Posted on 05/24/2006 10:40:07 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
By Mary Beckman
ScienceNOW Daily News
23 May 2006
It seems logical that inhaling enough smoke will give you lung cancer. But a new study of Los Angeles residents suggests that smoking marijuana--even more than 22,000 joints in a lifetime--doesn't increase cancer risk. The results surprise many researchers, who point out marijuana has other ill health effects.
Decades of research have shown that cigarette smoking dramatically increases the risk of certain cancers. But controversy surrounds the risk of smoking weed. A 1999 study of blood donors suggested a link between marijuana and head and neck cancer, but a larger study in 2004 found no such connection. Still, work in the lab suggests marijuana can be dangerous. For example, pot smoke contains more of some cancer-causing chemicals than cigarettes do, thanks to the filterless nature of joints.
In hopes of settling the debate, pulmonologist Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues assembled the largest study to date. They identified cancer patients through the University of Southern California Tumor Registry, which compiles cancer data in Los Angeles County. From 1999 to 2003, 611 Los Angelinos age 60 and under came down with lung cancer, and 601 developed head and neck cancers, each a kind of malignancy that smokers would most likely suffer from. The team then identified more than 1000 control individuals in L.A. who did not have cancer. The researchers matched these individuals to cancer patients by age, gender, and other factors such as the neighborhood in which they lived. In confidential interviews, Tashkin's group determined marijuana usage as well as other risk factors for cancer such as cigarette smoking.
Statistical analysis revealed that smoking joints did not increase the risk of coming down with these cancers. About half of cancer patients and controls smoked marijuana, but more than 80% of cancer patients were current or former cigarette smokers. Even heavy tokers--who reported smoking a total of about 22,000 joints over their lifetime--did not have increased risk compared to nonsmokers. The researchers will present their findings tomorrow at the American Thoracic Society International Conference in San Diego.
The results surprised Tashkin. "I wouldn't give [marijuana] a clean bill of health, but at least this study says if there is a risk, it's very small," he says. Still, he says, marijuana has been shown to suppress the immune system and may increase the risk of pneumonia.
As for why marijuana use doesn't seem to increase cancer risk, pulmonary critical care researcher John Hansen-Flaschen of the University of Pennsylvania points out that cigarette smokers puff a lot more cigarettes than do marijuana users--a smoker with a 2-pack-a-day habit lights up 292,000 cigarettes over 20 years, for example. That's probably because marijuana isn't nearly as addictive as tobacco, says epidemiologist Steve Schwartz of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, who conducted the 2004 study.
Let's get off the immigration for a bit and get back to a good old drug war thread! :-D
DUDE! That is alot of nachos.
I'm up to 21,999 joints so far.
Sounds like Tommy Chong may have been a part of this research.
By the way, if you ever meet him in person, you won't hear the doper voice he uses on TV, etc. unless someone talks him into doing the character.
Acting!
From another article:
Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has antitumor properties, either by encouraging the death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors, Tashkin tells WebMD.
In a review of the research published last fall, University of Colorado molecular biologist Robert Melamede, PhD, concluded that the THC in cannabis seems to lessen the tumor-promoting properties of marijuana smoke.
The nicotine in tobacco has been shown to inhibit the destruction of cancer-causing cells, Melamede tells WebMD. THC does not appear to do this and may even do the opposite.
To quote Afroman: "I was going to fight in the drug war, but then I got high."
My grand children have been playing that song until I think I have it memorized.
LOL! That's a lot of trees!
Seriously, are there actually retards who still think marijuana is more dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol?
Just say no to it all. You wanna rush? Jog a mile. It's invigorating... really.
If research showed that smoking marijuana CURED lung cancer, the WODdie freaks would still be hyper-ventilating over the devil weed.
Just my opinion.
Yes, I was thinking it might contain some anticancer and anti-inflammatory compounds as well.
"work in the lab suggests marijuana can be dangerous"
Yeah, people high in a lab drop flasks and stuff.
Now if we could compare the guys who smoke 22,000 joints in a lifetime to those who smoke .8 cigarettes a day, we'd really see the comparative risks!
http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v04n2/04204mwp.html
related article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/marijuana_dc
related article
"He theorized that tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke that produces its psychotropic effect, may encourage aging, damaged cells to die off before they become cancerous." (It only kills off the weak brain cells...now who said that?)
Apparently the insurance industry does. They require drug screening for construction companies and will not cover a company that hires someone who flunks the test.
"DUDE! That is alot of nachos."
.... and Twinkies.....
.... and cold Pizza.....
My first mate on an 85 foot overnight charterboat reinvented the word invigorating. We had one deckhand who overslept thru the first fishing stop.
He was still asleep in his sleeping bag on a bunk when the first mate came in with a live, freshly-caught bonito and stuck it into the sleeping bag with him. Nothing like a 12 pound lively fish in your bed for "invigoration".
Don't know how many of you are familiar with bonito. They are a smaller form of tuna and they are semi-warm blooded. Even after being landed, their entire body continues the swimming motions for quite a while and they make a lot of noise as their tails almost "vibrate" slapping on the deck.
~~~~~~~
Carolyn
LOL!
That is just wrong... I'll have to try it next time I go fishing. Heh, heh, heh...
