May 24, 2006: Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer

[Flabbergasted]

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

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 University 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.

[sam sarrha]

1. what they didn't say is that weed smokers who also smoke tobacco also have less lung cancer..!! it

was said to lower the tobacco smokers chances of lung cancer because it it hotter and apparently kills off cells weakened by tobacco before they go malignant..

wouldn't you know this Fascist administrations influence would leave that out..

[Rex]

3. Hey they got a good thing going with selling cancer sticks to kids

at 4 bucks a box! Why ruin that with a herb that won't cause cancer and lead to huge medical bills? That sounds very unBush like.

[Flabbergasted]

4. no kidding link?

[Madspirit]

10. Studies have been around for YEARS

Find your own link. : P They have known that THC has anti-tumor properties for at least 15 years, when I read the first study.

Lee

[sam sarrha]

24. read This. some more info on Weed.... interesting

http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html THC the most prescribed drug in the world before the inventions of Aspirin.. but it works much better than aspirin on many thing from PMS to arthritis

i really like to have a conversation with Jack.. i'll bring the M&M's

[sam sarrha]

2. they wont say how it keeps from causing cancer if they want another grant..

[still_one]

5. B.S. I don't buy it. Anything other than clean air, isn't good for the lungs

I don't care if people want to smoke marijuana or cigaretes, but to try and pawn it off as good for the lungs is nonesense

Also the study is quite small

I also think it is ridiculous to try and tell someone with a terminal illness they can't smoke it. A person with a terminal illness should be able to take anything they want

[Flabbergasted]

6. No on is trying to say: "Anything other than clean air, isn't good for the lungs" nt

[TahitiNut]

12. Inhalation therapists might disagree with that.

:shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

14. I have asthma and I vaporize.

It actually helped me get off inhaled steroids.

With an antihistamine (I have allergic asthma) and a bronchodilator (albuterol), I'm feeling better than I have in years.

[still_one]

17. Of course that is true, It is absorbed completely into the bloodstream

no residue left in the lungs

Convience me that their is no residue or impurities left with MJ smoking?

[Rageneau]

7. I think marijuana CURES cancer -- and I should know!!

Not only does marijuana NOT cause or exacerbate cancer, there is strong evidence that marijuana may be the greatest weapon ever found with which to combat lung cancer. And, believe me, I know whereof I speak.

Recently, an experiment at Harvard showed that mice with lung cancer that are treated with THC showed an incredible 50% reduction in growth of, ans metastasis of cancerous tumors. I was not surprised to hear that, and here's why.

Four years ago, I (a lifelong tobacco and long-time pot smoker) was diagnosed with cancer of the lung, stage four, and was told I only had about six months to live. Obviously, I was not going to spend that six months denying myself one of the most blessed and beneficient substances I had ever come across, and kept right on smoking pot as before (though I cut out the cigarettes.)

As I said, that was four years ago. I have since had surgery, radiology and chemo and dozens of CAT scans, and smoked pot all along. The docs were puzzled, early on, when my tumors showed very slow growth, and they had no explanation at all when a couple of those tumors simply seemed to fade away. After waxing and waning in size (but not metastasizing) my largest tumor -- 9 months ago -- started to shrink -- not grow (as was expected) in size. The last CAT scan I had, two months ago, showed no metastasis, no new tumors, and a continued REDUCTION in the size of the tumor which was supposed to have killed me years ago.

So far as I know, I am the only person who was diagnosed with Stage Four lung cancer (nsclc)four years ago who is still alive today.

No one knows why.

But I smoke a LOT of pot. And if pot doesn't help, I assure you it sure doesn't make cancer any worse.

[Madspirit]

15. Yay Pot! ....and I'm glad you're still around...n/t

[still_one]

18. Remisions happen, and they never know the reason

but just as you claim it cures NSCLC, other clinical trials claim their substances do the same thing. What about the ones it doesn't "cure"

Please show me the double blind study, or clinical evidence? Otherwise, it is as viable as a faith healer who claims to cure someone of an incurable illness

[Rageneau]

20. Spontaneous remission? ~ Maybe. THC? ~ Maybe

There are no double blind studies to offer -- for the assinine reason that our government has made up its mind that Marijuana can have NO good uses, so there's no point in studying it.

If our government was not so intentionally obtuse and corrupt, Marijuana would have been studied for decades now and we would KNOW what we can only suspect now -- that pot may have therapeutic benefits for cancer patients.

In my own case, I am making no claims one way or the other. I'm entirely ready to accept spontaeous remission as the reason for what's happened to me (or prayer, for that matter, or grace). But I'm also entirely ready to accept that there is something in marijuana that retards and restricts tumor growth.

Seems as if that ought to at least be worth CHECKING OUT. But instead, we always get the "pot has no medicinal value and we aren't going to even consider the possibility that it does" mindset.

I keep waiting for my oncologist to ask me if I can think of ANYTHING I do that his other Stage Four Lung Cancer patients (all of whom are expected to die) don't do. Just any old thing at all that might be connected to the reason why I'm, so far, a 4+ year stage FOUR cancer survivor.

I'm not going to volunteer that information, but it seems to me that medical science ought to be asking that kind of question -- and looking to see if there are any other pot-smoking cancer patients like me who -- despite everything known by medical science -- continue to stay alive.

[still_one]

28. As I said before no one should be denied to try anything if they have such an illness

Also best success to you, and there is nothing you are saying that I disagree with

[LanternWaste]

29. Agreed...

Yup. Worked six years in a radiation therapy center and have seen some of the wildest theories put forth by patients as to why the tumor is shrinking/metastasizing/doing-nothing-at-all.

But far be it from me to tell Mrs. Vitis that putting a bar of Dove soap on her meatloaf didn't really help her as much as the chemo... :shrug:

[still_one]

30. but don't get me wrong, if a remission occurred, no matter why, that is terrific /nt

[sam sarrha]

25. congrats my friend.. may you keep on Truck"n to a ripe old age..

[Madspirit]

8. Yup

I love my weed and yup, they have found that THC has anti-tumor properties.
Lee

[Madspirit]

9. k&r...n/t

[Madspirit]

11. Oh...and K&R...from a proud Pot Head...n/t

[AtomicKitten]

13. especially if you vaporize ...

[ThomWV]

16. So, are they saying if I smoke enough week I'll live forever?

Because if that's the case I'm gonna start up smoking it again before its too late.

[VP505]

19. I don't know what to

believe but I do know that there are so many variables with what people are or have been exposed to and lungs are designed to process AIR that one probably shouldn't rely on some study to believe that smoking ANYTHING is not harmful.

[Madspirit]

31. Radical Interpretation of the Text

It merely said that there was not a statistically significant increase in lung cancer rates.
Lee

[Madspirit]

21. kick...n/t

[Mz Pip]

22. Maybe if someone smokes

the equivelent of 1 1/2 packs a day there might be some correlation between pot smoking and lung cancer. Does a "heavy marijuana user" ever come close to that?


Thing is, smoking that much weed is pretty much impossible. Seriously. :smoke:

That said, heavy toking makes for other problems. But that's for another thread.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Robbien]

23. Dredging up phony reports from the 60's to try and scare everyone again in the 2000's

Who is buying?

[Subdivisions]

26. Mmmm...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

27. People who smoke pot inhale far less smoke, on average, than people who smoke cigarettes.

I've yet to hear of a single person who contracted lung cancer from pot. It simply doesn't take that much to get the high you are seeking. Whereas, many (though not all by any means) cigarette smokers spend a large part of their day inhaling their preferred fumes.