study claims cannabis has 20x more cancer causing materials than tobacco

[Stemis516]

Cannabis bigger cancer risk than cigarettes: study - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080129/hl_nm/cancer_cannabis_dc)


thoughts?

[McLeodGanja]

Do they mean tobacco before or after all the harmful chemicals have been added by the tobacco industry?

[Storm Crow]

the link in my sig. More are in the "Tobacco vs Cannabis" section.

Cannabis Smoke and Cancer: Assessing the Risk
Cannabis Smoke and Cancer: Assessing the Risk - NORML (http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891)

Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic
Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1277837)

Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer
US: Web: Study: Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1065/a03.html)

Enjoy your reading! - Granny:hippy:

[Psycho4Bud]

I don't put to much faith in lab animal testing. Seems that white mice get cancer off of everything that we enjoy.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[GeorgiaKush]

If they could show me a single case of somebody smoking only marijuana and getting lung cancer, I might be inclined to believe them. However, all I see is 400,000 deaths a year from cigarettes, and not one from the good herb. It sounds like propaganda to me.

[killerweed420]

I have never known a single person that got cancer from weed. A lot of people are smoking because of cancer not because of pot.

[Innominate]

Simply not true.

[thecurious1]

As far as I know ... the largest case study done regarding this issue was in 2006.

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html)

Research showed no proof of marijuana use directly effecting lung cancer rates ... but a 20x risk for those who smoke 2-3 packs of cigs a day.

Cannabis can be used in food, resin pills, and vaporized anyways .....

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I wish everybody was aware, though, that the majority of cancer risk in tobacco doesn't even come from the carcinogens, but from Polonium-215 present in the soil they grow the tobacco in; and thus retained in the plant itself.


Funny how these objective anti-cannabis sites, giving us all the "facts", keep out facts like that; or the fact that cannabinoids selectively and aggresively destroy cancer cells. Not to mention acting neuro-protectively against physical head trauma and mutagenic agents.

[Coelho]

Cannabis bigger cancer risk than cigarettes: study - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080129/hl_nm/cancer_cannabis_dc)


thoughts?

Given the right amount of money, any "scientific study" can prove or disprove anything...

Anyway, if i die from cancer caused by weed, i promisse to write in my tombstone : "Weed ACTUALLY causes cancer... they were right... dammit!" :p

[gocryemokid]

As my statistics teacher so appropriately advised:
In observing statistics there is one thing you must focus on: Who conducted the study and how did they gather there data. This study was prob biased and only used to lie to Americans to implant the belief that marijuana is harmful. Fucking propaganda bullshit.

[Innominate]

Cannabinoid receptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptors#Cannabinoid_treatments)

[MokshaMedicine]

If this were a 100% true I'd probably still be smoking weed....



I hope

[birdgirl73]

That study wasn't propaganda-motivated. I was able to look at it in detail today in our med school library. It was by medical scientists and was a fair sampling, not supported by any funds from anti-drug or pharmaceutical companies. Just pure research. It's just that it was a very different and much smaller evaluation group than other studies that have been done. It certainly showed diametrically opposite findings from what the larger Tashkin/UCLA studies have reflected.

What does it mean? It means the same thing we've always known, particularly since studies have a history of conflicting on this subject. I means you need to be aware that there may indeed be some risk for very heavy smokers. And it means we need more far-reaching human studies to see if there's a consistent conclusion that can be drawn.

I have known two people who were cigarette-level cannabis smokers. In other words, they smoked very heavily, many many joints a day. Both of those were middle-aged men. Both have now died of lung cancer. They never smoked cigarettes, either of them. Maybe it was genetic. Maybe it was from environmental exposure earlier in their childhoods. But it certainly made those who'd known of their heavy cannabis histories wonder. We have a nation of 14 million cannabis smokers here in America, probably many many more, but since it's an illicit substance for the most part, we have no way of getting a more accurate count. That's a lot of folks, and anyone who believes some percentage of those folks hasn't had at least some cancers or health-related negative consequences doesn't really have an accurate view of statistical morbidity and mortality. You can bet it's certain that in a group that big, someone has died, whether it's from heavy cannabis smoking and cancer. From heavy smoking and heart disease. From heavy smoking and respiratory failure. Since cannabis use is mostly illicit, though, we don't see cannabis morbidity/mortality reported like we do other diseases.

[Metaphor]

Fuck Science... i mean come on; Does science get you high?

[Purple Banana]

Fuck Science... i mean come on; Does science get you high?

LMAO. Best post ever!!

[denial102]

hillarious, then someone tell me how delta-9 has been effective in fighting throat and lung cancer in a test tube? :D

(there is obviously some confusion there.. cannabis can cure certain cancers and create others??)

