing to consume a recreational dose of either alcohol, meth or marijuana, not planning on driving or doing anything irresponsible while under influence. Does the same still apply? For example, there has been research into negative effects of marijuana on cognition. I do support legalisation, but just wondering how applicable this research is to most people
driverdan 12y ago
Did you bother reading the rest of the article? That line immediately made me feel the same way - then I finished the article saw that the author did a good job at explaining the other risks.

by trose 12y ago

DanBC 12y ago

> There seems to be no research into carcinogenic qualities of cannabis smoke for example. We know that cannabis smoke contains a bunch of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke. But tobacco smokers smoke a lot more than cannabis smokers; and you don't have to smoke cannabis.

misiti3780 12y ago
and you can use a vaporizer - which further reduces those carcinogenic qualities - most people i know that smoke cigarettes do not smoke e-cigs
spacemanmatt 12y ago
Do we really know that? I mean, it stands to reason that combustion produces carcinogens, but cannabis is not tobacco. I think this is one of the basic assertions that must be validated by quantitative analysis.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Soot from bits of stalk in a spliff is going to be little different from breathing in soot from any other bit of dry burning wood.
- DanBC 12y ago
  You make it sound like noone has analyzed cannabis smoke. Do you really believe that? Obviously they have. Here's an easy read summary. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=636 http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?question... The interesting one is: > Dale Gieringer, PhD, State Coordinator of the California National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), stated in his 2004 article "Cannabis Vaporizer Combines Efficient Delivery of THC with Effective Suppression of Pyrolytic Compounds," published in the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, where he compared the chemical constituents of marijuana smoke (from a glass pipe) with marijuana vapor (from a vaporizer machine): [...] > Comparison runs using combusted [burned] cannabis presented a strikingly different picture... Review data from the gaseous headspace detected 111 tentatively identified compounds, including THC and CBN. Included were five known PAHs [polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons]. Cannabinoids represented only 12% of the inferred recovered mass; the remaining 88% consisted of extraneous products of combustion." And that is followed by a different study: > Donald P. Tashkin, MD, Director of the Pulmonary Function Laboratories at the University of California, Los Angeles, stated in his article "Effects of Marijuana on the Lung and its Immune Defenses," published in the Mar. 1997 "Secretary's Youth Substance Abuse Prevention Initiative: Resource Papers" by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention: > With regard to the carcinogenic potential of marijuana, it is noteworthy that the tar phase of marijuana smoke contains many of the same carcinogenic compounds contained in tobacco smoke, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, such as benz[a]pyrene, which was recently identified as a key factor promoting human lung cancer... Preliminary findings suggest that marijuana smoke activates cytochrome P4501A1, the enzyme that converts polycyclic hydrocarbons, such as benz[a]pyrene, into active carcinogens."
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    > You make it sound like noone has analyzed cannabis smoke. That's your interpretation, but it's not my assertion. I've long wondered where the measurable health impact of marijuana smokers is. At the rates Americans consume it, shouldn't we be able to measure it the way we measure effects of tobacco and alcohol? Or is that more opportunity lost to prohibition?
    - 12y ago
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Cannabis is thought to have an anti-carcinogenic effect, which is neat, but you'd still be at risk for emphysema and other kinds of lung diseases just from the physical impact of the smoke. Edible cannabis seems a lot safer in that respect but of course it's harder to gauge the dose, it's longer-lasting due to the different metabolic pathway, and it doesn't have the instant gratification of smoking. On the up side you won't have to worry about toting an oxygen cylinder around.
  - Raphmedia 12y ago
    Vaporization.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      I was going to include that but I don't really know whether or not it's safer - inhaling cleaner but hotter vapor also strikes me as potentially problematic.
      - Raphmedia 12y ago
        It is safer. When you vaporize, you (hopefully) only vaporize the molecules that you want. The machine should be set at a temperature that is low enough to vaporize only the THC and CBD. No carbon, no icky tar, no lighter fluid. It is even better if you can vaporize an extract. You begin with the plant, extract the molecules that you want, and then vaporize said extract. Filter this vaporization through water since the molecules that you want aren't water soluble. This also cools down the vapours. It is a lot safer than blindly setting a plant on fire. The downside is that you will pay a premium in order to get quality medicinal extracts and you will need to invest money ($500+) in order to get a decent vaporizer. Source: I am no expert, but I have family members that use cannabis as a legal medication.
techpeace 12y ago
Could you reference a study that makes that claim? I've never heard that before.
- DanBC 12y ago
  There are a couple listed here; some are from pro-cannabis campaigners. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=636 http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?question... Erowid has a nice chart. See benzene. https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info3.shtml https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info3.shtml The british pro-drug site has a summary of some research: http://www.ukcia.org/research/smoke-contents.php http://www.ukcia.org/research/smoke-contents.php This UK National health service "behind the headlines" report looks at one study and how it was reported. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/06june/Pages/cannabis-lung-health-risks-underestimated.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/06june/Pages/cannabis-lung-healt... > The report says that the constituents of cannabis smoke are similar to those of tobacco smoke apart from the presence of THC (which is only in cannabis) or nicotine (which is only in tobacco). This means that cannabis smoke has the same carcinogens (substances that cause cancer) as tobacco smoke, although concentrations of these may be up to 50% higher. Like tobacco, cannabis also contains toxic carbon monoxide. > It also points out that although people generally smoke cannabis less often than tobacco cigarettes, the way they inhale means the amount of smoke reaching the lungs is greater. The respiratory tract and the rest of the body may also retain far more of the products of cannabis smoke than when smoking a similar quantity of tobacco. Given the similarities in their constituents, there is concern that regularly smoking cannabis could have similar health risks as regular tobacco smoking, says the BLF. > Also, people often mix cannabis with tobacco. There is strong evidence that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer and chronic lung disease. This makes it difficult to isolate whether health problems are specifically caused by cannabis or tobacco, says the report.
  - techpeace 12y ago
    Thanks!

