Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Mushrooms, Mycology and Psychedelics > The Psychedelic Experience
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore Injection Grain Bag

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American
    #5667681 -

Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer

The smoke from burning marijuana leaves contains several known carcinogens and the tar it creates contains 50 percent more of some of the chemicals linked to lung cancer than tobacco smoke. A marijuana cigarette also deposits four times as much of that tar as an equivalent tobacco one. Scientists were therefore surprised to learn that a study of more than 2,000 people found no increase in the risk of developing lung cancer for marijuana smokers.

"We expected that we would find that a history of heavy marijuana use--more than 500 to 1,000 uses--would increase the risk of cancer from several years to decades after exposure to marijuana," explains physician Donald Tashkin of the Uinversity of California, Los Angeles and lead researcher on the project. But looking at residents of Los Angeles County, the scientists found that even those who smoked more than 20,000 joints in their life did not have an increased risk of lung cancer.

The researchers interviewed 611 lung cancer patients and 1,040 healthy controls as well as 601 patients with cancer in the head or neck region under the age of 60 to create the statistical analysis. They found that 80 percent of those with lung cancer and 70 percent of those with other cancers had smoked tobacco while only roughly half of both groups had smoked marijuana. The more tobacco a person smoked, the greater the risk of developing cancer, as other studies have shown.

But after controlling for tobacco, alcohol and other drug use as well as matching patients and controls by age, gender and neighborhood, marijuana did not seem to have an effect, despite its unhealthy aspects. "Marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so there's less filtration through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles will be inhaled," Tashkin says. "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 lungs."

The study does not reveal how marijuana avoids causing cancer. Tashkin speculates that perhaps the THC chemical in marijuana smoke prompts aging cells to die before becoming cancerous. Tashkin and his colleagues presented the findings yesterday at a meeting of the American Thoracic Society in San Diego. --David Biello

- http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0002491F-755F-1473-B55F83414B7F0000

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American [Re: Annom]
    #5667702 -

Thats awesome, thanks for the read.


--------------------
Wild Psilocybe Ovoideocystidiata

Cultivated Cubensis

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American [Re: MustardMan]
    #5667719 -

One possible reason I can think of is the amount smoked.

A heavy cigarette smoker can easily go through 20-40 cigarettes per day.

I'm not an expert, but I guess that there aren't many people who can manage more than 5 joints per day.


--------------------

"You should view the world as a conspiracy run by a very closely-knit group of nearly omnipotent people, and you should think of that group as yourself and your friends."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American [Re: koppie]
    #5667736 -

Yeah, that could be a good explanation. I'm not sure what the effect of 5 cigarettes per day is.

I want a graph with the number of cigarettes per day and the cancer risk.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American [Re: Annom]
    #5667742 -

Smokers who cut back from roughly 20 cigarettes per day to 10 or less per day do appear to lower their relative risk of lung cancer by 27 percent, compared with continued heavy smoking. Of note is a factor that inhibits risk reduction, known as “compensatory smoking”. People who reduce the number of cigarettes smoked sometimes draw more puffs out of each cigarette, looking for the maximum effect. Risk reduction might be greater if not for this.

Further, according to the authors, "Participants who were continued light smokers or who quit smoking between baseline and follow-up reduced their lung cancer risk by 56 percent and 50 percent, respectively, compared with persistent heavy smokers. "Risk of lung cancer among the stable ex-smokers was 83 percent lower than among the heavy smokers, but still significantly higher than among the never smokers."

- http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/lungcancer/a/lungcancerrisk.htm

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American [Re: Annom]
    #5667749 -

I think there will be some more obvious answers to these questions once the actual study is published and we can see how they selecterd their subjects.


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American [Re: badchad]
    #5667927 -

I think a lot of these studies miss out on the "lifestyle" aspect of their subjects.

For instance, I saw a study that said drinking 10 cups of green tea a day decreases your chances of cancer by almost 60%... and yes I do believe green tea can reduce cancer with its polyphenols and catechins, but the study failed to take into account that someone drinking 10 cups of green tea a day most likely lives a significantly healthier life in general (beyond tea).

I think the same goes for weed to an extent. Someone smoking 10 marijuana cigs a day may still be a rock climber or adventurer, and most likely cares about their health WAY more than someone smoking 10 cigs- so they make adjustments around smoking and how they live their lives, and marijuana smokers are typically going to make healthy adjustments... if that makes any sense.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American [Re: AlwaysFlowin]
    #5667956 -

I wish they would do a study on the effects of EATING marijuana.
If it were legal and I had access to large quantities of weed........I'd NEVER smoke it again.........

Pot brownies :drooling:

Think about it.
Weed is easy to grow and if it were legal............MUCHO CHEAPO
A pound of good tobacco is around $15-20.
They could sell a pound of good pot for $100-200 EASY

Take an ounce of that and bake some brownies.

No more "choka choka.....coff"
Just mmmmmm    mmmmmmmm good.


--------------------
Live for the moment you are in now
Don't be bogged down by your past
Don't be afraid of what lies in your future

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American [Re: AlwaysFlowin]
    #5668057 -

AlwaysFlowin said:
I think a lot of these studies miss out on the "lifestyle" aspect of their subjects.


