Reply With Quote
I KNEW IT!!! GO WACKY WEED!!!
No Link Between Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer
News WisePeople 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. Press Briefing at 10:15 a.m. (PDT).
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 eso us, 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.
Free El Pimpo!! (yeah, i know he's free)
I KNEW IT!!! GO WACKY WEED!!!
Think of the children! Will someone please think of the children!!
Here we go again. Same song, same verse different choir.
I'll smoke to that.
Just quit smoking cigarettes Monday. Not too hard actually with a patch.
Marijuana use safer than tobacco use? Isn't that like saying that shooting yourself in the head with a .38 is less damaging than a .45?
Face it, if you suck anything more than air into your lungs it's bad for you.
Maybe so,Yonivore, but if a .45 is legal and a .38 is not, thats a little hypocritical.
Not if the .38 is intoxicating and the .45 isn't.
And, before you get into the .22 (liquor), I agree. I don't think any drug should be illegal. I only believe people should be held accountable for their actions -- including those done under the influence of intoxicating or mind-altering substances.
But, in fact, we were talking about the danger (to self) of marijuana vs. tobacco. And, in that regard, my analogy stands.
Marijuana isn't illegal because of the health effects as much as the societal effects of addiction and acts committed while under the influence or while trying to buy/sell the stuff.
Lol, Marijuana is absolutely not addictive, so I have my doubts as to that being a logical reason for it to be illegal.
And I know that this is not a "should marijiuana be legal thread" but I just have to say this. You also say it is illegal because of the acts committed while trying to buy or sell marijuana. Now, think about that really hard for 5-10 seconds and hopefully something will click.
wait for it...
wait for it...
Still don't get it, ok..well if marijuana is legal then we can buy it at wal-mart, and I don't know how dangerous it is to go buy your weed in that manner. It is only dangerous to buy it because it is illegal, so to make it illegal because of that is simply insane.
Ahem....marijuana is not addictive. There arent any addicitive drugs in its composition. You dont go thru withdrawals when you quit smoking weed no matter how much you blew up in a day.
Alchohol and tobacco....go figure.
Dang! I waited for it and...you dissappointed.
I believe it is illegal because it's classified as a narcotic and, whether you buy into the theory or not, is considered a "gateway" drug. I think the same could be said of alcohol...the difference being, alcohol consumption is socially acceptable (as marijuana may well be some day).
That aside, I think it will be hard to transition from making a drug illegal to making one that is legal. Black markets, for whatever reason, will still exist and people will still commit crimes as a result of using, abusing, or selling marijuana. I don't think the drug lords are going to adapt very well to a legitimate business model.
Finally, I'd like to reiterate that I don't believe any drug should be illegal...legalize the whole damn lot of 'em. I only believe that those acts that are committed in the pursuit of, or as a result of using, drugs that impair our faculties be punished to the fullest extent allowed by law.
Driving While Stoned should be treated the same as Driving While Intoxicated -- only, I think DWI should be dealt with more harshly than it is currently.
Just hold everyone responsible for their actions...hmmmm....what a revelation!
I'm surprised you can even breathe with your head so far up Dumbya's ass.
Abuse of Marijuana, like any other drug, alcohol included, stunts your emotional growth at the age where you became addicted, and that's no way to go through life.
I have no love for Yoni, but where in this particular thread did any of his views and opinions have anything even remotely to do with Dubya?
I think cigarettes are the real gateway drug.I believe it is illegal because it's classified as a narcotic and, whether you buy into the theory or not, is considered a "gateway" drug. I think the same could be said of alcohol...the difference being, alcohol consumption is socially acceptable (as marijuana may well be some day).
Or you can just buy your way out like Rush Limpballs.
That's why Limpballs is such a tragedy. He's like a bad trainwreck, you know it's gonna be ugly, but you can't help but look
What's funny is, if he were a Kennedy, he'd be praised for beating his addiction and remaining successful in the process. He would also be lionized for overcoming the drug-induced deafness. In short, he'd be a liberal hero.
Was he hypocritical in his stance on drugs while abusing them? Absolutely. Just like when Ted Kennedy sat on the judiciary committee that rake Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas over the coals over alleged sexual harrassment at a time when he was renowned for groping and sexually harrassing waitresses.
Would he be hypocritical now if he took the same stance on drugs? Maybe not.
Hypocrisy is defined as engaging in a practice even while you condemn others doing the same. Former addicts -- who stay clean -- are probably more en led to criticize drug users than anyone else. And, if Teddy is done groping women, I'd have no problem with him sitting in judgement over his peers who are accused of the same.
For the record, I don't view Rush Limbaugh as a tragedy at all. In fact, he's remained successful in the face of incredible odds.
It is because in today's world Americans are very forgiving.
That is why America still loves Bill Clinton!!!!!!!!!
Damn straight, Yonivore could use a good adult sized kick in the ass!
Johnny Marzetti doesn't post as much as he used to, but I think you'll find it's the same post every time.
Smoking (anything) is for idiots.
Try to refute that!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
