New findings indicate cannabis contributes to severe cellular and genetic damage, raising cancer risks and potentially affecting future generations.
Cannabis use has been linked to cellular damage that significantly increases the risk of developing highly cancerous tumors, according to a new study in the scientific journal Addiction Biology.
The study identifies cannabis as a “genotoxic” substance, meaning it harms the genetic material within cells. This damage can result in DNA mutations, accelerated aging, and cancer.
Alarmingly, the study suggests that this genetic damage could be passed on to future generations through egg and sperm, making the effects of cannabis use potentially trans-generational.
Linking Cannabis to Cellular and Genetic Damage
Researchers from The University of Western Australia highlighted this connection in their recent publication. They linked existing evidence that cannabis use disrupts cellular energy production by impairing mitochondria to new findings published in Science.[1,2]
These findings reveal that mitochondrial dysfunction can drive chromosomal damage, leading to higher rates of cancer, premature aging, and birth defects. Together, this research underscores the far-reaching consequences of cannabis-induced genetic harm.
Broad Implications of Cannabis-Induced Damage
The Science studies were not conducted in the context of cannabis use; however, they provide mechanistic insights into some observations about cannabis use that were not previously well understood, such as that cannabis causes both mitochondrial and genetic damage. Taken together, the article in Addiction Biology put older historical research about cannabis into context and suggests that cannabis-related genotoxic damage may be all around us — even if we largely don’t see it.
Intergenerational Consequences of Cannabis
Co-author Dr. Stuart Reece comments: “The link we’ve described between cannabis use and genotoxicity has far-reaching consequences. This new research shows how genetic damage from cannabis use can be passed down the generations. This should reframe the discussion surrounding cannabis legalization from a personal choice to one that potentially involves multiple subsequent generations.”
Notes
- “Micronuclear collapse from oxidative damage” by Melody Di Bona, Yanyang Chen, Albert S. Agustinus, Alice Mazzagatti, Mercedes A. Duran, Matthew Deyell, Daniel Bronder, James Hickling, Christy Hong, Lorenzo Scipioni, Giulia Tedeschi, Sara Martin, Jun Li, Aušrinė Ruzgaitė, Nadeem Riaz, Parin Shah, Edridge K. D’Souza, D. Zack Brodtman, Simone Sidoli, Bill Diplas, Manisha Jalan, Nancy Y. Lee, Alban Ordureau, Benjamin Izar, Ashley M. Laughney, Simon Powell, Enrico Gratton, Stefano Santaguida, John Maciejowski, Peter Ly, Thomas M. Jeitner and Samuel F. Bakhoum, 30 August 2024, Science.
DOI: 10.1126/science.adj8691 - “A p62-dependent rheostat dictates micronuclei catastrophe and chromosome rearrangements” by Sara Martin, Simone Scorzoni, Sara Cordone, Alice Mazzagatti, Galina V. Beznoussenko, Amanda L. Gunn, Melody Di Bona, Yonatan Eliezer, Gil Leor, Tal Ben-Yishay, Alessia Loffreda, Valeria Cancila, Maria Chiara Rainone, Marica Rosaria Ippolito, Valentino Martis, Fabio Bedin, Massimiliano Garrè, Laura Pontano Vaites, Paolo Vasapolli, Simona Polo, Dario Parazzoli, Claudio Tripodo, Alexander A. Mironov, Alessandro Cuomo, Uri Ben-David, Samuel F. Bakhoum, Emily M. Hatch, Peter Ly and Stefano Santaguida, 30 August 2024, Science.
DOI: 10.1126/science.adj7446
Reference: “Key insights into cannabis-cancer pathobiology and genotoxicity” by Albert Stuart Reece and Gary Kenneth Hulse, 13 November 2024, Addiction Biology.
DOI: 10.1111/adb.70003
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
88 Comments
My brothers and sisters
This is Probably True since the government has taken over the growing of it .
They add cancer causing chemicals as they did to tobacco ,to spread the cancer, the disease that they themselves created !!!
My discernment
IN JESUS’S NAME
💙💙💙
The Tooth Fairy concurs.
Stay tuned for more words of wisdom from The Easter Bunny, Mothman, BigFoot, and the Jersey Devil.
I’m sorry, but your interest in scaring people away from safe alternatives to opioids seems suspicious.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-31/brisbane-opioid-doctor-medical-board-tribunal-decision/102142072
Agreed!!!! I have a difficult time believing any results of any studies done nowadays.