[Stemis516]

That study wasn't propaganda-motivated. I was able to look at it in detail today in our med school library. It was by medical scientists and was a fair sampling, not supported by any funds from anti-drug or pharmaceutical companies. Just pure research. It's just that it was a very different and much smaller evaluation group than other studies that have been done. It certainly showed diametrically opposite findings from what the larger Tashkin/UCLA studies have reflected.

What does it mean? It means the same thing we've always known, particularly since studies have a history of conflicting on this subject. I means you need to be aware that there may indeed be some risk for very heavy smokers. And it means we need more far-reaching human studies to see if there's a consistent conclusion that can be drawn.

I have known two people who were cigarette-level cannabis smokers. In other words, they smoked very heavily, many many joints a day. Both of those were middle-aged men. Both have now died of lung cancer. They never smoked cigarettes, either of them. Maybe it was genetic. Maybe it was from environmental exposure earlier in their childhoods. But it certainly made those who'd known of their heavy cannabis histories wonder. We have a nation of 14 million cannabis smokers here in America, probably many many more, but since it's an illicit substance for the most part, we have no way of getting a more accurate count. That's a lot of folks, and anyone who believes some percentage of those folks hasn't had at least some cancers or health-related negative consequences doesn't really have an accurate view of statistical morbidity and mortality. You can bet it's certain that in a group that big, someone has died, whether it's from heavy cannabis smoking and cancer. From heavy smoking and heart disease. From heavy smoking and respiratory failure. Since cannabis use is mostly illicit, though, we don't see cannabis morbidity/mortality reported like we do other diseases.

first post with half a brain in this thread

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Fuck Science... i mean come on; Does science get you high?

I think if you asked Alexander Shulgin or Albert Hoffman, they'd say YES, SCIENCE GETS YOU HIGH!

[Markass]

the link in my sig. More are in the "Tobacco vs Cannabis" section.

Cannabis Smoke and Cancer: Assessing the Risk
Cannabis Smoke and Cancer: Assessing the Risk - NORML (http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891)

Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic
Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1277837)

Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer
US: Web: Study: Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1065/a03.html)

Enjoy your reading! - Granny:hippy:



I'm with granny on this one, I think I'll put more faith in American researchers over some idiots from new zealand...In America the only scientists still claiming marijuana causes cancer, rather than reducing it are those on the national institute for drug abuse's payroll

I'd say that the population study following the thousands of people from kaiser is living proof that it's likely due to the fact that marijuana smokers smoke much less marijuana than cigarette smokers consume tobacco..Honestly, the threat of cancer is simply going to come from smoking anything, period..however..I don't experience the detrimental effects on my respiratory system with simply cannabis rather than tobacco...with tobacco, I cannot run very far at all. With only marijuana, it is no different than me smoking nothing at all. My stamina is fine.

[Markass]

But for the record, one of the effects of tobacco is higher mortality rate, decreased sense of taste and smell, emphysema, heart disease...one of the effects of cannabis is pain relief, another is stimulation of appetite, increased awareness of senses(eating, drinking, smell), creative, philosophical or deep thinking : ideas flow more easily, boring tasks or entertainment can become more interesting or funny(I've always liked this one) Annual deaths attributed to the first hand use of tobacco, 400,000. Deaths in the last century attributed to the first hand use of marijuana, 0.

I think I'll take my chances with marijuana:thumbsup:

[melodious fellow]

I have known two people who were cigarette-level cannabis smokers. In other words, they smoked very heavily, many many joints a day. Both of those were middle-aged men. Both have now died of lung cancer. They never smoked cigarettes, either of them.

Get out of here............. wow, I am sad and well, just sad. That is not fun. I used to defend cannabis passionately as a preventative measure regarding cancer. My whole world just crashed..... where is the bong.. :(:wtf:

It better have been the damn joint papers or I am going to be pissed

[thcbongman]

Well I must've been the only one that read the article. On one hand, it is a small sample size. However I inclined to believe the assessment of BG and that they're must be some risk.

BG, if you wouldn't mind, can you elaborate the method they used to come to this conclusion?


"The researchers interviewed 79 lung cancer patients and sought to identify the main risk factors for the disease, such as smoking, family history and occupation. The patients were questioned about alcohol and cannabis consumption.

In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking.

"While our study covers a relatively small group, it shows clearly that long-term cannabis smoking increases lung cancer risk," wrote Beaseley.

"Cannabis use could already be responsible for one in 20 lung cancers diagnosed in New Zealand," he added.

"In the near future we may see an 'epidemic' of lung cancers connected with this new carcinogen. And the future risk probably applies to many other countries, where increasing use of cannabis among young adults and adolescents is becoming a major public health problem."