I hadn't thought of cannabis consumption as being unequivocally associated with cancer risk.
I haven't paid much attention, but there was a pretty big JAMA paper a decade or so ago that didn't demonstrate much risk at something like "a joint per day for 40 years" level consumption.
Vaping may well have its own -- perhaps even greater -- risks, but I hadn't assumed propylene glycol to be particularly carcinogenic. Is it? CDC says doesn't seem to be raising major red flags: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=1...
Certainly not an area of expertise for me, I'd always thought of it as closer to a fog machine at a Halloween party than inhaling burning pieces of ash. Other than the vitamin e (?) associated illnesses a few years ago, is there good reason to think otherwise?
Smoking causes cancer. Not tobacco. Not marijuana. Inhaling smoke causes cancer, pretty much independent of what is being burnt. (Though obviously some substances are even worse still.)
For some reason people think it is tobacco that causes lung cancer, and therefore joints are safe/healthy. Ridiculous. It is inhaling all that ash that gives you lung and throat cancer.
Vaping avoids the carcinogens of cigarette smoke, but likely carries its own risks. As you mention it's like breathing in a Halloween/stage smoke. But why do you think that is safe to do?
Ultimately if the air is smokey, it contains particulate matter. That particulate matter is not good for your lungs, no matter what it is.
The amount of combusted material that one is exposed to makes a big difference in cancer rates (and other disease rates).[1]
I imagine that this is orders of magnitude lower for marijuana smokers than tobacco smokers, especially in this era with most flower being >20% THC by mass.
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.
You seem to be conflating "looks smokey" with particulate matter, which I suspect is generally reasonable but perhaps not in all contexts. Water vapor can cause the air to look "smokey." If you go outside an a 5º day and exhale, does your exhaled breath contain more particulate matter than if you did so on a 50º day?
Not all marijuana vaping is done using vape pens containing Propylene Glycol. You can vaporize concentrate, which doesn't include any sort of additive and is tested for pesticides and heavy metals in places like California. PG just helps the concentrate "flow" into the wick of the vape pen. You also don't need to use a vape pen where the heating element is exposed to the airflow of the concentrate, reducing the chance of heavy metals being released.
There are also vaporizers that just pass hot air over marijuana flower.
> Ultimately if the air is smokey, it contains particulate matter. That particulate matter is not good for your lungs, no matter what it is.
This reads like medieval miasmatic theory.
In other news, breathing and living is the #1 cause of death.
The quality of the air you breathe is what affects your risk of developing cancer. Burning tobacco releases the most amount of harmful particles, and even then, many people spend years inhaling it without ever developing cancer.
Vaporizing marijuana is done by exposing it to much lower temperatures, which doesn't release the same particles as burning. Thus, it's not the same kind of smoke.
Additionally, marijuana doesn't have the chemicals linked to cancer to begin with. Tobacco even if ingested can increase the risk of cancer.
But ultimately, everything you do, from the city you live in, to your household environment, to your genetic predisposition and lifestyle choices, affects your risk of developing cancer. Living is a balance act between these risk sources and actually enjoying your life.
Vaping marijuana is probably not great for you, but many people do so for many years without negative consequences, and the risks compared to smoking tobacco are much, much lower. All of this is handwavy, of course, since the effects of marijuana have been historically poorly researched.
But making a blanket statement that all smoke causes cancer is fearmongering at best, and objectively wrong at worst.
Any smoke causes cancer. Anything which is not burned fully to completion (which is anything burnt outside of an oxygen-rich furnace) contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These aromatic compounds bind to DNA reverse transcriptase during cellular replication, causing a mutation. Accumulation of mutations over time causes cancer. QED.
You're repeating your absolutist take while ignoring any sense of nuance.
No, smoke doesn't _cause_ cancer. Breathing in anything other than clean air _may increase_ the risk of developing cancer, but there's no certainty that if you e.g. suck on a tailpipe you'll catch the cancer.
There's a substantial difference from inhaling the smoke from combusting tobacco laced with hundreds of harmful chemicals, and inhaling the vapor from exposing the cannabis flower to much lower temperatures. How much difference exactly? I'll wait for more research to be done to draw my conclusions, but you go ahead and think it's the same thing.
> Accumulation of mutations over time causes cancer.
Again, the keyword you're ignoring is "risk". Our cells go through millions of mutations throughout our lifetime, and there are many factors that determine each person's propensity towards cancer. The best way of minimizing that risk is by living in a bubble, but some people choose to live in polluted cities, drive ICE cars, enjoy eating grilled meat, and inhaling marijuana and even cigarette smoke. Just because you might be risk-averse to partake in any of this, doesn't mean that we should dump all of it under the same "causes cancer" category.
There are studies[0] indicating that PG/VG as vapor cause damage & inflammation to the lungs, independently of nicotine. The FDA's statement of GRAS mainly applies to PG used as a food additive, not necessarily it being inhaled as vapor. So, seems like potential damage from long term use, not necessarily on the scale of smoke but not necessarily great for you either.
There is vaping of the dry herb itself or or concentrates all of which involve zero Propelyne Glycol or Vegetable Glycerin or Vitamin E. Very much the more popular trend in weed vaping that has nothing to do with anti vaping propogandas and is unfortunately ignored by those that don’t partake.
That is where most weed smokers end up or plan to end up.
I haven't paid much attention, but there was a pretty big JAMA paper a decade or so ago that didn't demonstrate much risk at something like "a joint per day for 40 years" level consumption.
Vaping may well have its own -- perhaps even greater -- risks, but I hadn't assumed propylene glycol to be particularly carcinogenic. Is it? CDC says doesn't seem to be raising major red flags: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=1...
Certainly not an area of expertise for me, I'd always thought of it as closer to a fog machine at a Halloween party than inhaling burning pieces of ash. Other than the vitamin e (?) associated illnesses a few years ago, is there good reason to think otherwise?