One study stated that people who used cannabis heavily were at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. Another study from outlines that cannabis smoke contains carcinogens, which can cause cancer. However, the study adds that there is no evidence that suggests that light or moderate cannabis smoking leads to an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer.
However, the same study states that the evidence is mixed when it comes to the cancer risks of heavy or long-term cannabis use. A study suggests there is biological plausibility of cannabis smoking as a risk for the development of lung cancer. However, it adds that it is difficult to link cannabis smoking and cancer development conclusively. Learn more about cannabis and lung cancer here. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released their report on the health effects of cannabinoids.
They found no statistical association between cannabis smoking and lung, head, and neck cancers. The report also found limited or no evidence regarding any links between smoking cannabis smoking and:.
There are a couple of other ways a person can consume cannabis that do not involve smoking the substance. A person can consume cannabis in edible form, which is the name for foods and drinks infused with cannabis. Edibles deliver the cannabis to the body through the mouth and digestive system. People often see these products as an alternative to smoking or vaping.
Edibles can have varying effects on individuals. Research suggests that they can be a more potent method of taking cannabis than inhaling the substance. The study showed that the effects from edibles took around 1 hour to kick in but lasted for 6 or more hours. It also showed that, in contrast, the effects of smoking or vaping tended to last 1—4 hours. Learn more about edibles here. Many people inhale vaporized cannabis as an alternative to smoking it.
The vaporizer heats the cannabis and extracts the cannabinoids, converting them into vapor, which a person then inhales. As scientists do not know the long-term safety of vaping it is not advisable for people to use this method for cannabis consumption. There are over 7, different chemicals in tobacco smoke, which all affect the lungs in a variety of ways. Some of these chemicals are carcinogenic, meaning they may cause cancer, while others can damage cells or trigger scarring and inflammation.
Due to the abundance of chemicals, cigarette smoke can affect the lungs in many ways, including the below. In Science it is well known that intervention in a process often affects the results but it was not taken into account in this instance. Some of the people that took part in the program were having a laugh and others were trying to use the program to put across information that was to justify their own ends.
The information regarding its physical effects was totally correct but when it came to psychological effects it was interpreted incorrectly by these "scientists". One of the things not in the program was, when one hears politicians talk about drugs and you can see in their eyes and manner that they have used the drug in the past yet they condemn it and place users on the path to illegality and negative future prospects because of the politicians hippocracy. It is really annoying.
I know a couple people who lost their employment because they were captured by the police having smoked cannabis for the first time and a couple of other people that have criminal records that prevent them gaining employment due to illegality of use. Is that morally acceptable?
When is this Government going to legalize cannabis so that there is revenue to the public purse, the quality of the substance can be guaranteed and the criminals are cut out of the picture? It's been more than an hour since I sent my post John Jones, [Personal details removed by Moderator].
It was polite and, I thought, insightful. Where is it? Ammendment re previous post. After effect it should read, " The "scentists" mentioned about the In fact, I will try to post my comment again to correct the incongrigruity and sense of my post. The"scientists" mentioned about the heightened senses but no mention of how acute the peripheral vision becomes nor the degree of increase in the minds dramatically increased environmental awareness.
At pm on 06 Jan , John Jones wrote: What's particularly galling is being aware of the possibility that the program makers themselves might smoke, and may have abandoned their own common-sense view of the drug in order to say the correct thing.
I agree with most posts here Yet another programme that was claiming to be informative on cannabis and yet delivered next to nothing. Maybe the producers of this documentry should sought REAL cannabis users! I have constantly smoked cannabis in every form for just over 26 yrs and could certainly offer a much better insight.
Before my comments are portrayed as moaning youth I am in my forties hold a degree along with professional accreditation. I use cannabis for recreational purposes but also enjoy a medical side effect for a neurological condition.
I have smoked, vapourised and eaten cannabis for 30 odd years have never wanted to do herion and been confronted with the same systemic problems any other UK cannabis user has where a dealer tries to up sell you claiming they have no cannabis but how about this brown powder. As I say that is a systemic problem which makes the existing system a gateway not the drug itself.
Have also never tried sniffing glue or a multitude of any other drugs, the only opiates I take are prescribed and that took a lot of convincing on behalf of the doctor. People can have addictive personalities thats why we have Gamblers anonymos, shopaholics, co dependant enablers etc Its time that the effort was put into addressing the how and whats of addiction rather than picking out one or two examples that politically suit and at the same time giving weak willed people yet another excuse they can blame their life on.
