If Weed supposably causes lung cancer??

Question

Then why do they prescribe it at chemotherapy and for cancer patients? This doesnt make sense to me. People are always trying to say bad things about it, but there is no proof that it even causes cancer. Any facts?

im sorry i didnt ask for a spelling quiz. but thanks anyway.

duke fenton- i would love to know where you are getting your facts from...because you are giving me information that is not backed up by any resource. Let me know when you come up with a resource or article that i can personally review myself.

Answer 1

I don't have any proof or evidence or anything, but I think if you smoke a ton of weed, like 5 blunts a day, then you could get lung cancer. It is a foreign substance and you do cough so your body is rejecting it. I think that smoking a joint a day is less risky than smoking a pack of cigs a day. Also some rumors I've heard is smoking a joint is like smoking 5 cigs and that snoop dogg had lung cancer. don't know of any of this is true. just opinions and ideas

Answer 2

Most chemo patients prefer and are prescribed a vaporizer, since what you actually want is for the nausea to go away, not necessarily to sit there with a joint. THC tablets have been proven less effective at delivering the THC to the blood stream, besides, if pills are making you so sick you can't eat, the last thing you want to do is swallow another pill. You are right, there isn't any proof that weed causes cancer, but some researchers believe that one joint has three times the tar in a cigarette. The tar is basically what causes cancer, since it coats your lungs, just as with any smoke and soot (chimney sweepers got cancer by the hundreds in the 1800s). So it could be just propaganda, same as with cigarette smoke, but the truth is some people have more of a predisposition toward cancer than others, which is unfortunate. Inhaling any kind of smoke long enough has the potential to trigger the mutation, but you can't conclusively say one type of smoke is worse than another. So, sorry, no, no facts.

Answer 3

As with most things in society right now, everything has advantages and disadvantages. Studies that show something to be bad for you or vise versa are usually in some way biased, everyone wants everybody to believe their findings but in reality each is valid in their own way. There is always something new that is good for you and then all of a sudden its bad. I think the findings that it may cause lung cancer are inconclusive and they are just jumping to conclusions, i highly doubt they have done enough research, there is way to many variables to conclude what does or what does not cause cancer, there is just higher likely hood that it might cause. You can have a person healthly as can be and die at 40, and someone who induldges in the 7 sins for example and lives to be a hundred. Don't believe everything you read, only believe half of what you see and hardly anything that you hear, and question everything.

Answer 4

It doesn't cause emphesema like cigarettes do; I forget if that's the "lung cancer" you're talking about.

There's a drug in marijuana--THC--that's been long known to soothe nausea.

But smoking marijuana blocks your lungs 2.5 times more than cigarettes, because of the light filtering and the short butt.

Answer 5

When people recreationally smoke weed, it causes lung cancer; the situation is entirely different for cancer patients, who get it in controlled doses. It's used to give them an appetite when they feel nauseous after chemotherapy.

Answer 6

(Sure, I'm going to have a technical discussion on medical science with someone who can't spell 'supposedly,' invokes the undefined 'they,' and uses childish terms like 'say bad things.' Sounds to me like you're already a user, or want to be; and are desperately seeking validation for your little hobby.)

Marijuana has many of the same cancer-causing chemicals in it that cigarette smoke does, only more so; it's also inhaled more deeply and held in the lungs longer than tobacco smoke. Common sense alone would tell you that it causes cancer in the same fashion. Epidemiology also shows that marijuana smokers have more lung cancer than non-smokers; if that's sufficient 'facts' to prove a relationship between cigarettes and cancer, why wouldn't the same hold true for marijuana?

As for why 'they' (Who's 'they' - do you even know?) prescribe it for certain people; If you already have cancer (and people on chemotherapy *are* cancer patients, in case you missed that), then the risk of cancer several years down the road isn't that big an issue, *relative* to your current problem. Secondly, doctors are as vulnerable to anyone to intellectual manipulation by marijuana advocates, to say nothing of self-deception.

In other words, marijuana as pain relief is a fad, pushed by persons and organizations who are using it as a stalking horse (that's a metaphor, look it up) to push the legalization of recreational marijuana use. If the medical community were serious about 'medical' use of marijuana, they would treat it like *EVERY OTHER* drug of plant origin. That means identify the active ingredient, devise a means to synthesize or extract it, then develop a controlled and measurable means of delivering the drug. It worked with digitalis, taxol, acetylsalicylic acid, atropine, etc. etc. etc. - why is it that *NOBODY* is willing to even consider a means of using 'medical marijuana' other than letting people smoke joints at will?

If your cardiologist told you to make your own foxglove tea to treat angina, he'd be guilty of malpractice. Having people smoke marijuana for 'pain relief' - when there is no way to measure how much active agent is delivered, to say nothing of the hundreds of other chemicals present - is orders of magnitude more negligent.

Answer 7

i've never known anyone or heard of anyone getting lung cancer from smoking weed. who ever you heard it from is probably all against smoking maryjane and and everything.

Answer 8

I doubt unless you are a very heavy pot smoker you can get lung cancer from pot. Using pot helps with the nausea

Answer 9

It does not or Iwould have died in 76 ,and that is a fact !

Answer 10

it does contain more carsonogens (prob not spelled right) but if you use it with a vaporizor its good.. ive been smoking for over 10 years and no probs here