I told my doctor I smoked weed

To me, an absolute is that they haven't found one documented case of cancer SOLELY attributed to marijuana use. Anyone know people who regularly smoke weed and have cancer??? If you do, please come out and post.

Sure, studies aren't an exact science, but we base many pharmaceutical laws on these studies, and they have as much credibility as current marijuana studies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markass

You know what, you're absolutely right. But something you're overlooking is that unfortunately, there's not evidence to point the cause of lung cancer in any instance to marijuana. It simply cannot happen, and has been proven in Dr. Tashakin's study..."The heaviest smokers in the study had smoked more than 22,000 marijuana cigarettes, or joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 to 22,000 joints. Even these smokers did not have an increased risk of developing cancer. People who smoked more marijuana were not at any increased risk compared with those who smoked less marijuana or none at all." And if you're referring to me as a non-scientifically inclined kid, you're entitled to your opinion. However, anything that I say/post about marijuana anywhere is based on a scientific study/scientific research. Bottom line, I know way too many people that are in just as good if not better health as normal people...yet they have smoked marijuana the entirity of their lives. And something you said about nasty laced schwagg weed might give someone cancer, or inadequately flushed hydro might...that's not marijuana causing cancer in any way...it's environmental factors..whatever's in the mexican weed, and the chemicals in the hydro cause the cancers if any, not any chemical that's naturally in cannabis. Once again, the ABSOLUTE is that I know ten to fifteen people who have smoked since their young years and are absolutely fine.

---

I think you must be very scientifically naive. Or very young. Or both. You keep putting absolute faith in the Tashkin study, which was a statistically very small sampling (2,052 people). Compared to the population in question, even the larger Kaiser study was comparatively insignificant in comparison to the studies and tracking that have been done with tobacco. Tashkin himself in his reports uses the term "does not appear to increase. . . " because he's intelligent enough to know that while those findings are very hopeful, they're not yet a sweeping, it's-perfectly-safe endorsement. You'll notice, too, that Tashkin and his researchers are only just beginning to look into the DNA changes cannabis smoking seems to set inot motion. And there are still at least two credible studies that have established a positive link between cannabis and increased lung cancer risk. Whether it's directly from cannabis chemicals themselves or one of the accompanying environmental factors like pesticides or hydroponic solutions, cancer is cancer. And I will forever maintain that there's still plenty of chance that, in certain people, it can increase cancer risk.

Here's the other thing. I've lived a good bit longer than most of you guys. So I've known folks who've smoked weed a lot longer. One of my oldest friend's best chums died last year from lung cancer that had spread all over. He was 49. He'd been a heavy pot smoker since his teenage years. Never cigarettes. Only weed. And yes, he died of lung cancer. (A different kind of lung cancer, by the way, from the one that's seen most often in cigarette smokers.) I also have a former colleague, a guy I've known for nearly 30 years, who's just been moved into a hospice facility in my hometown. He was never a cigarette smoker. Hated cigarettes, in fact, and felt no one should smoke anything else but pot. He was a very heavy, heavy cannabis smoker. Lost several jobs because of it and was one of my hometown's most notorious potheads and supplier of a large percentage of the university population in my college days. He's 57 and is now within three months of dying of large cell lung cancer.

So keep thinking the absolutes are absolutely true. I know they're not. Ask cardiopulmonary physicians like my husband and his colleagues about the cancers they see, and they'll tell you, too, that they see instances as well in people who are/were heavy cannabis smokers. They're not nearly as frequent as what they see in cigarette smokers, but in some people, whether it's from DNA changes or other environmental factors or just surprisingly bad health luck, lung cancer can occur. Until in-depth, large-scale studies over periods of decades are conducted, which isn't likely to happen in this country anytime soon, "does not appear to increase. . . " doesn't yet mean "absolutely does not increase."

Man...I'm depressed now.

Birdgirl is right - but don't get depressed people! All things in moderation eh?

Alcohol in small quantities can be beneficial - it can (e.g. red wine) help with your heart and reduce stress etc etc - doesn't mean you have to get wrecked drunk 24/7 though does it? As most of us accept, that will do you serious damage.

MJ smoke contains some of the same types of compounds as cigarette smoke (PAH's) and their interaction is unclear. It seems THC may well prevent these PAH's causing DNA damage (that they do when facilitated by nicotine in tobacco smoke) but this is far from absolutely conclusive. We need a huge study group and at the moment girls and boys - that's US.

The problem (in my mind) is that the governments have lied so much over time (cough - Reefer Madness) that some people just don't know what to beleive.

Then there are those who know what they 'want' to beleive ;)

lol when i had glandular fever the doctor was like 'have you got any painkillers at home?' and i was like 'ummm... no, but i got some weed' and he just laughed and said 'ok then, that should do fine' lol my doctor is well sound.. when i was really little and i had to get an injection, he let me sit in his chair and eat loads of smarties lol, he had a big fat box of them :)

My grandmother was the perfect minister's wife- she did not drink, she did not smoke, she didn't even swear! She raised 6 kids on mostly what they grew in their garden. A tiny, sturdy woman, she canned food (I remember her cellar with shelves full of jars) and lived modestly. She never worked outside of the church or home. She died of lung cancer. Some people are just unlucky. By the odds, she should never have gotten lung cancer, but she did. The fact that so few cannabis smokers are showing up with any sort of lung cancer is encouraging. I wonder if those few are just unlucky, like my grandmother. Anyway, kids, keep an open mind about possible harmful effects that cannabis may have. NOTHING is perfect or completely harmless in this world. Not even our favorite herb.-Granny:stoned:

Tetrahydrocannabinol prevents cancer

yeah, i understand birdgirl's arguments that science is not absolute. I also understand the risk involved with smoking weed. In my mind weed appears to have more pros then cons, but i cant say for sure, o well, you only live once right? Weed has opened my mind, and thats all that really matters.

