What do plants, toads, and mushrooms have in common? They can all produce psychedelic substances – and now their powers have been combined in one plant, like a trippier Captain Planet.
That is different from saying there’s no evidence linking it to cancer.
Okay, provide said evidence then.
I’m aware benzene and other byproducts of combustion should increase lung cancer risk, but a wide swathe of studies has failed to ever conclusively establish a connection between cannabis smoke and cancer.
(Also cannabis in California actually is labeled with a cancer risk… not due to smoking it, but due to the presence of the terpene Myrcene, which is why you’ll find the warning even on edibles. Still, that’s just California being California, as I understand it the warning is there simply because Myrcene has a benzene ring in its chemical structure like many aromatic compounds do.)
but a wide swathe of studies has failed to ever conclusively establish a connection between cannabis smoke and cancer.
The list of known carcinogens is quite short. That is mostly because it is difficult to conduct studies with a large enough sample to be sure that something is a carcinogen with high statistical reliability.
Given our current knowledge, it may be argued that eating fast food every day is not bad for you, as there are no conclusive studies linking it to increased death rates.
In the laboratory, most mutagenic compounds are labelled as mutagenic despite the fact that they are not known carcinogens.
The list of known carcinogens is quite short. That is mostly because it is difficult to conduct studies with a large enough sample to be sure that something is a carcinogen with high statistical reliability.
Benzene is certainly one of them, and it’s present in cannabis smoke (well, all smoke from burned plant matter, so cannabis included).
Otherwise I’m not sure what your point is. They wouldn’t need to identify specific compounds to establish a strong correlative relationship between lung cancer and cannabis. Such a relationship has never been established, and not for lack of trying.
Good morning, the list of known carcinogens is quite short. It is quite short because the evidence required to get on that list is quite extensive.
This is an article explaining the basics of how that list works: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/25081-carcinogens
It is not a comprehensive explanation of how it is made, but it explains the basic reasoning behind it.
Knowing a compound is carcinogenic is not enough to link it to something being carcinogenic with high statistical reliability. The reason why that list exists is that statistical evidence is more reliable than scientific evidence.
You can build a scientific model to explain why something happens, but that always has some assumptions. A large enough statistical sample has a much higher confidence.
We know that pure benzene is carcinogenic, that is why it’s mostly prohibited to use in research and production. Do we know if other products containing benzene are carcinogenic because of benzene? Not really.
We can make an assumption: products who contain benzene and to whom people are regularly exposed are carcinogenic. It does indeed make sense as an hypothesis, however we don’t know if it is true with statistical reliability. It may be true for some mixtures and not for others. This is in my opinion sufficient evidence to link some in general to cancer. Do we have any proof that any kind of smoke other than tobacco causes cancer? No, we do not.
However, the fact that we do not have such evidence does not mean that smoke does not cause cancer. We have strong evidence that smoke causes cancer, however we can not prove it with enough statistical reliability. We can not prove it statistically because this kind of studies is complicated to perform as it requires data that is difficult to obtain.
You have to study a large sample of people, tens or hundreds of thousands, throughout their life while they perform one such action. As such you’d need to follow a large group of users who smoke cannabis and are open to receiving regular checkups and interviews. You also need a negative control: a group of people who does not smoke marijuana.
However, tobacco and red meat are also known carcinogens; to exclude whether they got cancer from these causes you’d need separate groups to compare to: people who smoke marijuana but not tobacco, people who also smoke tobacco, people who smoke both and eat red meat, people who smoke marijuana, no tobacco but eat meat, people who smoke marijuana not tobacco and no meat.
Now add to this that being an hairdresser is a known carcinogens and you’ll start to understand why obtaining a definitive answer is difficult despite the fact that many studies exist.
Cannabis smoke is not a recognised carcinogenic agent. That is different from saying there’s no evidence linking it to cancer.
It’s smoke in the lungs on a regular basis. That’s plenty evidence.
That’s the opposite of evidence, it’s actually a total lack of evidence… Just because you feel like it should be true doesn’t make it true.
There’s plenty studies linking smoke to diseases. Smoke is a known toxic agent.
Okay, provide said evidence then.
I’m aware benzene and other byproducts of combustion should increase lung cancer risk, but a wide swathe of studies has failed to ever conclusively establish a connection between cannabis smoke and cancer.
(Also cannabis in California actually is labeled with a cancer risk… not due to smoking it, but due to the presence of the terpene Myrcene, which is why you’ll find the warning even on edibles. Still, that’s just California being California, as I understand it the warning is there simply because Myrcene has a benzene ring in its chemical structure like many aromatic compounds do.)
The list of known carcinogens is quite short. That is mostly because it is difficult to conduct studies with a large enough sample to be sure that something is a carcinogen with high statistical reliability.
Given our current knowledge, it may be argued that eating fast food every day is not bad for you, as there are no conclusive studies linking it to increased death rates.
In the laboratory, most mutagenic compounds are labelled as mutagenic despite the fact that they are not known carcinogens.
Benzene is certainly one of them, and it’s present in cannabis smoke (well, all smoke from burned plant matter, so cannabis included).
Otherwise I’m not sure what your point is. They wouldn’t need to identify specific compounds to establish a strong correlative relationship between lung cancer and cannabis. Such a relationship has never been established, and not for lack of trying.
Good morning, the list of known carcinogens is quite short. It is quite short because the evidence required to get on that list is quite extensive. This is an article explaining the basics of how that list works: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/25081-carcinogens It is not a comprehensive explanation of how it is made, but it explains the basic reasoning behind it.
Knowing a compound is carcinogenic is not enough to link it to something being carcinogenic with high statistical reliability. The reason why that list exists is that statistical evidence is more reliable than scientific evidence. You can build a scientific model to explain why something happens, but that always has some assumptions. A large enough statistical sample has a much higher confidence. We know that pure benzene is carcinogenic, that is why it’s mostly prohibited to use in research and production. Do we know if other products containing benzene are carcinogenic because of benzene? Not really.
We can make an assumption: products who contain benzene and to whom people are regularly exposed are carcinogenic. It does indeed make sense as an hypothesis, however we don’t know if it is true with statistical reliability. It may be true for some mixtures and not for others. This is in my opinion sufficient evidence to link some in general to cancer. Do we have any proof that any kind of smoke other than tobacco causes cancer? No, we do not.
However, the fact that we do not have such evidence does not mean that smoke does not cause cancer. We have strong evidence that smoke causes cancer, however we can not prove it with enough statistical reliability. We can not prove it statistically because this kind of studies is complicated to perform as it requires data that is difficult to obtain. You have to study a large sample of people, tens or hundreds of thousands, throughout their life while they perform one such action. As such you’d need to follow a large group of users who smoke cannabis and are open to receiving regular checkups and interviews. You also need a negative control: a group of people who does not smoke marijuana. However, tobacco and red meat are also known carcinogens; to exclude whether they got cancer from these causes you’d need separate groups to compare to: people who smoke marijuana but not tobacco, people who also smoke tobacco, people who smoke both and eat red meat, people who smoke marijuana, no tobacco but eat meat, people who smoke marijuana not tobacco and no meat. Now add to this that being an hairdresser is a known carcinogens and you’ll start to understand why obtaining a definitive answer is difficult despite the fact that many studies exist.
Are you honestly asking for a source on inhaling smoke being bad for you?
Lay of that pipe mate
Nothing then, got it