this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
134 points (95.3% liked)
Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related
2352 readers
380 users here now
Health: physical and mental, individual and public.
Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.
See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.
Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.
Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.
Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.
Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So they note a link between usage and cancer, but don't differentiate methods of ingestion? I'd be willing to bet the risk is mainly from smoking vs. other methods.
Why read the article when the title will suffice?
... that's my point. The study they released doesn't differentiate even though the researchers acknowledge that fact. Although I have no scientific basis to back my assumption, it seems fairly intuitive that smoking cannabis would pose a higher risk of cancer than not smoking it. The study, as presented in the article, makes it sound like simply consuming cannabis in any manner increases that risk.
It's not like the asked all these people in a custom designed study, and intentionally left out the consumption method. The study isn't "making it sound" like anything, they're pointing at a statistic.
Edit: it's insurance data not medical data
So, since they admit most the participants smoke it, they're not studying the impact of "marijuana use" they're studying the impact of "smoking marijuana".
Yes, he literally admits it's likely mostly the impact of "smoking marijuana", because that's what most people that fit the "canabis disorder" description seemingly do. Sadly, the study doesn't have the data if they smoke it or ate it, because it's insurance data not medical data. It would be more disingenuous to make the claim this is studying smokers. Any sane person reading this data isn't trying to draw conclusions that aren't there.
and that is why, aside from my first time being a fat bong rip (fuck you, Nik, that was a dick move), I have never intentionally inhaled smoke once in my life. It does not take an entire scientific study to figure out that inhaling hot smoke from something burning, and all the myriad chemical reactions therein, may not be the healthiest thing to huff.
now, that said, I do vape with a dynavap on a daily basis, so. Let's hope it's down to the smoke and not the plant itself.
If it was hot smoke, the bong was shit. If your friend told you to rip a huge one for your very first hit your friend was shit. Totally understandable why you don't like smoking. I absolutely hate smoking specifically because.... Well it's smoking. My throat hates it, my lungs hate it, and the taste stays for many hours no matter how many times you brush your teeth because it's all over your throat and smothering your alveoli
I'll occasionally use a vape, but I prefer edibles. It's much more controlled and I can calculate average times until I'm okay to do certain things.
LMAO you’re so careful about inhaling smoke yet vape on a daily fucking basis. You talk about the chemicals you can inhale when smoking, where is the chemical concern for your vaping???
Dry herb vaping is different than the disposable vapes you are most likely thinking of. Dry herb decarbing does not "burn" to the point of combustion so there is a lot less tar going into your lungs. While inhaling anything foreign is not going to be great, it is a lesser danger than smoking traditionally.
oh, no, I am inhaling the dangerous chemical of dihydrogen monoxide! The horror!
There are zero chemicals when vaping weed
I mean... what about THC
I mean, there are hundreds, but who's counting.