I agree. What one might experience in the moment might not be worth long term potentially lethal side effects. I'm not sure anyone will want to admit to risking long term consequences.
There are very few studies-not enough to say definitively, that cannabinoids are not carcinogenic. This one study suggests that cannabinoids may cause chromosomal damage:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-018-2322-9
Given anatomy, females could be highly
internally exposed to potentially carcinogenic substances by using such products. A lubricant is a lubricant. Putting a systemic, potentially carcinogenic substance in a lubricant strikes me as a potentially dangerous and expensive gimmick. Remember that ultimately the folks who make these products are just out there to make some dough. They could be lying about the contents of the product as well. There is no FDA oversight here. Buyer, beware.
I read that study. Needless to say, a lot of the technique and jargon is over my head, but a few things caught my eye. One was the declaration that the study sought to investigate the effects of CBD on human cells in an environment that would "reflect the situation in users", but didn't elaborate on what that situation was assumed to be. Daily use? Multiple times per day? Once a month (duplicating the use by women treating menstrual pain?)...what?
Also, the CBD was dissolved in methane. Wow. Didn't know that reflected the situation in users.
Under the heading of "Results" it is stated that under low concentrations, and exposure for less than or equal to 3 hours, no damage occurred. AS they increased concentrations and exposure time, damage occurred. But they do not elaborate or explain wherein that variation one hits the point that "reflects the situation in users".
If you give enough caffeine, sugar, (or Splenda) in high enough concentrations, for long enough, you will get cellular change. That's why there is such a long list of carcinogens, and an even longer list of potential carcinogens, that include things like "red" meat, and solar radiation, certain antibiotics, progesterone,estrogen...the list is endless. Yet, among those listed, are more than a few that come with the potential for beneficial usage.
So the question becomes not whether a compound is tested to be perfectly safe, but whether it comes with enough benefit, and a relatively low risk, to make it a viable option.There is a huge difference between a treatment being "completely safe" and having the ability to be "used safely."
If I lived in a cannabis friendly state, I would give THC a try as an alternative to NSAIDS for my chronic back/sciatica issues. Neither are completely safe, hopefully they can both be used safely.
