4 ms·

Effects of marijuana smoking on the lung

9 points by alexjray 11y ago

Nadya 11y ago
You either misunderstood this or are purposefully misrepresenting it. >findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use This is not a decrease of lung cancer - but merely not an increase. Meaning it shows it does not cause cancer like smoking tobacco. To continue on... >although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use Which means results are inconclusive for heavy, long-term use, meaning marijuana could still increase the risk of lung cancer by introducing carcinogens. >In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco. The purpose of this was to show that even heavy use of marijuana has far less risks (but still has risks over not smoking at all) when compared to tobacco.
- alexjray 11y ago
  Great summary, thank you for that. I simply could not think of a better title. A more accurate title may be marijuana not linked to lung cancer? Although there is some research in cell and animal studies that has shown THC, CBD and other cannabinoids to actually kill cancer. http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq#link/_26_toc http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis... I am happy to change the title.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    The chemicals created by cannabis varieties are shown to have an effect. But this comes with a caveat that often gets ignored: the delivery method. I also have never seen an amount specified (although I'm sure if I looked more into the linked studies I might find that). Back to delivery methods - you get a lot more THC in your blood stream by using a vape than by smoking a joint. The delivery method used by these mice studies is tubefeeding, which is an even more direct method of getting the chemicals into the bloodstream. The studies on THC/CBD/etc do not imply that the typical use of smoking marijuana would be beneficial. I do remember a study showing that smoking may result in a decrease, but I don't think the results were strongly conclusive. I also believe it had received funding by a pro-legalization lobby group, which means I don't quite trust the weakly-correlated conclusion of the study. E: Although it gets a little lengthy and still misrepresents the article, the most accurate title would be "Cannabis not linked to increase of cancer".
  - copsarebastards 11y ago
    > I simply could not think of a better title. You couldn't think of a better title so you put one that was completely false? That's not an excuse. "Smoking marijuana not linked to lung cancer" would have been a fine title, yes. > Although there is some research in cell and animal studies that has shown THC, CBD and other cannabinoids to actually kill cancer. True, but that's like saying that the vitamin C in some candies helps prevent diabetes--that might be true, but a eating candy all the time still increases your chances of getting diabetes. Smoking marijuana is far different from being being tube-fed isolated cannabinoids that occur in marijuana. Look, I'm all for legalization, but let's not do it with lies.
dang 11y ago
Title changed from "Smoking marijuana not linked to lung cancer". Please don't editorialize titles when submitting stories to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

9 points by alexjray 11y ago

Nadya 11y ago

You either misunderstood this or are purposefully misrepresenting it. >findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use This is not a decrease of lung cancer - but merely not an increase. Meaning it shows it does not cause cancer like smoking tobacco. To continue on... >although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use Which means results are inconclusive for heavy, long-term use, meaning marijuana could still increase the risk of lung cancer by introducing carcinogens. >In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco. The purpose of this was to show that even heavy use of marijuana has far less risks (but still has risks over not smoking at all) when compared to tobacco.

alexjray 11y ago
Great summary, thank you for that. I simply could not think of a better title. A more accurate title may be marijuana not linked to lung cancer? Although there is some research in cell and animal studies that has shown THC, CBD and other cannabinoids to actually kill cancer. http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq#link/_26_toc http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis... I am happy to change the title.
- Nadya 11y ago
  The chemicals created by cannabis varieties are shown to have an effect. But this comes with a caveat that often gets ignored: the delivery method. I also have never seen an amount specified (although I'm sure if I looked more into the linked studies I might find that). Back to delivery methods - you get a lot more THC in your blood stream by using a vape than by smoking a joint. The delivery method used by these mice studies is tubefeeding, which is an even more direct method of getting the chemicals into the bloodstream. The studies on THC/CBD/etc do not imply that the typical use of smoking marijuana would be beneficial. I do remember a study showing that smoking may result in a decrease, but I don't think the results were strongly conclusive. I also believe it had received funding by a pro-legalization lobby group, which means I don't quite trust the weakly-correlated conclusion of the study. E: Although it gets a little lengthy and still misrepresents the article, the most accurate title would be "Cannabis not linked to increase of cancer".
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  > I simply could not think of a better title. You couldn't think of a better title so you put one that was completely false? That's not an excuse. "Smoking marijuana not linked to lung cancer" would have been a fine title, yes. > Although there is some research in cell and animal studies that has shown THC, CBD and other cannabinoids to actually kill cancer. True, but that's like saying that the vitamin C in some candies helps prevent diabetes--that might be true, but a eating candy all the time still increases your chances of getting diabetes. Smoking marijuana is far different from being being tube-fed isolated cannabinoids that occur in marijuana. Look, I'm all for legalization, but let's not do it with lies.

dang 11y ago

Title changed from "Smoking marijuana not linked to lung cancer". Please don't editorialize titles when submitting stories to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html