|
| No Link Between Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer |
|
Posted by CN Staff on May 23, 2006 at 10:59:27 PT Press Release Source: Newswise 
Newswise — People who smoke marijuana—even heavy, long-term marijuana users—do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer, according to a study to be presented at the American Thoracic Society International Conference on May 23rd.Marijuana smoking also did not appear to increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus, the study found. The findings were a surprise to the researchers. “We expected that we would find that a history of heavy marijuana use—more than 500-1,000 uses—would increase the risk of cancer from several years to decades after exposure to marijuana,” said the senior researcher, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles. The study looked at 611 people in Los Angeles County who developed lung cancer, 601 who developed cancer of the head or neck regions, and 1,040 people without cancer who were matched on age, gender and neighborhood. The researchers used the University of Southern California Tumor Registry, which is notified as soon as a patient in Los Angeles County receives a diagnosis of cancer. They limited the study to people under age 60. “If you were born prior to 1940, you were unlikely to be exposed to marijuana use during your teens and 20s—the time of peak marijuana use,” Dr. Tashkin said. People who were exposed to marijuana use in their youth are just now getting to the age when cancer typically starts to develop, he added. Subjects were asked about lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol, as well as other drugs, their diet, occupation, family history of cancer and socioeconomic status. The subjects’ reported use of marijuana was similar to that found in other surveys, Dr. Tashkin noted. 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. The study found that 80% of lung cancer patients and 70% of patients with head and neck cancer had smoked tobacco, while only about half of patients with both types of cancer smoked marijuana. There was a clear association between smoking tobacco and cancer. The study found a 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day. The more tobacco a person smoked, the greater the risk of developing both lung cancer and head and neck cancers, findings that were consistent with many previous studies. The new findings are surprising for several reasons, Dr. Tashkin said. Previous studies have shown that marijuana tar contains about 50% higher concentrations of chemicals linked to lung cancer, compared with tobacco tar, he noted. Smoking a marijuana cigarette deposits four times more tar in the lungs than smoking an equivalent amount of tobacco. “Marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so there’s less filtration through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles will be inhaled,” Dr. Tashkin said. “And marijuana smokers typically smoke differently than tobacco smokers—they hold their breath about four times longer, allowing more time for extra fine particles to deposit in the lung.” One possible explanation for the new findings, he said, is that THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation. The next step, Dr. Tashkin says, is to study the DNA samples of the subjects, to see whether there are some heavy marijuana users who may be at increased risk of developing cancer if they have a genetic susceptibility for cancer. Source: American Thoracic Society (ATS) Source: Newswise (VA) CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archives Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #21 posted by Hope on December 16, 2009 at 15:00:58 PT |
| Observer, you were so right. Comment 4. It would be so nice to hear from Max, Lombar, and Whig. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #20 posted by Hope on May 25, 2006 at 10:06:13 PT |
| For sure! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #19 posted by afterburner on May 25, 2006 at 07:21:29 PT |
| ***DROPPED***!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Due to irregularities in police procedures. See CC Forums for more details. --The Political Forum >> Cannabis Current News and Events. Cannabis Culture Forums Up In Smoke Cafe gets a Police Beatdown; 6 Arrests Just announced May 23 & 24, 2006! Hooray! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #18 posted by whig on May 24, 2006 at 03:51:30 PT |
| I was trying to look up Cannabrex and it looks like their nameservers are completely down. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #17 posted by Max Flowers on May 24, 2006 at 01:51:06 PT |
| Yes, Cannabrex. I am about to order a kit from them. That looks like a good way to do it. I had been getting ready to do the butter thing so I could make edibles, but realized that that way is undesirable for me because if I need to eat a cookie, for example, on an empty stomach right before dinner, well, I don't like that because I don't want to eat a cookie or any other buttery treat before dinner. Plus I don't like even a mild canna-taste in edibles if I can avoid it, so capsules seem ideal. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #16 posted by afterburner on May 23, 2006 at 19:52:16 PT |
| Probably due to pending court cases. Since the owner of Up In Smoke and 7 other activists are banned from the UIS Cafe by bail conditions, I don't know who is running it at present. I visited the UIS Cafe recently and did not see a single person I knew. Furthermore, they have rearranged the sales desk. I don't know why. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #15 posted by Hope on May 23, 2006 at 19:42:10 PT |
| A Volcano costs hundreds of dollars, doesn't it? What a loss. I haven't heard anymore about the people busted that day. How is that turning out? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #14 posted by afterburner on May 23, 2006 at 19:33:09 PT |
| ... vaporizer, according to eye witness activists. So much for "Harm Reduction." As reported in CC Forums, documenting the 4/21 bust of numerous Up In Smoke Cafe patrons the day after the 4/20 Rally in Hamilton, Ontario, this year. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #13 posted by afterburner on May 23, 2006 at 19:21:58 PT |
| CANCER RISK IN RELATION TO RADIOACTIVITY [Link]
Comment #6 posted by DdC on January 13, 2002
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/11/thread11744.shtml#6
He quotes Steve Kubby and Robert Melamede, Ph.D.
[ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #12 posted by lombar on May 23, 2006 at 15:11:30 PT |
| I found that if the vapors are too thick, I cough. No more than a small pinch in a volcano, just a thin layer. Otherwise its too irritating for me as well. Thats ok, your lungs only absorb so much. I smoked both for 22 years, quit smoking tobacco 5 years ago. When I started vaping I noticed the difference right away. It's like a weight was lifted off my chest. If I use more bags with weaker vapors it works just as well... without any irritation. I am also asthmatic and should not have ever smoked anything but I too was exposed to 2nd hand smoke in copious quantities when I was a child, from day one, smoking did not help but my lungs were compromised from day one as well. People just did not really know any better ... They used to allow smoking in the hospitals back then. The only time I ever had an adverse reaction to cannabis was when I ate it. I experimented with making muffins, just grinding the cannabis into a millet, mixing it with warm butter and then mixing that into some muffin mix. I ate 2 muffins on an empty stomach and got really stoned. I knew nothing would happen but it made my heart race and I felt a mild paranoia that I never have smoking/vaping. I used about 8 grams of quality shake in 6 muffins, pretty powerful muffins. One was more than enough. I thought about an extract mixed with hempseed oil poured into capsules. Pot Pills! With some nice healthy Omega-3 fatty acids! There are so many products that could be made from raw cannabis... There is a place that sells kits for making capsules with some extra stuff that is supposed enhance the effects. Cannabrex I think it was called. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #11 posted by whig on May 23, 2006 at 15:08:01 PT |
| You've got mail. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #10 posted by Max Flowers on May 23, 2006 at 14:45:39 PT |
| I have been using a vaporizer for the last 2.5 years or so after absolutely having to quit smoking herb (after about 25 years of it). It may not actually cause lung cancer, but in my case it sure felt like it was going to. I got a lot of scary lung pains and chest-muscle aches from it. I think it is probably because I grew up in a house with both parents smoking cigs until I was about 10 years old. We lived in a place with a fairly warm climate, so I can only hope my folks kept windows open all the time, but even if they did, I suspect my lungs were compromised from day one (if I have any lung cancer worries, it comes from that exposure. I have never smoked tobacco). But when I switched to vaporizing, it made a massive difference. However, now 2.5 years later, even vaporizing has become a pulmonary irritant for me, unfortunately. That's just my particular set of lungs though... I still think vaping is a very good thing for most everyone else. I have stopped vaping now also and will be selling my vaporizer. It's oral use only for me from this point. I have to learn to like it that way, which won't be too hard, it's only a matter of fine-tuning the tricky dosage methods. Another important reason is that I sing, and vaping really trashes my singing voice, drying my throat and trachea and mouth out. So I'm stoked to be getting my voice back into 100% condition. You all will just have to vape for me. :-) [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #9 posted by FoM on May 23, 2006 at 14:40:09 PT |
| http://www.climatecrisis.net/ [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by FoM on May 23, 2006 at 14:35:41 PT |
| Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. sent an e-mail out promoting An Inconvenient Truth. I thought some here might want to view it. Trailer: An Inconvenient Truth: http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_feature.asp?id=11 Thanks lombar. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by lombar on May 23, 2006 at 13:35:17 PT |
| I do have an affiliate link but not something I have been working. Anyone can sign up for their affiliate program, I believe its $50 commission per sale($539 USD). I was just making the plug for storz-bickel because it is a product that is well worth the money. I believe that when cannabis prohibition is over, their sales will soar. I was toying with the idea of flogging them on some of the click-exchange type places. People who spend hours per day clicking on stuff to generate traffic could use all the life enhancement herbs offer. I am a convert to vaporization. I do not actually smoke often at all now. Vaporizing delivers the active ingredients without all the particulate matter, and combustion byproducts. Plus NO real smell and that is a big plus for hiding cannabis consumption. If I was a US citizen I would really REALLY want one of these. You can puff a bag and someone standing 5 feet away would not smell anything. A light herbal smell instead of the sickly sweet and overpowering smell of burning cannabis. Apartment dwellers can puff an ounce and the neighbors would be none the wiser. Its all benefits, the only drawback is the cost but its built with an eye to lasting a long time. Quality, functionality, efficiency, stealth. 3 year repair warrantee but I have not actually heard of one breaking. They are pretty rare but I'd be willing to bet the ones at the BCMP vapor lounge are seeing some heavy use..;) There are other vaporizers but I have only had personal experiences with 2. The volcano and the old vapir one. I hear the new vapir one works better than the last but the volcano is easier to use in my opinion. When I finish working on my own personal page, there will be ads for it here and there! ;) [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by FoM on May 23, 2006 at 13:14:14 PT |