Just like many of the studies showing negativity you didn’t even explain how you came to this conclusion or the proof the path at which it could actually harm the genes
LMAO was this study done in the 60s? There is so much evidence proving other wise 😂
I more or less said something similar in reply to Iver Steen (see below), and it got deleted. The Mods seem to get set off by the “C” word.
Who told you that? Dr, Fauci? We don’t believe a thing the government has told us since Vietnam Nam.
BS
Yep!!!!
the government took over the growing of it? here in detroit it’s just a bunch of Chaldeans that were formerly in the liquor store business…
Cannabis literally saved my life from a severe alcohol addiction, and I know many others that where able to get off opioid and benzo addiction. Seems like whoever paid for this study must have a ton of money wrapped up in pharmaceutical drugs and is worried about loosing there investments.
I don’t buy it. If anything, it’s because of the dispensary weed that is widely grown with pesticides and anti-fungals to keep the bud looking pristine. I’ve known cannabis growers and smokers my whole life, and guess what, for the most part they are all younger in mind and body than others their age. Their kids are generally smarter too. What’s more, is they are a lot happier than most nonsmokers. My parents’ good friends are around 80, still light up, and they are not only some of the most productive and active people I’ve ever met, but also probably the smartest and most financially with it people I know. I myself smoke every day, have for years, and just wrote my third book. For the whole “premature aging” bit, well, I still get carded every time I buy alcohol. I’m almost 50. Whoever does the research on all these bunk studies shouldn’t be allowed to be published. What’s probably doing it is all the chemicals that are in our foods and water anymore, and everything being processed and packaged in plastic. People just want to blame weed.
Government does not grow it. All growers are private companies.
Thank you, Common sense
Biggest exporter several years ago before ban was lifted. Who has that power. You should check who really owns those companies
This isn’t very compelling. For one. If you believe in God, God put all herb bearing seed on earth for mans consumption. Says that in the bible. Two. You can’t believe any of these studies because years down the road, the observations will change. Just like when they said eggs, butter, red meat were bad for us. Used to say alcohol in moderation was good too. Now, they say the opposite of those things. So I’ll make my own judgement on these topics. Not from a study. Not from the Bible that has changed too many times to count. Hell and heaven are entirely human constructs. Roman emperor Justinian changed Christianity’s belief in reincarnation to eternal damnation or heaven as a means to control all of man at the time. So I can’t lend to much credence to any of these sources.
Pretty concerned about SciTechDaily reporting on this in this way given the lead is an avid believe in faith healing and was suspended for malpractice recently….
Lead author*
Explain Willie Nelson?
Which cancer causing chemicals ? Do you have research supporting your belief?
Ok so you are a crazy person. Got it!
I’m taking a wild guess here, but I smell Big Pharma having a HUGE hand in the support of this study.
Head to PubMed now to dig up the details on this. Flimsy, at best.
What a load of utter rubbish. One really does not need to dig very deep to realise that the actual findings are influenced by government and big Pharma’s.
It’s like cigarettes the government first hooked you on it and when they made billions from it then they told the public it’s unhealthy.
Study sponsored by Budweiser ®️
Oh boy. We’re going to hear from the potheads now!
Is there a difference with how you ingest it? I mean, smoking as opposed to the creams. Myself and others are finding the creams very effective for age related aches and pains. For generations, members of my family (medicine women) studied the usage of herbs and made tinctures, teas, creams, etc. No remedies ever passed down to me included smoking. Also, medicine wasnt used like vitamins which are taken daily to supplement what you expect to get daily in your food. Herbs are medicine, and for the most part, used during illness, and applied in specific amounts. So I’m just wondering what forms of ingestion were used for this study, the amounts used, how often. It makes me question the merit of it.
I wonder at times how they arrive at the conclusion regarding weed use when I was working as a school Resource Officer and teaching students the wrongs of Drug and Alcohol use ! Now I have a son who is a Medical Doctor and a son who is a surgical nurse they have seen cases of substances abuse and addiction.As a Law Enforcement Officer and Corrections Officer I seen the worst side of the use of drugs an d alcohol! I myself have attended A A meeting !! I have friends and relatives who use weed daily for their own purposes from self diagnosed disorders to just hey I like to party . Iam not opposed to cannabis use in a medical setting my daughter has a pain causing disorder and has been given cannabis gummies to assist her in pain management! And their are others but I just feel like we’ve been lied to about all this stuff in one way or and other!
