California: Pot causes cancer - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

TSGracchus · #16 (**permalink**) 06-21-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

The lack of attribution of cancer to the usage of marijuana is simple a reflection of the nature of usage. People who use marijuana and get cancer aren't likely to report their usage as a significant factor because they know that doing so would likely result in drug charges. In addition, there is the statistical fact of how many people who smoke marijuana also smoke tobacco products.

That turns out not to be the case:

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection - washingtonpost.com

Quote:

Friday, May 26, 2006; A03

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.

They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

endisnighe · #17 (**permalink**) 06-21-2009

What do you actually believe that pot smoking causes cancer, c'mon get a grip. In Cali everything causes cancer including talking about what causes cancer. The safest drug (THIS IS A FACT) in the world is POT. Not 1 case of overdose in all of history. NUFF SAID. By the way I no longer smoke pot but am still addicted to cigarettes. Oh, by the way, I have to go to my local dealer-gas station. You know the guy that makes the cigs gets about 10 cents per pack and the government gets $3.85 per pack, and do you think anyone will ever stand up to the government for this fact!

Commodore · #18 (**permalink**) 06-21-2009

Are people really arguing that directly breathing the smoke of a burning anything is healthy?

I suppose its secondary to the effect of altering ones consciousness to avoid reality...

TSGracchus · #19 (**permalink**) 06-21-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commodore

Are people really arguing that directly breathing the smoke of a burning anything is healthy?

No, just that the evidence seems to indicate pot smoking doesn't cause cancer.

People don't smoke pot for their health -- except when it's for medical purposes, of course.

smurf · #20 (**permalink**) 06-21-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Yeah, just look at the thousands upon thousands of marijuana-caused cancer cases clogging up the hospitals and clinics now..... oh, wait a sec...

And, of course, the MJ usage will just go through the roof if it's legalized because of the untold millions who can't get it under it's current legal status since.... oh, hold on.....

That, and the fact that these conclusions were derived from a review of pre-existing, secondary research papers. No primary research whatsoever was involved in this decision.

Swing, and a miss.

Wow. A "cop" who appears to be taking the side of marijuana.

BillyWitchDr. · #21 (**permalink**) 06-21-2009

Marijuana smoking even long term heavy use is not positivly associated with tobacco related cancers of the mouth, throat, head and lungs in cannabis only users.

According to:
Kaiser Permeate http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9328194

John Hopkins Institute Marijuana Unlikely to Cause Cancer

UCLA Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer

There are NO other studies that contradict their findings.

Norrin Radd · #22 (**permalink**) 06-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

On the plus side to keeping tobacco legal, though, you have to include vast sums saved to society in costs of organized crime, which would increase dramatically if tobacco were outlawed; also, you have to figure in the savings we enjoy in law inforcement and incarceration costs by not throwing smokers and cigarette dealers in the slammer. Finally, although this is somewhat intangible, there's the cost to the general public attitude towards laws and lawbreaking if laws are on the books that a lot of people break without remorse.

Comparing only the health costs of tobacco to only the tax revenues generated gives a distorted picture.

There's one other thing to note (other than Matt's recognition of irony which definitely deserves a nod): with tobacco, we not only have studies showing the presence of carcinogens in the smoke, but also studies showing an increased incidence of certain cancers in people who smoke. With marijuana, there is no such demonstrated correlation, despite the presence of some of the same carcinogens in marijuana smoke (which is not news).

We can only speculate as to why, but there are at least two possible reasons. One is that THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is a cancer suppresser, causing some kinds of tumors to shrink in laboratory experiment. This would mean that the drug in marijuana is itself an antidote to the carcinogens in the smoke. The other possible reason is that nobody smokes as much pot as habitual tobacco smokers do cigarettes.

Good post, but your speculation has 3 studies that have all shown THC helps shrink certain types of tumors.

Of course people like Fishjoel are not interested in the truth, as they are too busy allowing the "establishment" to tell them what to think.

You would think after 70 years of outrageous lies about marijuana that the masses would wake up, but sadly, the masses continue to believe lies, half truths and propaganda.

I am really getting tired of people who are too lazy to educate themselves about a topic before discussing it. Luckily, most people are starting to wake up to the lies we have been told about marijuana for 70 years. This gives me hope that some day all the brainwashed morons will finally admit that everything they believe is a lie.

Tanngrisnir3 · #23 (**permalink**) 06-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by smurf

Wow. A "cop" who appears to be taking the side of marijuana.

Wow! A kindergardner who doesn't know that I'm a member of LEAP.

LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition - Cops Say Legalize Drugs

That would explain much of your cognitive dissonance.

