Cannabis Bigger Cancer Risk than Cigarettes

[Big Don]

Cannabis bigger cancer risk than cigarettes: study


Hippies, Ron Paul supporters hardest hit

 

[Andrew Green]

And another study saying Cannabis helps slow cancer growth: http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20071226/pot-slows-cancer-in-test-tube

Here's one with a far larger sample size:
"A study of 2,200 people in Los Angeles has found that even heavy marijuana smokers are no more likely to develop lung, head or neck cancer than non-users, in contrast with tobacco users, whose risk increases the more they smoke."
~ http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=9561
Same study, differetn article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html

One suggesting it could stop the spread of Breast cancer: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/11/19/cannabis-cancer.html?ref=rss


Given the politically charged nature of Pot, a single study can not always be trusted, especially one that only had 79 participants.

 

[kaizasosei]

ive been riding my moped through the city, and i couldnt believe the amount of emmissions coming out of some vehicles. in this case, i really felt myself inhaling the carbon monoxide- which seemed to be to be of very high concentration. i wonder how much negative effects are coming from such gases,pollution etc.

not saying i don't agree with the study because i am positive that there are potentially carcinogenic substances in marijuana cigarretes. but i wouldnt ignore the other possibilities either.
the human body is incredibley resiliant but with so many negative influences, it's hard to say
i think there is also increase for other types of cancer not mentioned in the study as well as eyedamage.

j

 

[tellner]

Yes and no, specifically "No".
The data on cannabis and lung cancer are in. There is no correlation.
The first unbiased studies are in, and there is equivocal evidence that hemp, but not straight THC, may have anti-malignancy properties. I say "first unbiased" because as a matter of US law it is permissible to do research to show negative health effects of hemp, but it is illegal to do research into possible health benefits.

 

[kaizasosei]

interesting. i didn't know that.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Hamburgers cooked to charred goodness on a BBQ have been linked to cancer...........I say bring on the burgers.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Hamburgers cooked to charred goodness on a BBQ have been linked to cancer...........I say bring on the burgers.

You gotta die of something...might as well be good tasting food!

Dave

 

[Doc_Jude]

Yes and no, specifically "No".
The data on cannabis and lung cancer are in. There is no correlation.
The first unbiased studies are in, and there is equivocal evidence that hemp, but not straight THC, may have anti-malignancy properties. I say "first unbiased" because as a matter of US law it is permissible to do research to show negative health effects of hemp, but it is illegal to do research into possible health benefits.

There ya go!

 

[Tez3]

Regardless of what is is I can't imagine filling your lungs with smoke could be anything other than bad for you!

 

[Touch Of Death]

Cannabis bigger cancer risk than cigarettes: study


Hippies, Ron Paul supporters hardest hit

This add paid for by Phillip Morris.

 

[tellner]

Regardless of what is is I can't imagine filling your lungs with smoke could be anything other than bad for you!

Certainly. But there's bad, worse, not so bad and the question of why one is legal and the other felonious. We have to take tobacco and alcohol as the baseline drugs. By comparison to them hemp is completely benign. It is not physically addictive. It is not deadly. It does not cause the murderous violence of which you as a British police officer are well aware. Shoplifting snacks from Tesco is not in the same league as drunken brawls. It does not cause crippling birth defects. And unlike tobacco the plant has a hundred other important economic uses.

Living in Mexico City or Beijing is certainly worse for the lungs.

So it comes down to what we consider acceptable risk and whether there's a rational basis for this particular ban. The evidence says that there isn't.

 

[Doc_Jude]

So it comes down to what we consider acceptable risk and whether there's a rational basis for this particular ban. The evidence says that there isn't.

True that!

Hell, you want to talk "gateway drugs"? Put Alcohol, Cigarettes, & Chewing Tobacco at the top of the list!!!
Legal, Readily Available, and Taxed Mind-Altering Substances!!!

***(don't even get me started on FLUORIDE...)***

 

[Tez3]

Certainly. But there's bad, worse, not so bad and the question of why one is legal and the other felonious. We have to take tobacco and alcohol as the baseline drugs. By comparison to them hemp is completely benign. It is not physically addictive. It is not deadly. It does not cause the murderous violence of which you as a British police officer are well aware. Shoplifting snacks from Tesco is not in the same league as drunken brawls. It does not cause crippling birth defects. And unlike tobacco the plant has a hundred other important economic uses.

Living in Mexico City or Beijing is certainly worse for the lungs.

So it comes down to what we consider acceptable risk and whether there's a rational basis for this particular ban. The evidence says that there isn't.

Well from a policing point of view I have to say people 'partying' on ectasy and weed are very little bother ( unless they are driving) alcohol is a real problem though as you said. It's still illegal to carry weed but if someone is carrying only enough for personal use and clearly not dealing we can just confiscate and give a street warning. Saves a lot of time and paperwork. I'm lucky I just deal with drunken squaddies who aren't too bad as they realise even drunk they have to behave. Drug use in the forces, the army especially, is on the rise though. If caught on the routine drig tests they are instantly dismissed though officers are allowed to resign which is actually quite unfair in my mind.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

ive been riding my moped through the city, and i couldnt believe the amount of emmissions coming out of some vehicles. in this case, i really felt myself inhaling the carbon monoxide- which seemed to be to be of very high concentration. i wonder how much negative effects are coming from such gases,pollution etc.

Just a minor detail, but if you could feel yourself inhaling the gas, then it was probably carbon dioxide, the gas which the body releases when you breathe out and which, in large enough quantities, can be toxic. Carbon monoxide is odorless, tasteless, colorless...essentially undetectable to the human body until your brain becomes deprived of oxygen. That's what's so dangerous about the stuff.

 

[kaizasosei]

oh yeah. good point. nice one. ok, i dunno which gas it was exactly, but i could obviously smell all the other crap bellowing out of some exhausts. however, something tells me, i could feel the carbon monoxide too. maybe im just triping, but maybe one could feel that something is not right. i mean i know that after a short while hotboxing that stuff you pass out. so wouldn't one at least feel whoosy a bit before?? i get what you're saying tho. i didn't think of that.

 

[Big Don]

oh yeah. good point. nice one. ok, i dunno which gas it was exactly, but i could obviously smell all the other crap bellowing out of some exhausts. however, something tells me, i could feel the carbon monoxide too. maybe im just triping, but maybe one could feel that something is not right. i mean i know that after a short while hotboxing that stuff you pass out. so wouldn't one at least feel whoosy a bit before?? i get what you're saying tho. i didn't think of that.

That is probably not the gases themselves but rather the particulate matter that also exits via the exhaust pipe. All smells are particulate smells, when you smell tiny little particulates of what you are smelling settle on the scent receptors in your nose. So when you're smelling peach pie, that is good, when it is less savory things, its BAD...