Ya damn right 🙂
Anyone who believes this is so naive it’s not even funny…
Good grief!
Co-author Dr. Stuart Reece « was single-handedly treating about 15 per cent of the estimated 7,000 Queenslanders receiving opioid substitution treatment (OST), based on 2020 figures.» according to abcnet.au Tue 28 Feb 2023.
He lost his licence to prescribe opiates, and made a mess for his patients who became/was dependent of his Queensland services.
What standards do scitechdaily actually set for its science contributors?
Sorry, tried to answer your last question, but got deleted.
SciTechDaily Gods are very sensetive, this will probably be deleted too.
So, its interesting that they describe it as “genotoxic” and not carcinogenic as they might other known cancer causing chemicals.
Also, any genetic damage COULD be passed down(although rarely does that happen as if the damage is severe then a pregnancy either doesn’t ensue at all or self terminates, a normal thing is a sufficiently genetically damaged sperm or egg are involved), such that unless there’s a mechanism that makes this extreme in unusual ways in this case to even mention it otherwise would be despicably deceitful manipulation of the truth.
Furthermore if the primary or exclusive method of action is through mitochondrial stress, the entire way this is otherwise describes and framed again would be despicably dishonest and misleading as for one…. Again this is not exclusive to or extreme in context by comparison in marijuana (unless it is, but that seems unlikely considering how bad we know things like nicotine, alcohol, and many products even that are used on or put directly into our food.
I’m not saying marijuana is fully healthy.
Smoking anything is always bad for your lungs and cardiovascular system.
But stuff like this makes claims that aren’t just misleading…. Without adequate justification IN CONTEXT (not exaggerating one thing, mislabeling another with a label that might be loosely correct but is never normally used in such magnitudes or contexts….
Anything that is carcinogenic causes or can caused genetic damage, and in that sense is genotoxic. Many things we interact with and even eat are mildly carcinogenic. Sunlight causes cell damage…..
Context is absolutely relevant when you make outrageous claims like ‘this could cause birth defects’….
Yeah, just like painting with certain paints and working in certain occupations with certain chemicals including mechanics and all sorts of cleaners and farmers and many construction workers….
I’m not saying it isn’t true, but without more much MORE SPECIFIC information, these claims are so outrageous they should verge on criminal, coming from a supposed professional)
Agreed! So aggravated with fake news!
Besides, even the simple (and presumably safe) tomato can cause cancer when it has been grown using too many chemicals and pesticides.
I would like science to actually “study” (not just compare notes) cannabis, and do it on organic cannabis.
Good grief! The government and media are so disgusting nowadays. Normal people will never know the real truth versus the paid-for truth.
It is all in the way you articulate the facts. Then, facts can become any story you want if you say them correctly. Sad day.
Sincerely, one black sheep
(If we are forced to be sheep – be the black sheep.)
That is why you make your own conclusions on things in life and not listen to others. Be your own person. Make your own decisions. Live from your own experiences. It’s simple.
Puff puff pass
Puff pass
I have been smoking cannabis every day for over 50 yrs. Now in my 70s still smoking and alive. Healthier than alcohol and pharma meds users!
Not buying this info. I know too many highly accomplished and vital older pot smokers.
This article is complete nonsense: “The Science studies were not conducted in the context of cannabis use…” Then why are you saying this about cannabis? And “that cannabis-related genotoxic damage may be all around us — even if we largely don’t see it.” How can something be all around us but not be seen? This is supposed to be a scientific article. I call BS.
Mindy, it can be all around us and not be seen if the effects are not obvious. For the sake of argument, assume the findings of this study were true. If someone who never used cannabis developed cancer, how easily could you trace the cause to cannabis use by their parents? We could be asking a similar question about genetically modified foods. Are they causing widespread harm? It’s extremely difficult to answer that question. It would require huge and very expensive epidemiological studies.
“If someone who never used cannabis developed cancer, how easily could you trace the cause to cannabis use by their parents?”
That isn’t being alleged in this article, and my guess is that it would not be possible to tell. If the connection can’t be definitively proven, then it’s not a scientific claim when the author of the study tries to make that connection. Why make such a claim based on a single study? There is no scientific reason to do so, but saying it WOULD suit the purposes of an unethical pseudoscientist trying to make a name for himself.
