News: Heavy marijuana use linked to bladder cancer

Heavy marijuana use linked to bladder cancer

Reuters | February 02 2006

Pot smokers could be putting themselves at risk for developing bladder cancer, according to the results of a study of middle-aged men who were seen at two Veterans Administration facilities.

Marijuana smoking "might be an even more potent stimulant" of malignancy than cigarette smoking, Dr. Martha K. Terris of the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta and her colleagues write in the medical journal Urology.

Terris and her team point out that head and neck and lung cancers have been tied to marijuana use, and there is evidence that these marijuana-associated malignancies may strike at an earlier age.

To determine if marijuana use might also be associated with bladder cancer, she and her colleagues evaluated 52 men with the disease who were all younger than 60 years, along with 104 age-matched controls.

Among the men with bladder cancer, 88.5 percent were habitual marijuana smokers, compared with 69.2 percent the controls.

The average quantity of marijuana use also was higher in the men with bladder cancer, the investigators found. The cancer group clocked up an average of 48 joint-years per patient -- i.e., the individuals smoked the equivalent of 1 joints a day for 48 years, or 2 joints a day for 24 years, etc. -- while the comparison group reported an average of 28.5 joint-years.

Tobacco use was also heavy among the study subjects, with more than 90 percent of the men in either group using tobacco, making it impossible to identify any link between cigarettes and cancer risk.

Marijuana could be more cancer-promoting than tobacco, the investigators note, given its longer half-life (up to 60 hours versus 12 hours) and the fact that marijuana is smoked without a filter and held longer in the lungs.

The drug also reduces bladder contractility, the researchers add, which could increase urine retention and thus greater exposure of the bladder to marijuana compounds.

They advise that younger patients with symptoms that might suggest bladder cancer, who aren't usually considered at high risk, "should be questioned about a history of marijuana use." If they answer positively, the researchers conclude, it might be advisable to conduct further tests. ||| (Bold mine)

-----------

Response: It seems like bad science to note the heavy use of tobacco among both focus groups yet fail to consider the possibility of the combination is what is causing the increased percentage of cancer among pot smokers. Heavy tobacco use would account for at least several sessions a day, wouldn't you think? This vs. one/two joints per day? Sounds like they came to the conclusion they wanted and decided they were done playing scientist.

That's why catheters (sp?) were created :p

Oh, I just read the statement in bold, proving that it's all BS lol.

Yeah, they even say it is "impossible to identify any link between cigarettes and cancer risk" among these test subjects. What a load of bullshit.

well I've allways thought the whole pot give you cancer bit was bullshit anyway. I don't care what you find on this planet, if you smoke it out of a bong, you're gonna get some cancer. Funny how you never hear that eating or vaporizing it is ok.

SMOKE = CANCER

actully let me edit that...

SMOKE = TAR. TAR = CANCER

It's even known that smoked foods (such as bbq) contains carcinogens. But I guess anything sitting in hot hickory smoke is bound to have some bad shit in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benagain

well I've allways thought the whole pot give you cancer bit was bullshit anyway. I don't care what you find on this planet, if you smoke it out of a bong, you're gonna get some cancer. Funny how you never hear that eating or vaporizing it is ok.

SMOKE = CANCER

actully let me edit that...

SMOKE = TAR. TAR = CANCER

---

Carcinogens and all chemicals in smoke add to it too, not just the tar :p

Well I think the tar is comprised of those things and that is what he was trying to say. Yes, they always leave out the well known fact that cannabis can be consumed many different ways. Bad science, bad journalism.

i think we should all relax and have a bowl of Asbestos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homemade

i think we should all relax and have a bowl of Asbestos

---

LMAO. Have another redbull while you're at it. Or try a new diet pill that will end up making you go blind in a year :thumbsup:

I need a piss now.

man that is such bs. especially the bold print, i sure hope the government doesnt start using that "study" against marijuana.

It's time to take a trip back to Erowid's Cannabis vault.

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi..._health2.shtml

So, you thought it was the tar that caused cancer...