I agree. As long as there is no good explanation that can be tested of why something causes or doesn't cause(while we would expect it from our knowledge of chemicals etc) there still is a lot of work to be done.

The same goes for MDMA causes depression or other mental problem studies and many other studies.

This research does indicate that there might be something we don't know yet and that we should find that out.

We shouldn't only criticize the drug studies with "bad" conclusions, but also the ones like these that are "good" for "us" drug users.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American [Re: Annom]
    #5668109 -

search "Lead 210" and "Cancer" if you've never heard that theory


--------------------
:shocked: *Divine Moments of Truth* :shocked:


"Limitless undying love which shines around me like a million suns - it calls me on and on across the universe" ~ John Lennon

"Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right" ~The Grateful Dead

"Religionists, with their guaranteed eventual paradise, of which they know nothing, taking it all on 'faith,' can't be expected to understand or sympathize with those with a yen to storm the Gate of Heaven and see for themselves what all the praying's about!" ~Robert Hunter

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American [Re: Help on the Way]
    #5668158 -

Another thing to consider is the additives they put into cigarettes.  You don't put formaldehyde in your weed do you?  For those companies that advertise that they sell 100% additive free tobacco, the additives are in the paper.  Can you imagine being so addicted that you would have to smoke 20 to 40 or even 60 joints a day!! :eek:

I don't think nicotine is that addictive.  I've smoked tobacco but never a cigarette. I know people that roll there own.  They smoke about the same as a marijuana smoker. Its not the tobacco that kills.


--------------------
:egyptian:
Clean flesh is next to Godflesh


-----
Keep Salvia Divinorum from becoming a Schedule I drug in the USA...sign the petition NOW!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American [Re: shymanta]
    #5669340 -

shymanta said:
Can you imagine being so addicted that you would have to smoke 20 to 40 or even 60 joints a day!! :eek:


*cue angelic choral music*
:gethigh:  Heaven... I'm in heaven...  :gethigh:


--------------------
Bufotenine Yopo/Cebil Info | Guide to Hunting/Using Fly Agarics
Good Drug Books
PCPiHKAL|Rhodium

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American [Re: Annom]
    #5697422 -

But when you buy comersh its basically dirt weed that could have come from central America and is sprayed to hell with pesticides. Yet another example on how prohibition makes drugs dangerous.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American [Re: Annom]
    #5698554 -

Research pollution!

Quote:
They found that 80 percent of those with lung cancer and 70 percent of those with other cancers had smoked tobacco while only roughly half of both groups had smoked marijuana.


This would mean that the majority of marijuana smokers tested, and a significant minority of the tobacconists, had smoked both tobacco AND mariuana which significantly clouds the clarity of the research. Let me in addition highlight something:

Quote:
They found that [half] of those with lung cancer and [half] of those with other cancers had smoked marijuana.


Oook so you herd over 1.000 random cancer patients into a doctor's office and HALF of them turn out to have smoked marijuana. I don't find this to be a comforting thought at all. Certainly not HALF of the US population has been moderate to heavy cannabis smokers, but half of the cancer patients were.

In addition to that, cancer takes decades to develop. This means that the cancer waves of the 1990s and the latter part of the 1980s has yet to hit. What the difference is? In the 60s and 70s the domestic pot was grown by mostly hippies who were all about organic growing. During the 1980s however, when hippy ideals were lost, we saw the advent of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers in cannabis cultivation, as well as a lot of hydro weed which solely depends on fertilizers, and which is highly susceptible to pests.

In a growshop during the 1990s I have seen several brands of persistent HEAVY pesticides, and they even sold perchlorinated compounds by the ounce, pesticides for professional farmers in the hands of laypersons.

Remember that half the people in the study who had cancer now were in fact potsmokers, and that cancers usually take over a decade to show themselves. Many of them smoked marijuana not as touched by pesticides, crop chemicals and fertilizer pollutants than the weed of today.

So as some of you would've expected of me, I don't buy it.
-- 50% of the population of cancer patiens had smoked pot, population taken from the general populace with perhaps 5% moderate/heavy pot smokers
-- 70-80% had smoked tobacco meaning considerable overlap of smokers of both
-- These were old cancers from when tobacco was more toxic and weed less toxic than it is now
-- There was no research done into respiratory diseases other than cancer and their aging factors compared to their age in years
-- There was no thorough lifestyle investigation (old pot smokers for instance tended to be health conscious eating vitamins which are proven to protect against cancer)
-- For this positive study there are others which are negative, which are based on good science too.

In spite of the cheerful atmosphere of this study I'm going to apply the ole grain of salt. If you in good science cannot find a link between pot and cancers in a cancer population who has a ten times more concentrated percentage of potsmokers, then your group can't possibly be a "neutral" population.

