Note that smoking cannabis does not have the same cancer health problems as tobacco, tar is not really the issue here. In fact cannabis has a very slight but detectable protective effect for nearly all cancers. Generally, most of the problems with smoking cannabis involve heat-induced damage to the lungs, not the same things that make tobacco smoke dangerous.
That actually directly contradicts the OP's statement.
There is evidence that cannabis smoking is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer. (See "Cigarette smoking and other risk factors for lung cancer", section on 'Marijuana'.)
The reason weed is less cancerous than tobacco is because weed smokers typically smoke far less total volume of plant matter than tobacco smokers. Cigarette smokers light up many times every day. Most weed smokers only use it recreationally on an occasional basis, because it's not as addictive.
Nicotine has been found to be oncogenic. If weed is consumed without tobacco, it might actually be safer than tobacco. I‘m not saying that’s a safe bet, but the jury’s out.
It seems pretty unlikely that cannabis smoking is significantly safer than tobacco smoking for lung health, and far more likely that the gap in outcomes in the literature is due to the difficulty (historically) of doing studies on the same scale as the tobacco studies.
We seem too ready to forget that the cancer/tobacco link was itself once controversial.
On the face, there are dramatic differences between cannabis and cigarette smoke, the most important being that cigarette smoke is highly addictive, the second most important that cigarette smoke has much lower potency.
This is why our smoking/cancer statistics reflect a reality in which it was once extremely common for smokers to be inhaling one or more ounces of burned tobacco per day.
Most people already know that that's a huge amount of weed for an average person. Even out of folks who are getting high every day, almost none are hitting that mark-- the most obvious proof of that being that it would cost them hundreds or thousands of dollars per day. Even if we allow for unfiltered cannabis smoke to be several times more carcinogenic than commercial cigarette smoke, we're not going to get there.
In fact the opposite is true; the average person who develops a serious weed habit (more than a few grams a week) is actively incentivized to try safe methods of consumption like vaporization, extracts, or edibles, if nothing else because they will save a lot of money.
So apples-to-apples, we wind up comparing the habits of generic cigarette smokers to those of drug dealers and very wealthy, very pot-addicted people. I understand the desire not to approve of any amount of smoke inhalation, but the null hypothesis here is not equivalent risk.
Apart from all of that, our generation didn't invent smoking weed, and neither did our parents. If cannabis represents a public health hazard on a similar scale to cigarette smoking, it's hiding pretty well after all this time.
So far the evidence seems to show that smoking and vaping cannabis does not have nearly the potential for lung cancer that tobacco smoking does. It is associated with various respiratory ailments (under heavy use). And it may have a slight protective effect against some cancers.
As usual, more and higher-quality data would help elucidate the source of the protective effects.
Excepting that it’s not linked to cancer. Grant you that the majority of German “kieferen” mix with tobacco, as is the fashion. Tobacco is unhealthy, all medical evidence suggests completely different results from long term pure cannabis consumption and either alcohol or tobacco consumption.
Hopefully regulators will consider evidence when determining appropriate regulations
you're oversimplifying. the quantity and quality of the smoke is hugely important. cannabis smoke and tobacco smoke are qualitatively different, and the typical amount consumed by cannabis vs. tobacco smokers is a very different quantity (in that tobacco smokers typically consume tens or even hundreds of times more mass of tobacco per day than cannabis smokers do).
certainly any kind of inhaled smoke can cause issues for your lungs, but conflating the cancer risk of daily habitual tobacco smoking (very high) with the cancer risk of daily habitual cannabis smoking (probably present, but not yet known how much more risk it causes) is a distortion.
Last I saw epidemiological data, cannabis smokers had a slightly lower odds ratio for lung cancer (<1.0) than non-anything-smokers (=1.0), while tobacco smokers had an OR in the high single digits (>8.0)
Tobacco is carcinogenic, even if chewed or sucked, and lacks any legitimate medical use. However Cannabis has many medicinal uses, is very safe and non-toxic with no signs that it causes cancer. I don't think that smoking weed is necessarily good though - I would recommend vaporizing it.
Its a hard connection to prove, but all smoke contains chemicals that are known to cause cancer. Eaten cannabis probably isn't carcinogenic, but smoked probably is. Few cannabis smokers inhale nearly as much smoke as tobacco smokers. Also, tobacco is a nightshade and toxic if eaten, so maybe that has something to with it being more damaging when smoked.
"Smoking is the most significant of these, causing around a quarter of all cancers globally."
Except for that the research shows that smoking doesn't cause cancer, except maybe for tobacco. And even the surgeon general now apparently admits that most cancers that tobacco users suffer from probably aren't from tobacco.[1]
It's a LOT less harmful than tobacco. It also is usable in many non-smoking forms. Tobacco chew and snuff still give you cancer. But, since USA has outlawed research there is ver limited data on how not bad cannabis is.
I think this issue is muddied by conflating two different questions.
1. Tobacco itself is quite carcinogenic. Snuff, chew, gutka, and any other means of consumption all have strong cancer links. Cannabis, as I understand it, is not nearly as carcinogenic as that.
2. Smoking is also, separately, carcinogenic. Regularly breathing dense smoke is terrible for your lungs, even if you're smoking dried lettuce.
I think it's pretty well established that via 2, smoking cannabis is bad for you. If it's less bad than tobacco, that's as likely to be usage habits as anything. But people are still arguing fairly extensively over 1 - tobacco is a known carcinogen no matter how you ingest it, but I'm not sure that's a settled question for cannabis.
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.
Hm, I don't think so. While it's true that inhaling burned plant material is never a good thing, there is no evidence so far that smoking cannabis causes cancer.
Search for Dr. Donald Tashkin who has done extensive studies on this subject.
Afaik tobacco smoke is also radioactive due to phosphate fertilizer [1][2] so I assume this is also a major factor leading to its carcinogenic properties.
reply