Changing from tobacco to cannabis has no major implications to the story, but it does mean a cancer causing product gets less positive association in the real world.

Also, have you tried reading LotR while high? It's way better than while smoking tobacco.

Basically, stop gatekeeping and let people have their fun.

[–] unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

This make it sound like you're under the impression that tobacco is big cancer and cannabis is completely harmless?

Do you think it's the nicotine that does the cancer and THC actually cures you? Because while I hate to be the one to bear that bad news for you, it's the byproducts of combustion that cause the cancer, regardless of whether it's cannabis or tobacco.

Basically, stop gatekeeping and let people, halflings, elves, dwarves, and ainur enjoy tobacco if they want. We're all here for a limited amount of time, let me enjoy some pipe tobacco or a cigar without turning it into a moral panic requiring the redaction of one of the best stories of all time.

Also yes 10/10 for LOTR while stoned.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Do you think it's the nicotine that does the cancer and THC actually cures you? Because while I hate to be the one to bear that bad news for you, it's the byproducts of combustion that cause the cancer, regardless of whether it's cannabis or tobacco.

Ehh.... Inhaling anything other than air isn't exactly great for your health. But equivocating Tobacco use with cannabis isn't accurate either. First of all, cancer isn't exactly the biggest danger when it comes to tobacco, nicotine itself is extremely damaging to both the pulmonary and circulatory systems.

Secondly, while it is the byproduct of combustion that causes cancer, the byproducts of the combustion vary based on what you are smoking. And while THC may not "cure you" studies have shown that it helps regulate some of the immune responses that increase tumor production.

In conclusion, while both tobacco and cannabis smoke have similar properties chemically, their pharmacological activities differ greatly. Components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some. Both types of smoke contain carcinogens and particulate matter that promotes inflammatory immune responses that may enhance the carcinogenic effects of the smoke. However, cannabis typically down-regulates immunologically-generated free radical production by promoting a Th2 immune cytokine profile. Furthermore, THC inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate some of the carcinogens found in smoke. In contrast, tobacco smoke increases the likelihood of carcinogenesis by overcoming normal cellular checkpoint protective mechanisms through the activity of respiratory epithelial cell nicotine receptors.

[–] unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You're not wrong, smoking things is bad for your health. I'm not saying that the risk is exactly equal, but if you could lay out an easily understood framework for how to assess the impact of smoking a single cigarette vs a single joint, I would be impressed.

All I'm saying is that Tolkien wrote the books with tobacco in mind, which was way more popular during his time, and we don't need to pretend that they were smoking cannabis instead as some sort of some great societal PSA against the dangers of tobacco.

If we want to get really nitpicky, you don't even inhale pipe tobacco smoke, whereas you'd never do the same with cannabis or you'd miss out on the effects. Obviously there's a risk factor for mouth, nose, and throat cancer, but most western societies agree that adults should be informed of risks and allowed to make their own mistakes. Same goes for alcohol, mountaineering, and owning weapons.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago

but if you could lay out an easily understood framework for how to assess the impact of smoking a single cigarette vs a single joint, I would be impressed.

Yeah..... Because you've framed a request for something that cannot be assessed accurately within those conditions. That doesn't mean we can't reasonably presume with the data we have that smoking cigs is much more harmful than cannabis.

Just the addictive nature of nicotine and it's effects on the circulatory systems alone makes it much more hazardous than cannabis.

All I'm saying is that Tolkien wrote the books with tobacco in mind, which was way more popular during his time, and we don't need to pretend that they were smoking cannabis instead as some sort of some great societal PSA against the dangers of tobacco.

Has nothing to do with my rebuttal.

If we want to get really nitpicky, you don't even inhale pipe tobacco smoke, whereas you'd never do the same with cannabis or you'd miss out on the effects. Obviously there's a risk factor for mouth, nose, and throat cancer

Again, putting aside the dangers to the lungs. Tobacco itself is a much more dangerous than cannabis. Even without combustion tabacco is potent carcinogenic, which is not the case with cannabis.

If you want to nitpick there are safe ways to avoid any of the potentially systemically harmful properties associated with cannabis, like extracting the THC into an edible. This isn't possible for tobacco as the material itself is a carcinogenic, and the drug you would extract from the plant itself is just as damaging to the body as the cancer.

western societies agree that adults should be informed of risks and allowed to make their own mistakes.

I haven't made any comments about people's right to imbide in dangerous activities, that an entirely different debate. What I agree with in this statement, and what is relevant to are current dispute is being properly informed.

Which includes confronting people who are trying to downplay the harm of tobacco by equating with a less harmful drug. Even though you attempted to say they aren't exactly as harmful, the rest of your response was an attempt to muddy the facts. Which is that tobacco bis just inherently much more dangerous than cannabis in just about every conceivable way.