Don't allow for the formation of almost all the carcinogens and chemical or mechanical irritants: Do not smoke your pot, but rather eat it, and if you want a quick fix then vaporize. But don't turn it into a smoke which is likely to be many times more harmful than the herb itself is, and choose organically grown outdoor pot over hydro or pesticide-treated crops.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
personal empowerment for the world

:nyan: LGBT - Love God Before Tradition :nyan:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American [Re: Asante]
    #5699359 -

If this research were conducted by a random scientist new to the scene, I'd be as skeptical as you.  But the fact is, this study was done by Donald Tashkin, the DEA's favorite researcher to quote on the topic of links between cannabis and cancer.  He's been hellbent on demonstrating a clear link for some time now.  He's managed to demonstrate that cannabis smoking causes the developement of precancerous bodies in the lungs, and fully expected to be able to demonstrate a correlation with this latest study.  If there were any way to interpret the data to indicate even a slight, possible linkage between smoking weed and cancer,  I find the fact that he wasn't able to demonstrate even a weak link comforting.

As to half of the cancer patients having smoked marijuana: Was that something they found out after interviewing their subjects, or were they aiming for for a 50/50 pool of subjects to make sure they had a sufficient number of marijuana smoking cancer patients to (hopefully) demonstrate a link between marijuana and cancer?

I do see your point about those pesticides and whatall that people are growing with, but I'm still inclined to believe that marijuana smoke bears very little cancer risk.  Unfortunately, the vaporizer isn't a quick enough fix for some of us... the only time I have the patience to let it heat up to vaporizing temp is if I smoke a bowl while I'm waiting  :bongload:


--------------------
Bufotenine Yopo/Cebil Info | Guide to Hunting/Using Fly Agarics
Good Drug Books
PCPiHKAL|Rhodium

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American [Re: Entropymancer]
    #5699512 -

We'll have to wait until the scientific report is published.

If you've ever published a professional journal article, you'd find that some of the obvious, more glaring inconsistencies won't make it through the peer review process. Reviewers always find things to pick it, even in airtight science.

In addition you cannot expect any "lay" report to have a firm grasp of the specifics of the materials and methods used in a study.


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American [Re: badchad]
    #5699579 -

SMOKING CAUSES CANCER

DUH!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - Scientific American [Re: Atheist]
    #5700375 -

SpicyTunaRoll said:
SMOKING CAUSES CANCER

DUH!


There are carcinogens in smoke, and these have individually been correlated to the development of carcinoma. It has not, however, been demonstrated that they are primary players in the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer. Another factor in tobacco smoke is the polonium, which the plant generates by processing uranium in the soil (american tobacco is grown with uranium rich soil, and therefore has about three times the polonium levels of tobacco grown in the middle east). Tobacco smoke leaves a residue of Polonium irradiating your lungs. This constant direct irradiation over a period of years can very reasonably be expected to give rise to cancers of the areas of greatest residue (such as the lungs and throat).

Marijuana does not contain Polonium, so this constant irradiation is not a consideration. It does contain known carcinogens, and has been demonstrated to produce pre-cancerous bodies in the lungs. But it has not been demonstrated that there is any significant tendency for these precancerous bodies to develop into cancerous bodies. Obviously, this is an area that requires more research (unfortunately, it's hard to get that research done, at least in America, considering the government's position on drugs) But until I some statistics indicating a link, I'll continue to keep my bets on the side of some mechanism in or resulting from cannabis working against the developement of cancers (after all, I'm pretty sure I've read reliable statistics that show that tobacco smokers who also smoke marijuana are at a decreased cancer risk compared to tobacco-only smokers).

I guess the fact that I feel that cannabis use would be worth it even it did cause cancer helps me to be comfortable with my conlusion (if I would stop smoking were it shown to be carcinogenic, I'd have a vested interest and therefore be more skeptical of my conclusions)


--------------------
Bufotenine Yopo/Cebil Info | Guide to Hunting/Using Fly Agarics
Good Drug Books
PCPiHKAL|Rhodium

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore Injection Grain Bag

Mushrooms, Mycology and Psychedelics > The Psychedelic Experience
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* What caused Terence McKenna's Death? Drugs or Natural Cause
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 Noviseer 69,044 176 11/23/21 07:49 PM
by candyman345
* A Federal Dan on Marijuana Rallies: Please Respond mjshroomer 1,224 2 07/18/02 04:38 AM
by joe666
* Tin = cancer? cyanescens 1,007 5 03/31/02 02:21 PM
by Seuss
* lungs/exercise longbong 783 4 09/19/01 09:08 PM
by bullettoothtony
* SHROOMS GROWIING ON MY LUNGS
( 1 2 all )		 SubGen1us 4,796 22 09/18/06 04:05 PM
by TheJakeyl88
* Need help finding a relaxing smoke!!!!!! liftedoff420 1,953 13 08/07/03 11:27 PM
by quarkyquasar
* marijuana question foghorn 1,152 7 02/15/02 01:12 PM
by Food
* where to find: reasonably priced digi scale? geokillsA 839 5 12/04/01 08:02 PM
by OJ

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: psilocybinjunkie, Asante, Rose, mushboy, LogicaL Chaos, Northerner, bodhisatta
3,880 topic views. 1 members, 146 guests and 46 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.