I’d like to see the insides of your lungs.
Wow personal
Medically only. (That should’ve been obvious).
“The Science studies were not conducted in the context of cannabis use; however …”
What does that mean ? Did they feed mice THC until they roll over ?
At 77, my 50 years of home grown cannabis has helped me launch Ethernet in 1984 and an Emmy for advancements in video on demand at Comcast and Time-Warner in 1998.
My wife and I, three children, seven grandchildren all healthy and active.
I am guessing alcohol and tobacco companies are funding thus work trying again to put in the class of addictive drugs.
Intuitively, from an early age I knew this to be the case and firmly rejected cannabis personal use, or
other so-called “recreational drugs for that matter, notwithstanding peer and/or trendy novelty pressure.
My argument was/is: As we aren’t able to choose our genetic inheritances, at least we can do our utmost to preserve, if not ameliorate what has been given to us, to be passed on to the following generations.
Good grief!
Half the foods we eat cause cancer an the environmentals we live in, FREE THE WEED at least we will die happy
Agreed and after the government made billions from it they band it.
Smoking anything can damage cells. Even non psycho active herbs. I would love to see the study and see if the participants smoked tobacco, consumed alcohol or other drugs and if there was a control. Just like we get a study every other day that says coffee is good for you, then the next day coffee is bad for you!
Sounds like big pharma,been smoking weed over 50 years still kicking cancer Free more bs
Next up, Willie Nelson. A living legend,who in his 90s, has been partaking in the substance for most of his adult life.
You can’t look to single examples like that. My Mom’s stepdad was a heavy chain smoker all his life and also a heavy drinker and lived to 95. That doesn’t prove that cigarettes and alcohol are harmless, but rather that he was an especially genetically healthy person, extra tough. Some strong individuals often survive very toxic conditions while others don’t. To determine that something is harmful, you must look at large numbers and see if, on average, when controlling for other factors, cannabis users are more likely to have certain conditions. You also look for plausible mechanisms.
Anecdotal evidence is not good evidence. George Harrison smoked marijuana, guess what he died from. There’s anecdotal evidence to support any conclusion you want.
Willie Nelson was a heavy smoker of both tobacco and pot. His lungs are now severely messed up. You all can decide for yourself which of the above substances did more damage.
I love how they don’t mention cancer causing pharmaceuticals on the market today. Back off Big Pharma and the tobacco industry. They are trying to put marijuana in the same category as cigarettes. Tobacco comes with warnings Big tobacco wants the same for marijuana. We see through the propaganda and know for ourselves. Also doesn’t alcohol cause genetic damage? Your liver would agree.
You have used two red herrings in your comment. Yes, it is well established that both alcohol and tobacco are harmful. How does that somehow imply that the results of this research are bogus?
It is bogus 😒
Another highly biased anti-cannabis study that wouldn’t meet the methodological standards of a grade 5 science experiment.
Is this assuming combustion? We all agree burning dried plant materials results in cancer causing carcinogens etc…
Lookup DHV if you’re not familiar, there is an alternative to combustion. (Dry Herb Vaping)
Ruh Roh
Working with ChatGPT-4’s Consensus GPT, which has access to the scientific studies cited, I provided it with this SciTechDaily article and it made these findings:
The connection made between cannabis use and mitochondrial damage in this article raises important questions, but the evidence cited requires closer scrutiny. The findings come primarily from a study by researchers at The University of Western Australia, published in Addiction Biology. This study links cannabis use to mitochondrial dysfunction and genetic damage, building on broader findings about cellular energy disruption and chromosomal harm published in Science. However, the Science studies do not specifically examine cannabis; instead, they focus on general mechanisms of mitochondrial damage.
The Australian study extrapolates these broader mechanisms to suggest cannabis-related genotoxicity and even transgenerational harm, but much of this remains theoretical. Furthermore, the study does not differentiate between harm caused by cannabinoids like THC and the toxic effects of combustion-related byproducts (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). This is a critical gap, as methods like edibles or vaping could bypass many of the risks linked to smoking.