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Abstract

More people are using the cannabis plant as modern basic and clinical science reaffirms and extends its medicinal uses. Concomitantly, concern and opposition to smoked medicine has occurred, in part due to the known carcinogenic consequences of smoking tobacco. Are these reactions justified? While chemically very similar, there are fundamental differences in the pharmacological properties between cannabis and tobacco smoke. Cannabis smoke contains cannabinoids whereas tobacco smoke contains nicotine. Available scientific data, that examines the carcinogenic properties of inhaling smoke and its biological consequences, suggests reasons why tobacco smoke, but not cannabis smoke, may result in lung cancer.

...

In conclusion, while both tobacco and cannabis smoke have similar properties chemically, their pharmacological activities differ greatly. Components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some. Both types of smoke contain carcinogens and particulate matter that promotes inflammatory immune responses that may enhance the carcinogenic effects of the smoke. However, cannabis typically down-regulates immunologically-generated free radical production by promoting a Th2 immune cytokine profile. Furthermore, THC inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate some of the carcinogens found in smoke. In contrast, tobacco smoke increases the likelihood of carcinogenesis by overcoming normal cellular checkpoint protective mechanisms through the activity of respiratory epithelial cell nicotine receptors. Cannabinoids receptors have not been reported in respiratory epithelial cells (in skin they prevent cancer), and hence the DNA damage checkpoint mechanism should remain intact after prolonged cannabis exposure. Furthermore, nicotine promotes tumor angiogenesis whereas cannabis inhibits it. It is possible that as the cannabis-consuming population ages, the long-term consequences of smoking cannabis may become more similar to what is observed with tobacco. However, current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1277837/

I am aware inhaling anything into your lungs is bad for them, but tobacco is significantly worse than cannabis.

[–] unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Look, I can find academic papers that support my claim and cite them too, but the fact is that there isn't nearly enough data on cannabis consumption to reach a scientific consensus. We know that putting toxins in your lungs is bad for your health overall, but I don't agree that we can, in the same sentence, say "cannabis good, tobacco bad". They're both bad for you, and adults should be allowed to make their own decisions about when and how to use them.

Here, I'm not paying for full access to this paper, but it cites the paper you linked to and this one has itself been cited more often.

Marijuana use and risk of lung cancer: a 40-year cohort study

Russell C Callaghan, Peter Allebeck, Anna Sidorchuk

Cancer Causes & Control 24 (10), 1811-1820, 2013

Purpose

Cannabis (marijuana) smoke and tobacco smoke contain many of the same potent carcinogens, but a critical—yet unresolved—medical and public-health issue is whether cannabis smoking might facilitate the development of lung cancer. The current study aimed to assess the risk of lung cancer among young marijuana users.

Conclusion

Our primary finding provides initial longitudinal evidence that cannabis use might elevate the risk of lung cancer. In light of the widespread use of marijuana, especially among adolescents and young adults, our study provides important data for informing the risk–benefit calculus of marijuana smoking in medical, public-health, and drug-policy settings.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=946268550444709876&as_sdt=5%2C30&sciodt=0%2C30&hl=en#d=gs_qabs&t=1762525435931&u=%23p%3D9kkM3NKxiJUJ

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You're arguing with yourself here.

I never said cannabis is good for you. We know for a fact, conclusively, that tobacco causes cancer. Cannabis, on the other hand, may or may not cause cancer. It's not conclusive. Even the paper you've quoted states "might elevate the risk".

But regardless, I never said "cannabis good", I said "tobacco bad".

[–] unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Bro I think you might need a T break.

You didn't need to say cannabis was good, you suggested that it was better that we think of the plant smoked as cannabis than tobacco as to warn people about the societal ills of tobacco use.

I'm not going to do a lit review of all of the studies about cannabis risk for you, I just picked an article that cited the one you provided with a different conclusion. The point is that there is no academic consensus on this and we don't need to revise LOTR because of your feelings about tobacco.

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 2 points 3 days ago

Bro I think you might need to back off with the ad hominems.

You're getting very worked up about the comments of a memes page on a piece of fiction.

It's not my fault you chose a paper that doesn't back up your own point.

Jackson chose to portray pipe weed as cannabis. Tolkien wrote it as tobacco. Tobacco is incredibly harmful, to portray pipe weed as cannabis rather than tobacco in future adaptations doesn't harm the gist of the story in any way. It adds a bit of fun (like Merry and Pippin stoned out their faces raiding Saruman's stores) and prevents the glorification of what we now know to be an incredibly harmful substance. Tobacco is in the same classification as asbestos for harm, according to the WHO. Would you like to breathe in some asbestos?

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (13 replies)