commandar 12y ago

>There seems to be no research into carcinogenic qualities of cannabis smoke for example. Isn't part of the problem the fact that marijuana is scheduled as a drug so dangerous that it's incredibly difficult to do that research?

notahacker 12y ago
Illegality doesn't help, but there are jurisdictions where marijuana is legal. In fact there are plenty of studies, but the answers are so disparate that the original study authors reasonably chose not to factor them in: depending on whose studies you believe, a couple of joints a day could be a bit more likely to induce lung cancer than a few cigarettes, pose a negligible risk or even mildly reduce the risk if you're already smoking the tobacco. A bigger (although not entirely unrelated) problem than legal status is that controlling for appropriate variables is an absolute minefield when studying usage of something as heavily correlated with certain demographics, behaviours and attitudes as cannabis.
leeoniya 12y ago
Marijuana and Heroin are both Schedule 1. the reasons for this cannot possibly be objective (and aren't).

cnp 12y ago

Out of the zillions and zillions of weed smokers over the past 100 years, there has never once been a reported case of someone dying due to carcinogenic responses to the smoke. Granted, there has never been a formal study, but there have been adjacent studies and by all intents and purposes it appears to be safe. Google around: https://www.google.com/search?q=marijuana+lung+cancer https://www.google.com/search?q=marijuana+lung+cancer

Fdndjxjxr 12y ago
That's a nice, made-up anecdote you have there.
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  Fair enough. I suppose you are sitting on the evidence belying it?
  - mod 12y ago
    An assertion on either side needs evidence, right? He simply pointed out that it's an anecdote.
benologist 12y ago
Today we have have vastly stronger, concentrated wax/oil that can be up to 99+% THC enabling much faster and bigger consumption. Weed consumption and delivery will continue to be refined, a fatal dose is "impossible" only until it is not.
- cnp 12y ago
  Consuming anything with a sort of deadly, self-destructive intent can lead to death, one way or another. But I'm sorry, if you're going for an LD50 experience with weed, you're not going to get there --ever. Its just not possible unless you've created a medical experiment designed to kill the subject, and to get to that place I'm quite certain additional drugs would be required. Another fruitful Google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=ld50+marijuana https://www.google.com/search?q=ld50+marijuana

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

The connection to mental illness in teen usage is particularly worrisome. http://www.futurity.org/teen-marijuana-abuse/ http://www.futurity.org/teen-marijuana-abuse/ memory issues as well: http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2013/12/marijuana-users-have-abnormal-brain-structure--poor-memory.html http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2013/12/marij... The problem here is that the age that you'd most likely use drugs is the age where you probably shouldn't. That said, of course the currenly policy is madness, but when I speak to "drug culture" people they seem 100% unaware of the risks and often tell me pot is a magical healing herb that can fix just about everything and, of course, is completely safe to drive on. The activists have painted this false picture of it being this ultra-safe magic drug and I think its time we started building a rational view of it, as well as discussing with people what it means to be high and drive a car, and building out breathalyzer-like devices for police enforcement. It should be treated the same as a DUI.

vasilipupkin 12y ago

That's what I am wondering. I believe that Marijuana is safer in terms of unconditional risk of death. But suppose, I am a responsible adult choosing to consume a recreational dose of either alcohol, meth or marijuana, not planning on driving or doing anything irresponsible while under influence. Does the same still apply? For example, there has been research into negative effects of marijuana on cognition. I do support legalisation, but just wondering how applicable this research is to most people

driverdan 12y ago

Did you bother reading the rest of the article? That line immediately made me feel the same way - then I finished the article saw that the author did a good job at explaining the other risks.