Skip to comments.Study: Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer
Posted on 08/23/2005 5:14:08 AM PDT by Wolfie
Study: Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer
Protective Effect "Not Unreasonable"
Marijuana smoking -"even heavy longterm use"- does not cause cancer of the lung, upper airways, or esophagus, Donald Tashkin reported at this year's meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society. Coming from Tashkin, this conclusion had extra significance for the assembled drug-company and university-based scientists ( most of whom get funding from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse ). Over the years, Tashkin's lab at UCLA has produced irrefutable evidence of the damage that marijuana smoke wreaks on bronchial tissue. With NIDA's support, Tashkin and colleagues have identified the potent carcinogens in marijuana smoke, biopsied and made photomicrographs of pre-malignant cells, and studied the molecular changes occurring within them. It is Tashkin's research that the Drug Czar's office cites in ads linking marijuana to lung cancer. Tashkin himself has long believed in a causal relationship, despite a study in which Stephen Sidney examined the files of 64,000 Kaiser patients and found that marijuana users didn't develop lung cancer at a higher rate or die earlier than non-users. Of five smaller studies on the question, only two - -involving a total of about 300 patients-concluded that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer. Tashkin decided to settle the question by conducting a large, population-based, case-controlled study. "Our major hypothesis," he told the ICRS, "was that heavy, longterm use of marijuana will increase the risk of lung and upper-airways cancers."
The Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance program provided Tashkin's team with the names of 1,209 L.A. residents aged 59 or younger with cancer ( 611 lung, 403 oral/pharyngeal, 90 laryngeal, 108 esophageal ). Interviewers collected extensive lifetime histories of marijuana, tobacco, alcohol and other drug use, and data on diet, occupational exposures, family history of cancer, and various "socio-demographic factors." Exposure to marijuana was measured in joint years ( joints per day x years that number smoked ). Controls were found based on age, gender and neighborhood. Among them, 46% had never used marijuana, 31% had used for less than one joint year, 12% had used for 1-10 j-yrs, 5% had used 10-30 j-yrs, 2% had used for 30-60 j-yrs, and 3% had used for more than 60 j-yrs.
Tashkin controlled for tobacco use and calculated the relative risk of marijuana use resulting in lung and upper airways cancers. A relative risk ratio of .72 means that for every 100 non-users who get lung cancer, only 72 people who smoke get lung cancer. All the odds ratios in Tashkin's study turned out to be less than one! Compared with subjects who had used less than one joint year, the estimated odds ratios for lung cancer were .78 for 1-10 j-yrs [according to the abstract book and .66 according to notes from the talk] .74 for 10-30 j-yrs; .85 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 0.81 for more than 60 j-yrs. The estimated odds ratios for oral/pharyngeal cancers were 0.92 for 1-10 j-yrs; 0.89 for 10-30 j-yrs; 0.81 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 1.0 for more than 60 j-yrs. "Similar, though less precise results were obtained for the other cancer sites," Tashkin reported. "We found absolutely no suggestion of a dose response."
The data on tobacco use, as expected, revealed "a very potent effect and a clear dose-response relationship -a 21-fold greater risk of developing lung cancer if you smoke more than two packs a day." Similarly high odds obtained for oral/pharyngeal cancer, laryngeal cancer and esophageal cancer. "So, in summary" Tashkin concluded, "we failed to observe a positive association of marijuana use and other potential confounders."
There was time for only one question, said the moderator, and San Francisco oncologist Donald Abrams, M.D., was already at the microphone: "You don't see any positive correlation, but in at least one category, it almost looked like there was a negative correlation, i.e., a protective effect. Could you comment on that?" [Abrams was referring to Tashkin's lung-cancer data for marijuana-only smokers, 1-10 j-yrs.]
"Yes," said Tashkin. "The odds ratios are less than one almost consistently, and in one category that relationship was significant, but I think that it would be difficult to extract from these data the conclusion that marijuana is protective against lung cancer. But that is not an unreasonable hypothesis."
They lost their places while passing the bong.
What about long term consumption of oreos and milk?
Exactly the same way they missed the fact that second hand (tobacco) smoke does not cause lung cancer.............can't report what's not in the playbook dontcha know?
And if you do get cancer, you enjoy it more.
No, but it can keep you confined to one place for long periods of time!
>>can't report what's not in the playbook dontcha know?
Or...they have those make-believe studies where they fabricate conclusions.
I would feel more comfortable if this were coming from the NEJM, JAMA or the NIH, but, as a very heavy pot smoker 1976-1988, this is welcome news.
However smoking pot does make people argumentative,self-absorbed and grumpy.
Nah the studies are real enough..............it's the "interpretation" of results which are make-believe :)
MMMMmmmmmmmmmmm...Alice?..is that you?
Isn't that a crock. For a number of years I was a weekend caregiver for an elderly lady that smoked like a chimney. She eventually died of old age, but until the end she smoked two to three packs per day. If anyone would have had the likelihood, it would have been me.
And how come Dana Reeve has lung cancer. Chris Reeve didn't smoke. Hell, he could hardly breathe. No doubt a certain number of people will get lung cancer from irritants in the air, including dust particulates. Just because people who eat donuts get colon cancer doesn't mean the donuts caused the cancer.
Argumentative ~ Rarely
Self-absorbed ~ Always
Grumpy ~ Naaaa. As long as there is something on the TV and some nachos nearby, stoners have little to be grumpy about.
No stems, no seeds; that we don't need.
Exactly. Correlation does NOT equal causation.