4 ms·

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 assertio

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?
  - mod 12y ago
    What was your assertion, then? Because I made the same interpretation. I think the answer to "do we know that?" was "yes, we know that."
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.

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?
- mod 12y ago
  What was your assertion, then? Because I made the same interpretation. I think the answer to "do we know that?" was "yes, we know that."

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.