While this research highlights important areas for further investigation, the claims about cannabis-induced mitochondrial damage and transgenerational effects seem speculative without more direct evidence. Additionally, several broader issues with the study deserve attention:
1. Overreliance on Theoretical Models: The claims about mitochondrial damage and genetic harm draw heavily from theoretical models and indirect evidence. The authors connect general findings about mitochondrial dysfunction to cannabis without direct studies on cannabis users. For example, the studies from Science referenced in the article were not cannabis-specific, making the link somewhat speculative.
2. Weak Differentiation Between Cannabinoids and Combustion: The study does not clearly differentiate between harm caused by the cannabis plant’s components (like THC and CBD) and the combustion byproducts (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). This is a critical flaw because smoking cannabis introduces unique risks that might not apply to edibles or vaping.
3. Context of Prior Research: While the Addiction Biology study is an important contribution, prior research has shown mixed results. For example:
Some studies suggest cannabinoids like THC and CBD have anti-inflammatory and potential anti-cancer properties (Clark, 2020).
Others find weak or inconclusive links between cannabis and certain cancers, with confounding factors like tobacco use often being overlooked (Zhang et al., 2015).
4. Potential for Dose-Dependent and Context-Specific Effects: The study does not explore whether the effects are dose-dependent, nor does it clarify whether occasional cannabis use poses the same risks as chronic or heavy use. This leaves a critical gap in understanding who might actually be at risk.
5. Transgenerational Effects Are Highly Speculative: Claims about genetic damage being passed to future generations are particularly speculative. While epigenetic changes from substances like alcohol or smoking have been observed, direct evidence for cannabis-induced transgenerational harm is minimal.
While the study provides valuable insights, its conclusions—particularly regarding mitochondrial damage and transgenerational risks—are premature and call for more robust, cannabis-specific research. Future studies should focus on distinguishing these mechanisms, exploring different consumption methods, and addressing dose-dependent effects.
Who funded the research? Pfizer? Weyerhaeuser?
Why you think it was called demon weed?
And how does this compare to alcohol abuse?
Alcohol and tobacco can easily kill and I’m willing to bet they are not going to be outlawed.
Everyone is different, I for example cannot drink alcohol.
Cannabis is an amazing plant. I believe it opens the mind to the spiritual dimension. They are fighting to ban it, while monodytrizafoline can be given to you in a 1 gallon container. Stop this propaganda.
When does the reefer madness stop?
Amazing!
Research funded by an organization named “The Society for the Study of Addiction” found “definitive proof” with no options for peer review. COMPLETELY LEGIT.
If you are feeding 7 tons to a mouse, you may see something.
The study is from a bunch of warped spaticwehas. I will come back once I have my third eye
As a journalist, I knew this was a hit job as soon as I read the headline. What objective news outfit uses an adjective like “startling” in the headline of an ‘academic’ study? Pure editorializing. Not to mention, the author is no researcher. He’s a “family” doctor. My family doctor sends me to a specialist for anything beyond a headache or sore throat.
Amazingly entertaining! I am a daily partaker for seizure control in lieu of meds. Also feel study is BS as in my research found government had patent on weed for cancer. In fact, my husband’s last CATS scan for his lung cancer showed his largest tumor shrunk by 3 mm since his last scan from weed and prayers!
Beyond the article, here is one of the sources: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adj8691
Hopefully blind advocacy is not an effect.
Have you done an article on the Endocannabinoid system?? It comes from the Marijuana family and every single living animal including insects have one…..Nothing in history has ever done this before. It is for absorbing and using all the different “parts” of the plant for our benefit!!!! This is amazing and NEEDS to be shared . I learned this from a Harvard newsletter so the source is awesome. 😉
I am a true believer of the benefits. As a disabled highly commended 911 dispatcher whose brain blew up on the job, 3 brain surgeries left me dealing with seizures. My Dr. Literally had me prescribed 24 seizure pills A DAY! My fire Lt. Recommended weed, BEST solution for me EVER!!!!
So your subjective experience overrules years of science and research? This seems very foolish. I personally know of people who have never smoked a cigarette and only smoked marijuana that have developed aggressive lung cancer. They have all died. So take your weed religion to the grave. I choose science.
“Society for the Study of Addiction” doesn’t exactly sound like an unbiased source…
Ok so you are a crazy person. Got it!
We should all listen to this study. I personally know someone who never smoked a cigarette in their life. They believe cannabis was the key to eternal life. That is until they developed stage 4 lung cancer. They died very quickly. So keep your weed religion. I will stick to science and reality.
Another fake study done to protect and increase Big Pharma profits!!!