| I misunderstood you. I thought you had a link you wanted to post. I have heard of the Volcano. It's very expensive. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by lombar on May 23, 2006 at 13:04:08 PT |
| I was just being facetious! Like anyone around here has not heard of a volcano! ;) Anti-smokers crusade endlessly citing all the damage ciggarettes cause but, at the end of the day, almost invariably, hop into a smog belching dragon and spew out more poison in five minutes than a roomful of smokers do in an hour. Blaming ciggarettes et al keeps shifting the blame for the true causes of cancer from getting covered. Too many vested interests making too much money selling toxins. The thing of it is,Life is terminal, nobody is getting out of here alive. Ciggarete may cause cancer, drug warriors DO cause death, mayhem, corruption, high costs to taxpayers for no measurable gain, and institutionalized falsehood. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by observer on May 23, 2006 at 11:47:37 PT |
| I doubt that prohibitionists will stop with the "pot causes lung cancer" mantra/lie. After all, if legal cigarettes do, then cannabis must be worse, right? That rationale will seem plausible to many, is what the propagandist calculates. We STILL see the Robert Heath rhesus studies where he (to the tune of a fat government grant, you can be sure) "discovered" that the "effect" of cannabis of the brain was to cause it to atrophy and shrivel. Yes, that was then (in the early 1970s), and this is now, but we STILL see prohibitionists use this well-refuted study with a straight face. Like here, for example, in the references section: http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/drug_ed/Potflier2.pdf ... Robert C. Heath, et. al.,"Chronic marijuana smoking: its effect on function and structure of the primate brain," ref. (2), pp. 713-730. ... The truth mop-up operations, (Heath asphyxiated the poor beasts with forced inhalation of too much smoke for long periods, starving their noodles of oxygen, something smokers don't do), have been going on for years, but the lie ("SCIENCE PROVES POT CAUSES BRAIN DAMAGE!") runs on and on... http://www.google.com/search?q=Robert+Heath+marijuana+brain+damage Prohibitionists jump on any barely plausible "detrimental" effect of pot as proof positive that cannabis is the killer prohibitionists have always claimed, as they lie, kill, steal, and destroy their way to enforce moral your moral purity, for you. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by FoM on May 23, 2006 at 11:46:11 PT |
| It's fine with me. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by lombar on May 23, 2006 at 11:36:08 PT |
| The new findings are surprising for several reasons, Dr. Tashkin said. Previous studies have shown that marijuana tar contains about 50% higher concentrations of chemicals linked to lung cancer, compared with tobacco tar, he noted. Smoking a marijuana cigarette deposits four times more tar in the lungs than smoking an equivalent amount of tobacco.
- I once read a study that implied that it was not the smoking of tobacco which causes cancer, it was radioactive isotopes that the tobacco plants absorbed from the soil. Apparrently tobacco fixes more of the radio isotopes than other plants. The cancers are caused by radioactive material, not the irritation of smoke. I love these, '4 times more tar'. When I used to smoke ciggarettes, I would smoke 20 grams (one pack) per day. In order to get the same amount of tar from cannabis I would have had to smoke 5 g. At my most chronic I would only use 1-2 g per day. By their lights smoking 2.5 grams is the equivelent to .5 of a pack of smokes. 2.5gs is like 6 cannons. Cannabis might have 4 times the tar but you only need 1/10 - 1/20 the actual amount to acheive the desired effect. Less if its better. “Marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so there’s less filtration through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles will be inhaled,” Dr. Tashkin said. “And marijuana smokers typically smoke differently than tobacco smokers—they hold their breath about four times longer, allowing more time for extra fine particles to deposit in the lung.” - Would it be wrong to flog my Storz-Bickel affiliate link?(j/k :)) Nobody who can afford a volcano should do without one. This completely eliminates the combustion byproducts like TAR and provides a nice clean delivery of the active ingredients. Vaporization is harm-reduction applied to smoking. (you can vaporize almost anything in it, including tobacco for the nicotine addicts, salvia divinorum supposedly as well). [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by FoM on May 23, 2006 at 11:00:25 PT |
| This is good news. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |