@Ms_McSteven Never had a problem. I had friends in all the right or wrong places depending on your point of view. Botanists, chemists, and those connected to certain groups. With it becoming more legalized, I could go back but obviously my job, same as yours, would have to be given up. I choose not to at this time because I like where I work and the job itself.

I think because the dangers of smoking have been discussed for years whereas vaping is new and considered by some a safe alternative.

@CallMeDave you are right, but I think after all this time and knowledge we have gained something should be done. Vaping did help me stop cigarette use. I am sure vaping is not safe but neither were the cigarettes.

@Jama765 I feel like the only reply I can think of is too obvious to state.

@CallMeDave yes. I would agree.

How did that work out for Howard Marks?
Or more generally do you have any scientific reason to think smoking canabis helps prevent cancer and no I'm not talking about THC killing cancer cells in the petri dish.

@MattHardy I recently attended a class where the presenter had documented numerous studies (mostly from non-US countries) that evaluated the effects of cannabis and CBD on cancer. The inch-thick folder was indexed according to the predominant forms of cancer, and included discussions on multiple mechanisms of action. It was fully footnoted and referenced. Each section included one or more anecdotal descriptions of people who had each type of cancer.

It is true, most of the studies did not use human subjects, but I would say the preponderence of evidence is not just persuasive, but damning.

The drug war prevents studies of cannabis effects on cancer (and a long list of other maladies) from being conducted in the U.S. Only drug abuse studies that support the drug war are allowed.

Disinformation continues to be promulgated by Federal agencies, even as the patent office registers hundreds of cannabinoid patents describing applications for cancer and a litany of illnesses. Quite a few of these patents are filed by Federal entities.

@racocn8 "no" would have sufficed.
Not sufficient to support advice of including cannabis in your cigarettes to prevent cancer. Great for combating side effects of chemo though and I've no objection to recreational use.
Yes I've seen the anecdotes and conspiracy theories. Actually conspiracy theory is too harsh for what you just suggested. There really has been an open war on drugs, nothing covert or theoretical behind it. However many of the suggestions I see where all governments and multinational pharmaceutical companies put aside self interest in favour of serving the greater interests of the Cabal are more fitting of the description. You have at least acknowledged that there is research unfettered by by such restrictions as imposed by US based ideologues. If THC really was a panacea then I'd expect to see stronger evidence of it. I'm not saying that it doesn't have potential, just that this doesn't put it on a particularly short list.

@MattHardy Actually, my response was a qualified 'yes'; I do have scientific reason to think smoking canabis helps prevent cancer, beyond cell culture testing. And yes, to the point where cannabis could prevent cancer from cigarette smoking. Cannabis smokers do not have the incidence of cancer that cigarette smokers have, even though cannabis smoke has almost all the ingredients present in cigarette smoke (… the incomplete combustion products thought to cause cancer).

The anecdotes validating the use of Rick Simpson Oil are quite numerous at this point, and a few doctors and hospitals are willing to prescribe cannabinoids for cancer patients in an experimental research context. However, most U.S. doctors are either totally ignorant on the subject or feel they don't want to risk their license by offending federal agencies. The near lack of toxicity, even by levels needed to combat cancer, strongly argues for trying cannabis/hemp when the toxic chemicals that are approved for use are not working. Even with mounting evidence, doctors will proclaim that they need to see published double-blind studies, even though we won't see those for another 20 years. That attitude will (continue to) result in millions of PREVENTABLE cancer deaths.

Cannabis/hemp are certainly not universal panaceas, but, the list of ailments helped by using these materials keeps growing as the legal restrictions are removed.

The question becomes: Why, when presented with a claim that is backed by extensive documentation, you are dismissive?

@racocn8 I wouldn't be if backed with extensive documentation.

@racocn8 I’m dismissive of the idea that I’ve been presented with extensive documentation and even more dismissive of the idea that I’ve been presented with a scientific reason to think that smoking cannabis prevents cancer.. Most promising is your claim that cannabis smokers do not have the same incidense of cancer that regular smokers have. Let's see the citation for that.

@MattHardy As I said before, smoking anything isn't healthy. However, here are some articles on the subject.

[cebp.aacrjournals.org]

[jstor.org]

[norml.org]

@racocn8 I've only read the abstracts of those, but what are you trying to prove here? That the harm caused by smoking marijuana is non-existant to minimal (which is my initial reading of these papers) or that smoking canabis reduces your chance of getting cancer (which is your original statement for which I questioned the scientific support)

nicotine is only one of the hundreds of bad chemcicals in them

@RoyMillar I'm not sure if you're talking about cigarettes or vape liquid but either way. Yes. that is certainly a well known fact.