I would also agree what is the selection criteria for cannabis smokers who appear on television other than must make for good programming. The younger teens made the two problematic cases appear immature. At least she did tell the interviewer to stop because she was saying what she thought they wanted to hear.
However I know plenty solicitors and other legal prfessionals who smoke cannabis, more likely you will meet them when in continental countries like the Nehterlands, Belgium, Portugal, Spain and Italy where people are not criminalised for choosing not to be another drone of the alcohol drug.
I was hopeful that this show would give a new view on cannabis but was again disappointed with the same points from previous documentaries being repeated over and over again. These programs also always use similar test subjects and their ages, all between , I can't remember ever watching one of these documentaries interviewing older, more experienced cannabis users, why is that? When I read that it was to show "how it affects the body" I was hoping that this show would spend a greater amount of time, more than the 10 minutes at the end, on how the plant affects the physical body.
The program only briefly mentions how the drug can help to relax us which helps MS sufferers. I'm sure it has also been prescribed to people suffering with arthritis and other conditions. This program seemed again to point to cannabis as a link with or catalyst for mental illness, and seemed to be trying to say the user who appreciated nature more or was paying more attention to their surroundings is a negative effect.
There are many users who believe that it helps them open up to and deal with the spiritual side of life, and who use it while meditating. I still cannot understand why if police who have probably smoked it at least once their life find you in possession of this substance it carries a jail sentence of up to 14 years in theory if they see you passing some to you're mate it could be seen as "supply" , whereas to use other substances that we know can kill you and are addictive, e.
My psychologist has said my case is "fascinating" due to the amount I smoke and experiences without having a relapse, I started like most people do, with friends, now I use it more to ease my muscular pain and meditate, maybe the next documentary should include me?!
If Alisdair wants to spotlight me - I don't think I was blaming my condition or my life on Cannabis dude, don't you think you might be being a bit paranoid Especially as this is a BBC3 column and not really aimed at over 40's? A businessman and you fly to other countries.. Bye Bye. BBC programmes have to get better incrementally you know At least it did show that a great many people smoke it harmlessly!
I mean chill out! Mostly it made me want to spark up! And all you people trying to say that Skunk isn't stronger than the older forms; that's just utter lies! Another point I wanted to make besides congratulate you BBC for the comedy: where can I get the telephone number of the beautiful and smart lady shown in the "documentary" of today? Intelligent, sexy, well dressed and weed-smoker is a combination you don't see very often I think that the mind is still comprehending something higher and perhaps unseen about the world when your younger than And when you start smoking weed at this age, I think this awareness comes on too strongly.
In addition to what I wrote earlier, I would agree with many other people who have said to legalize it. Not because I think everyone should be smoking it but because we should have the freedom to choose to use something that has grown naturally and used for thousands of years.
The government should have no right to imprison us for things that do not harm others. If they did legalize it it would be safer as you wouldn't have to go to "dealers" and it could be more sociable like Holland, and the quality of the plant can be monitored to make sure there are no "impurities" like you may find in the Hash bought from the street.
How much of the paranoia that they talk about comes from the fact that it is illegal? If we felt free to use it would users feel paranoid? So far we know very little about it, so a lot more research needs to be done, but it needs to be with an open mind looking for the benefits of use as well as side affects, a lot of other medications have side affects too. Before they label certain experiences "psychotic" or "schizophrenic" surely we need to really know more about what is possible spiritually before telling someone it's a "hallucination" or a "delusion".
And if cannabis helps us be more natural and connect with the spiritual then more education is needed on, and how to deal with, the spiritual side of life. As a nation we could save millions each year by imposing the same regulations on booze!
There are more people addicted to prescription drugs than all other drugs combined, what does the govenment plan to do about it, nothing! A large case of double standards! Dean, it's probably because the government are happy for these people to be addicted to prescription drugs. Years ago I met with Dr. I told them I would stop smoking, but would not take their medication, and said you as a Dr. They said NO!!!
They refused to help unless I took their drugs! I ended up taking the prescription for 3 years, and didn't feel it was helping, so stopped it without asking the Dr, as I never saw the same consultant more than twice, I didn't think they were in a position to keep me sedated, which is basically what an anti-psychotic pill does.
If I hadn't stopped taking their sedatives, they'd probably still have me on them. They would probably save the NHS loads of time and money too as people would feel more comfortable about using it, and when using it, I don't know if they've done any studies on the psychological effects of using it legally and readily available compared with it being illegal and having to find dealers.