Doing a little rough math, I figure that during my tenure as a pot head I smoked about 15,000 - 17,000 joints. And I was smoking every day.
I quit in 1988 and have apparently suffered no long term effects. But, I still have the "I can't find the word" syndrome. :)
Now your talking.
"Decades of research" being the operative phrase. We don't have "decades of research" on the link between marijuana and cancer.
The author mentions some studies from 1999, 2003, and 2004 -- spans all of 5 years. Big deal.
Smoke a couple of bong hits, then run five miles. That's a rush that's really invigorating.
Yes they do. And cigarette smokers will quit when they're dead -- marijuana smokers quit in their late 20's, early 30's.
But, cigarette smokers use filters, don't draw the smoke deep into their lungs, don't hold it until they turn red-faced, and don't smoke the butt down to the last cancer-concentrated molecule.
And if research showed that legalizing marijuana would double teen use, the anti-WODdie freaks would still want marijuana legal -- screw everyone else.
Why isn't NORML and the MPP and the DPA and all the other Soros-funded groups sponsoring marijuana research instead of state initiatives? Why not? Because they know marijuana is not medicine.
"Now if we could compare the guys who smoke 22,000 joints in a lifetime to those who smoke .8 cigarettes a day, we'd really see the comparative risks!
You have a point there. However, if cigarette smokers smoked the way tokers toke, they might only need .8 cigarettes/day. If tobacco cost $200/oz there wouldn't be any butts cluttering the entrance of office buildings.
Interesting articles -- thanks.
Does he have a theory on the other 399 chemicals found in marijuana? Or the hundreds of compounds created when burned?
Ummmm,
Ok, I am trying to follow the logic here.
If marijuana is not medicine, they why, as late as the late eighties could you get it prescribed to you for things for nausea due to chemo and a host of other diseases?
In fact there are still some of those people with prescriptions who are grandfathered into this.
Sorry, but the logic is not quite right.
"(It only kills off the weak brain cells...now who said that?)"
Cliff Clavin.
Well you see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the lowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
I'm assuming you're referring to the federal government's discontinued Compassionate Investigational New Drug Study program. And that's what it was -- an investigational study. No one from the federal government ever claimed marijuana was medicine.
Where's my spliff? I can't believe I spaced where I left it.
Yes he does, at least he's aware of them. iirc he once thought MJ was more carcinogenic than tobacco based on smoke content, but this epidemiology study he ran found less harm from tobacco than from MJ- and my theory is that this is due to much less smoke being inhaled by MJ users by at least a factor of 15, possibly 20.
He did find in one study that there was bronchitis, and irritation, and precancerous cells in MJ smoker's throats and lungs- look for articles with his name (he's quite popular now and is all over the web).
There is also a "marijuana harm reduction" study someplace on MAPS that talks about what's in the smoke, and ways to reduce the harm from inhaling burning leaves. I can't find it for some reason; it's on maps.org.
Yeah, people high in a lab drop flasks and stuff.
Ummm, yeah, and they tend to forget what they were doing.
If anyone needs to take a toke, it's you. Sheesh...
A: As long as his joints hold up.
Geez Louise. Who conducts a study this way?
Gram per gram, smoked marijuana contains more carcinogens than smoked tobacco. Period. Now, you want to adjust that by saying people smoke less marijuana, or for a shorter period of time, or they use a bong, fine.
"I can't find it for some reason; it's on maps.org."
Being financed in part by Soros, I wouldn't expect MAPS to be an unbiased source. Simply google up marijuana+carcinogens and look for studies.
If such a study came out would you be the quickest to trumpet it, or would you wait for a few "decades of reseach" to be done?
studies from 1999, 2003, and 2004 -- spans all of 5 years. Big deal
Why? Am I making too much sense?
Gram per gram, store bought mushrooms contain more carcinogens than either tobacco or anything banned by the FDA. But, do they ban them?
"The most common commercial mushroom, Agaricus bisporus, contains about 300 mg of agaritine per 100 gm of mushroom as well as smaller amounts of other related carcinogens. Agaritine is not appreciably destroyed by cooking and when eaten, is distributed in tissues where it is converted to a diazonium derivative which is a very potent carcinogen (a single dose of 400 µg/gm of body weight gives 30% of treated mice stomach tumors)."
Found here:
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/library/falk/Risk/risk.htm
marijuana carcinogen
#of Results: 59,100
marijuana cures cancer
marijuana cures cancer
#of Results: 625,000
Who said anything about banning? I didn't. I simply said that smoking one gram of marijuana exposed a person to more carcinogens than smoking one gram of tobacco.
If you want to bring mushrooms into this, fine.
Wow! If the number of google results for a search was significant in some respect, you'd have a point.
The results are significant of atleast a lack of consensus.
More to the point, we live in the dark age of medicine and
butchers and poisoners should not be made lords over the
rest of us citizens by our elected officials if they are to uphold
their oaths of office.
"A wise man ought to realize that health is the most valuable possession and learn how to treat his illnesses by his own judgement.
Hippocrates - A regimen for Health circa 500 B.C.
Especially when there are so many pot activist web sites.
No, the results are the number of sites with those as keywords. Period.
"No matter where you go ... there you are."
-- Buckaroo Banzai, circa 1984
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.