MattInFla · #24 (**permalink**) 06-22-2009

This thread is on the verge of closure. Discuss the topic and not one another.

Matt

CDavidNeely · #25 (**permalink**) 06-22-2009

Greetings and Felicitations,

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

That turns out not to be the case:

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection - washingtonpost.com

One report from 2006 doesn't declare such as a fact. There seem to be more scientific reports for refutation instead of corroboration.

Testicular cancer linked to marijuana use - Better Life - USATODAY.com

Marijuana Damages DNA And May Cause Cancer, New Test Reveals

Marijuana Smoking Increases Risk Of COPD For Tobacco Smokers

As I alluded in my original post there is simply not enough available research to analyze how the chemicals in marijuana may contribute to cancer. The usage of marijuana is absolutely not as prevalent as the use of tobacco and we don't have enough of a sample base to determine based on statistical information. We can only look at the chemicals in tobacco and marijuana to see which one's are known cancer triggers.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

drgoodtrips · #26 (**permalink**) 06-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by smurf

Wow. A "cop" who appears to be taking the side of marijuana.

It makes sense. I can't imagine policemen tasked with "investigating" a funny smell from the neighbors' backyard feel that they're "serving" and "protecting".

TSGracchus · #27 (**permalink**) 06-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

Greetings and Felicitations,

One report from 2006 doesn't declare such as a fact. There seem to be more scientific reports for refutation instead of corroboration.

Testicular cancer linked to marijuana use - Better Life - USATODAY.com

Marijuana Damages DNA And May Cause Cancer, New Test Reveals

Marijuana Smoking Increases Risk Of COPD For Tobacco Smokers

The first link provided no methodology at all, and is therefore not informative. The second involved studies of chemical components of marijuana only, no actual surveys in human use. (Similar chemical studies of tobacco are useful mainly in that they provide us with ideas about HOW smoking tobacco causes cancer. By themselves, they are not what tells us THAT it does. There are studies showing a correlation between tobacco smoking and cancer. There are studies showing to the contrary with marijuana.)

The third link is more interesting, and shows that marijuana and tobacco together increase the risk of COPD (not cancer) over smoking tobacco alone. However, it also shows that smoking marijuana without tobacco does not increase this risk.

I see no reason to reconsider what I said before, arising from these links.

smurf · #28 (**permalink**) 06-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Wow! A kindergardner who doesn't know that I'm a member of LEAP.

LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition - Cops Say Legalize Drugs

That would explain much of your cognitive dissonance.

I don't know what kind of donuts you prefer, either. Will you call me childish names because of that, as well?

Do you selectively enforce drug laws because of your personal views, or do you actually enforce drug laws, even though you disagree with them?

smurf · #29 (**permalink**) 06-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

It makes sense. I can't imagine policemen tasked with "investigating" a funny smell from the neighbors' backyard feel that they're "serving" and "protecting".

Ah, but that would only make sense if every cop was truly interested in serving and protecting the public. Some are borderline sociopaths who were picked on as children, and now they are taking the opportunity afforded to them by a badge and a gun to retaliate.

Also, it would only make sense if every cop viewed all laws in the same way. There are undoubtedly bad laws on the books, and some cops will choose to not enforce what they feel to be a bad law. Other cops will enforce every law, regardless of personal feelings. Still other cops will enforce laws when they are in a bad mood, or if the violator is a minority. This hit or miss enforcement leaves a citizenry that can hardly perceive the actions of law enforcement to be either serving or protecting of the public.

Melanie · #30 (**permalink**) 06-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

Marijuana Damages DNA And May Cause Cancer, New Test Reveals

This is the actual data that they used for this article...

Evaluation of the DNA Damaging Potential of Cannabis Cigarette Smoke by the Determination of Acetaldehyde Derived N2-Ethyl-2?-deoxyguanosine Adducts - Chemical Research in Toxicology (ACS Publications)

Quote:

The analysis of calf thymus DNA treated in vitro with acetaldehyde (ranging from 0.5 to 100 mM) or with the smoke generated from 1, 5, and 10 cannabis cigarettes showed linear dose-dependent increases in the level of N2-ethyl-dG adducts (r = 0.954 and r = 0.999, respectively). Similar levels (332.8 ± 21.9 vs 348.4 ± 19.1 adducts per 108 2′-deoxynucleosides) of N2-ethyl-dG adducts were detected following the exposure of calf thymus DNA to 10 tobacco or 10 cannabis cigarettes.

Quote:

In conclusion, these results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke, implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development.

When they give me evidence of this study being conducted on HUMANS (real humans, not in a petri dish) with fewer mays and mights, I might bite.

Oh... wait... here is one...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052501729.html

Quote:

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode