this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2026
264 points (98.5% liked)

science

26358 readers
427 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

dart board;; science bs

rule #1: be kind

lemmy.world rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] smellythief@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Actually the tobacco plant species used in scientific research has hardly any nicotine, 10–100× less than the species used by commercial industry, and it's not naturally carcinogenic either. The carcinogens come from all the other shit cigarette companies add to it.

[–] magic_smoke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That and exposing your lungs to the products of combustion regularly.

[–] 7101334@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

There's no evidence linking cannabis smoke to lung cancer. I don't see why tobacco would be any different if it wasn't covered in radioactvity and poison and radioactive poison.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Use some form of water pipe, it cleans a LOT of the worst stuff out of the smoke, without disturbing the good stuff. All that goo that builds up on your bong? That would have been in your lungs.

[–] 7101334@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Personally I only dab solventless hash oil (most of the time) at 485 F.

[–] ranzispa@mander.xyz 2 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Cannabis smoke is not a recognised carcinogenic agent. That is different from saying there's no evidence linking it to cancer.

It's smoke in the lungs on a regular basis. That's plenty evidence.

[–] emeralddawn45@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 hours ago

That's the opposite of evidence, it's actually a total lack of evidence... Just because you feel like it should be true doesn't make it true.

[–] 7101334@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

That is different from saying there’s no evidence linking it to cancer.

Okay, provide said evidence then.

I'm aware benzene and other byproducts of combustion should increase lung cancer risk, but a wide swathe of studies has failed to ever conclusively establish a connection between cannabis smoke and cancer.

(Also cannabis in California actually is labeled with a cancer risk... not due to smoking it, but due to the presence of the terpene Myrcene, which is why you'll find the warning even on edibles. Still, that's just California being California, as I understand it the warning is there simply because Myrcene has a benzene ring in its chemical structure like many aromatic compounds do.)

[–] 0x0 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Are you honestly asking for a source on inhaling smoke being bad for you?

Lay of that pipe mate

[–] 7101334@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Nothing then, got it