Straight away the country would have less "criminals". The more laws there are, the more offenders there are, is using a plant really criminal activity? It is possible there may still be dealers as well as people growing their own. Instead of people being forced to smoke at home, away from society or try to hide it, they can go down the local and meet other smokers, maybe known as a hical!
It would probably have to be a bit like Holland with no smoking out in the streets, to be fair especially to the non-smokers it wouldn't be nice to be smelling skunk along every high street as it is potent, though breathing in bus exhaust fumes isn't what I would call pleasant either.
Like most of your commentators, I found this programme very poor. The notion that cannabis is addictive is absurd, and presenting people who choose to spend far too much time smoking it as though they suffer in the same way as those addicted to alcohol or heroin is deceitful.
On this subject, as with the smoking ban and its appalling effects on the licensed trade in the UK the BBC is not to be trusted. It is time "message" was entirely removed from editorial policy and a critical approach taken to official propaganda. I hope that the other programmes will be more scientifically rigorous than the cannabis one. I have studied addiction and neuroscience, and read a number of scientific papers on cannabis, as well as using it myself.
I'm glad that it was stated that only one in ten people experience various problems. This compares well with many legal drugs as well as foods and chemicals in everyday use.
I was not impressed by the suggestion that the intelligent observation made by a female participant to the effect that the interviewer 'researcher'? I had noted the problem myself while viewing. People are particularly suggestible after using cannabis, so asking them if they are hearing voices is likely to actually bring about the phenomenon.
A similar thing occurs with LSD; for example, you can get people to see a certain colour simply by saying the name of the colour. I wonder whether participants were shown the programme before it was broadcast, and given the opportunity to correct any errors.
I would have been very annoyed if I were that woman who was so misrepresented. Coming from a personal background of being told that drugs are bad and cause damage to your health Well yes some do. But after studying Cannabis for two years, discovering that no deaths can be linked to the cause of Marijuana. I don't see any of this within the show, I saw great CGI and dialogue explaining that it will cause this, and can lead to this.
But where was the sections of 'this did happen', we can prove it kills. But within this show although they stated that constant abuse could cause major effects, they didn't mention it in comparison to any of the biggest legal two Tobacco and Alcohol. People get addicted to alcohol and if abused, your body becomes more tolerant of it and then you need to consume more. And we all know tobacco is one of the biggest killers and we can show proof of these two. I know and understand that it's aiming at making people aware of the dangers we are doing to our selves.
But if we look at every legal and illegal drug, we can find flaws with them all. Now a pothead myself of 1 and a bit years at the age of 24, but way before I began smoking or even drinking. I never knew what to do with myself, doctors, constantly asking me to go onto anti depressants and I've seen friends on them and it has made their lives worst, but I've seen some and it does work. I never wanted to take a medical compound, with side effects that can be alot worst than what a bit of THC can cause.
I don't suffer from anxiety anymore, I create better work, I feel better in general, yeah I'm a more of a slob, but that's through choice.
I never smoke when I've just woken up. But while binaural beats could hardly be considered a "gateway" drug - that is, one encouraging experimentation with harder substances - the websites that sell i-doses appear to encourage sex and drugs.
One site directs users to an online retailer of legal hybrid plants that it is claimed induce marijuana-like highs. Suddenly, those concerns over rock and roll being the devil's music have started to feel pleasantly nostalgic. Clubbers 'turn to new legal high'. Could your teenager's iPod be a so-called "gateway drug"? Happy '' wey be Cannabis culture observance around di world today, no be something wey authorities for Nigeria go entertain.
On Tuesday alone, dem arrest one university female student, Rhoda Agboje and her boyfriend, Ifeanyi Nwankwo, wey dia work na to produce and sell cookies wey dem don add igbo [Cannabis].
Di goment office wey dey fight di use of hard drugs add say dis two suspects dey sell am to children and other members of di public for Abuja, wey no know wetin dey. Nigerian laws dey against cannabis or any kain hard drug as e dey illegal to use am for di kontri, one tok-tok pesin of di agency, Femi Babafemi tell BBC Pidgin as begin trend.
However, he admit say true-true di kontri of recent don see high cases for di number of pipo wey dey smoke weed and abuse drugs. Oga Babafemi add say even plenty states for Nigeria like Edo; Ondo; Kano dey plant Cannabis, Marijuana and oda kain weeds wey dey illegal. April 20 don become di international counter culture holiday. Na day wen pipo dey gada to celebrate and consume igbo alias Cannabis.
0コメント