If you are going to freak out about smoking a bowl or 2 once a day, you'd better start worrying about eating processed foods, fast food, precooked food, any food that you didn't raise yourself, all food. You'd better start worrying about driving your car, leaving your house, living in your house- fire!!!, living in general. Using a public restroom, breathing in public places, not breathing in public places, riding a bike, walking down the street, talking, sitting, sleeping, ANY and EVERYTHING!

Oh My Science!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

I think you must be very scientifically naive. Or very young. Or both. You keep putting absolute faith in the Tashkin study, which was a statistically very small sampling (2,052 people). Compared to the population in question, even the larger Kaiser study was comparatively insignificant in comparison to the studies and tracking that have been done with tobacco. Tashkin himself in his reports uses the term "does not appear to increase. . . " because he's intelligent enough to know that while those findings are very hopeful, they're not yet a sweeping, it's-perfectly-safe endorsement. You'll notice, too, that Tashkin and his researchers are only just beginning to look into the DNA changes cannabis smoking seems to set inot motion. And there are still at least two credible studies that have established a positive link between cannabis and increased lung cancer risk. Whether it's directly from cannabis chemicals themselves or one of the accompanying environmental factors like pesticides or hydroponic solutions, cancer is cancer. And I will forever maintain that there's still plenty of chance that, in certain people, it can increase cancer risk.

Here's the other thing. I've lived a good bit longer than most of you guys. So I've known folks who've smoked weed a lot longer. One of my oldest friend's best chums died last year from lung cancer that had spread all over. He was 49. He'd been a heavy pot smoker since his teenage years. Never cigarettes. Only weed. And yes, he died of lung cancer. (A different kind of lung cancer, by the way, from the one that's seen most often in cigarette smokers.) I also have a former colleague, a guy I've known for nearly 30 years, who's just been moved into a hospice facility in my hometown. He was never a cigarette smoker. Hated cigarettes, in fact, and felt no one should smoke anything else but pot. He was a very heavy, heavy cannabis smoker. Lost several jobs because of it and was one of my hometown's most notorious potheads and supplier of a large percentage of the university population in my college days. He's 57 and is now within three months of dying of large cell lung cancer.

So keep thinking the absolutes are absolutely true. I know they're not. Ask cardiopulmonary physicians like my husband and his colleagues about the cancers they see, and they'll tell you, too, that they see instances as well in people who are/were heavy cannabis smokers. They're not nearly as frequent as what they see in cigarette smokers, but in some people, whether it's from DNA changes or other environmental factors or just surprisingly bad health luck, lung cancer can occur. Until in-depth, large-scale studies over periods of decades are conducted, which isn't likely to happen in this country anytime soon, "does not appear to increase. . . " doesn't yet mean "absolutely does not increase."

---

I'm anticipating Tashakin to conclude his study regarding genetic susceptability of cancer. On another note...

Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn't also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.

For the record, I'm seventeen. And as I said, I've based my view of marijuana on scientific studies/reports and people that I personally know.

Have a good day :greenthumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mafyew

yeah, i understand birdgirl's arguments that science is not absolute. I also understand the risk involved with smoking weed. In my mind weed appears to have more pros then cons, but i cant say for sure, o well, you only live once right? Weed has opened my mind, and thats all that really matters.

If you are going to freak out about smoking a bowl or 2 once a day, you'd better start worrying about eating processed foods, fast food, precooked food, any food that you didn't raise yourself, all food. You'd better start worrying about driving your car, leaving your house, living in your house- fire!!!, living in general. Using a public restroom, breathing in public places, not breathing in public places, riding a bike, walking down the street, talking, sitting, sleeping, ANY and EVERYTHING!

Oh My Science!

---

I completely agree with this, and more than anything, I'm just trying to get people to see that nothing's 100% safe and that a sweeping you-won't-get-cancer statement is risky because we simply don't know that. Do I still think cannabis is relatively harmless to the casual/recreational user? Heck yeah. A heck of a lot safer than alcohol, too, except possibly for people with heart disease. And it clearly has some amazingly positive healing properties in preventing cancers in many people and treating other diseases and symptoms. It worked wonders for my older sister's nausea and lack of appetite when she was in chemotherapy. If we could test it on people with brain and other types of cancers, I think we'd see amazing results, and it makes me very sad that active testing involving administered cannabis isn't allowed in this country. It makes me even sadder that Big Pharma will likely do everything in its power to prevent that testing from occurring within my lifetime.

It's true there are lots of other things to be more worried about than developing cancer from smoking weed. Chemical and hormones in food. Over-enthusiastically prescribed antibiotics leading to resistant super-bacteriae. Bird flu. Not wearing seatbelts in cars or helmets on bikes and cycles. Nuclear war. There are plenty of far greater dangers. The worst health crisis facing our current adult population and their children, at least in America and in much of northern Europe, is obesity.