Think again. Cigarette companies will have you believing
anything just as long as you continue to buy their products. The
fact is, although insoluble tars are a contributing factor to the
lung cancer danger present in today's cigarettes, the real danger
is radioactivity. According to U.S. Surgeon General C. Everette
Koop (on national television, 1990) radioactivity, not tar,
accounts for at least 90% of all smoking related lung cancer.

The Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the
late 1970's concluded that "marijuana is one-and-a-half times as
carcinogenic as tobacco." This finding was based solely on the
tar content of cannabis leaves compared to that of tobacco, and
did not take radioactivity into consideration. (Cannabis tars do
not contain radioactive materials.) In addition, it was not

considered that:

1) Most marijuana smokers smoke the bud, not the leaf, of
the plant. The bud contains only 33% as much tar as tobacco.
2) Marijuana smokers do not smoke anywhere near as much as
tobacco smokers, due to the psychoactive effects of cannabis.
3) Not one case of lung cancer has ever been successfully
linked to marijuana use.
4) Cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not cause any narrowing of
the small air passageways in the lungs.

Due to the
efforts of various federal agencies to discourage use of
marijuana in the 1970's the government, in a fit of "reefer
madness," conducted several biased studies designed to return
results that would equate marijuana smoking with tobacco smoking,
or worse.

MYTH #5
5. Marijuana is much more dangerous than tobacco

Smoked marijuana contains about the same amount of carcinogens
as does an equivalent amount of tobacco. It should be remembered,
however, that a heavy tobacco smoker consumes much more tobacco
than a heavy marijuana smoker consumes marijuana. This is because
smoked tobacco, with a 90% addiction rate, is the most addictive of
all drugs while marijuana is less addictive than caffeine. Two
other factors are important. The first is that paraphernalia laws
directed against marijuana users make it difficult to smoke safely.
These laws make water pipes and bongs, which filter some of the
carcinogens out of the smoke, illegal and, hence, unavailable. The
second is that, if marijuana were legal, it would be more
economical to have cannabis drinks like bhang (a traditional drink
in the Middle East) or tea which are totally non-carcinogenic.
This is in stark contrast with "smokeless" tobacco products like
snuff which can cause cancer of the mouth and throat. When all of
these facts are taken together, it can be clearly seen that the
reverse is true: marijuana is much SAFER than tobacco.

good point :)

theres to many CANCER problems these days, soon theres gonna be finger and dick cancer's out soon.

I don't think there has ever been any link to marijuana use and lung cancer or any kind of cancer. For that matter, the chinese have yet to find a link between tobacco use and lung cancer which has, in part, been attributed to the differences in the way tobacco is treated and processed in Asia, as opposed to the US.

[QUOTE=beachguy in thongs]It's time to take a trip back to Erowid's Cannabis vault.

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi..._health2.shtml

So, you thought it was the tar that caused cancer...

The Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the
late 1970's concluded that "marijuana is one-and-a-half times as
carcinogenic as tobacco." This finding was based solely on the
tar content of cannabis leaves compared to that of tobacco, and
did not take radioactivity into consideration. (Cannabis tars do
not contain radioactive materials.) In addition, it was not

Due to the
efforts of various federal agencies to discourage use of
marijuana in the 1970's the government, in a fit of "reefer
madness," conducted several biased studies designed to return
results that would equate marijuana smoking with tobacco smoking,
or worse.



Also, keep in mind that most of those "experiments" were carried out on monkeys that were exposed to the equivalent smoke of about a pound of weed per day. Bob Marley could not have smoked that much if he tried.

I HATE the way the goverment twists everything to make it SOUND crediable when its a load of SHIT! i dont know whether the legality of cannabis his been up for vote but if it was i bet the govenment would PUMP hundreds of anti cannabis ads everywhere newspapers, tv, radio and such. yet the group supporting marujiana would not be allowed to advertise or would not have enough money to leaving the public in a brian wash and there goes the vote. I HATE THE WORLD!!!!....*sparks bowl*....ahh i guess its not so bad.....