266
Scientists Engineered a Plant to Produce 5 Different Psychedelics at Once
(www.sciencealert.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2026
266 points (98.5% liked)
science
26358 readers
294 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
Personally I only dab solventless hash oil (most of the time) at 485 F.
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.
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.
There's plenty studies linking smoke to diseases. Smoke is a known toxic agent.
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.)
The list of known carcinogens is quite short. That is mostly because it is difficult to conduct studies with a large enough sample to be sure that something is a carcinogen with high statistical reliability.
Given our current knowledge, it may be argued that eating fast food every day is not bad for you, as there are no conclusive studies linking it to increased death rates.
In the laboratory, most mutagenic compounds are labelled as mutagenic despite the fact that they are not known carcinogens.
Are you honestly asking for a source on inhaling smoke being bad for you?
Lay of that pipe mate
Nothing then, got it