Cannabis bigger cancer risk than cigarettes: study

[Bluebear]

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Smoking a joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer risk, scientists in New Zealand have found, as they warned of an "epidemic" of lung cancers linked to cannabis.

Studies in the past have demonstrated that cannabis can cause cancer, but few have established a strong link between cannabis use and the actual incidence of lung cancer.

In an article published in the European Respiratory Journal, the scientists said cannabis could be expected to harm the airways more than tobacco as its smoke contained twice the level of carcinogens, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, compared with tobacco cigarettes.

The method of smoking also increases the risk, since joints are typically smoked without a proper filter and almost to the very tip, which increases the amount of smoke inhaled. The cannabis smoker inhales more deeply and for longer, facilitating the deposition of carcinogens in the airways.

"Cannabis smokers end up with five times more carbon monoxide in their bloodstream (than tobacco smokers)," team leader Richard Beasley, at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, said in a telephone interview.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080129/hl_nm/cancer_cannabis_dc

[Roon]

1. When I can afford it

I make brownies!

[notadmblnd]

2. someoboy told me that you don;t actually cook the pot in the brownies

and that you should cook the pot in butter and put the butter in the brownies. Is this true?

[Roon]

6. Yep!

It's the heated oil/fat in the butter that activates the THC.You can strain it through a cheesecloth before you add the butter to the brownies, but I don't bother, i throw it in flakes and all.

[Hand]

80. NOW you tell me! nt

[Roon]

106. Here's a quick, easy way to eat marijuana

http://phe.rockefeller.edu/~perrin/BiscuitRecipe.html

[unpossibles]

73. true, but you can also use it as an herb

it's good in spaghetti or on garlic bread or a stir fry. The trick is the ratio - do not use too much food compared to the amount of herb. Sauté it in the olive oil with your garlic and onions and it works quite well and tastes good.

[JuniperLea]

79. Wow... I'd forgotten about the infused olive oil of my youth:)

This was long before you could find trendy oils infused with garlic or peppers or herbs in your local gourmet shop.

[JuniperLea]

81. I always added it to the egg and oil mixture...

then added the water, and finally the dry ingredients or brownie mix. But that's just the baker in me... I never knew back then that the "demon weed" had oil soluble properties!

There were times when I just sprinkled it into the mix... worked the same seems to me!


Oh, the joys of walking... or tripping... down memory lane! Sigh!

[matcom]

3. LOL

:rofl:

[bullimiami]

4. duh. no filter, no shit. of course the smoke irritates your lungs.

[joshcryer]

5. Japan's cigarette statistics noted a lack of benefit to stronger filters.

Japan has a drastically lower lung cancer rate compared to the USA, and studies have been done to determine what the root cause was. Filters were ruled out.

Turns out diet may in fact be the root cause for high rates of lung cancer.

I am of the personal belief that diet is the root cause for most cancers, period.

[bullimiami]

65. interesting.

[Zywiec]

7. Would have been good information for the "prove to me" thread a couple days ago...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2752376

[dysfunctional press]

29. not really...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
and it's a MUCH larger and more detailed study.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows

[wildbilln864]

98. and also stops breast cancer and other forms of cancer!

video .link :hi:

[kedrys]

8. 'scuse me while I think this is a load of horsesh*t

Almost all my stoner buddies are in their 50s now, and nary a spot on anyone's lungs. These are guys who've been smoking since college.

[HooptieWagon]

9. Same here

[Tesha]

12. Check back with us in another ten years. (NT)

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

14. Really.

My mother was an active, seemingly healthy 77-year-old and a cigarette smoker for close to 60 years when cancer ravaged her so horribly that she was dead in seven months.

[Le Taz Hot]

21. Cigarettes have carcinogens in them.

Cannibus, particularly when eaten or smoken from a pipe or water-based pipe, doesn't. Not all smoking is equal.

[EOTE]

45. Because people only started smoking pot 50 years ago? NT

[Tesha]

51. Because lung cancer tends to be a late-onset disease.

And to the poster up above, don't count on your
pipe or bong saving you; pipes don't save tobacco
smokers, they just shift some of the cancers into
throat and tongue cancers.

Tesha

[EOTE]

57. So there are no 70, 80, 90 or even 100 year olds who were chronic smokers?

Not only are there, but there are multitudes of them.

[JuniperLea]

83. and by that time...

old age sets in anyway... i vote for dying happy:)

[Tesha]

87. And there'd be even more if many hadn't died of lung cancer.

Are all DUers completely ignorant when it comes to
statistics and populations and cohorts and such
like?

Or do they just force themselves to believe certain
weird things so that they don't have to stop indulging
in their favorite habits?

Tesha

[AZ Criminal JD]

91. What are you going to die from?

Or are you immortal since you don't have any bad habits?

[Tesha]

94. Oh, probably heart disease if my family trends hold true.

And Mr. Tesha, having grown up in New Jersey, is
planning on dying of kidney or bladder cancer if
his family's history of Alzheimer's doesn't get
him first.

But only a fool still smokes (anything).

Tesha

[AZ Criminal JD]

108. Smoking relieves stress in a lot of people

That is a health benefit. Stress can cause or increase heart disease as well as cause psychological or mental problems. If you don't understand that benefit from smoking you are either a fanatic or you don't understand the human body.

[Tesha]

110. Brain death also is great at relieving stress, but the trade-offs are too severe.

> If you don't understand that benefit from smoking you are
> either a fanatic or you don't understand the human body.

Brain death also is great at relieving stress, but the
trade-offs are too severe.

In the long run, so are the trade-offs with smoking,
but your addiction prevents you from seeing that. And
who knows, maybe you'll be one of the lucky ones who
only loses two or three years off of your life instead
of fifteen or twenty.

Tesha

[AZ Criminal JD]

113. What are your addictions? Want to tell us?

I climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro, highest free standing mountain in the world, last year. I will match my addiction limited abilities against yours any day.

[Blue_In_AK]

54. Okay, I'm in my 60s

I've been smoking it since 1967, and I'm in perfect health.

[Tesha]

88. Please see my reply #87, just above you. (NT)

[Blue_In_AK]

99. If you don't want to smoke marijuana, don't.

It's my only vice (now). I don't drink, I don't smoke tobacco. I eat lots of fruits and vegatables, whole grains, red meat only occasionally. I exercise a half hour a day on the elliptical and walk over 20 miles a week during the summer. My health is fine, and I know this because I get a complete physical every year.

I like to smoke a little weed to kick back in the evening. I don't think I'll be stopping because you're concerned for my lungs -- but thanks anyway.

[Tesha]

100. No need to t hank me; I don't really give a damn about your lungs.

But I hate to see misinformation propagated, misinformation
such as this bullshit that smoking marijuana doesn't have
the same risks as smoking tobacco; it does, at least when
you adjust for dosage rates.

Tesha

[Blue_In_AK]

103. All righty then.

Peace, out.

[Bjorn Against]

96. It seems a bit strange that people have been smoking cannabis for literally thousands of years...

And they have yet to find a single case of lung cancer that resulted from its use. But an "epidemic" is coming they assure us. If we haven't had a single case of cancer resulting from cannabis in thousands of years of use, I somehow doubt that one of the previous posters friends is going to become one of the first cases within the next decade or so.

[Tesha]

111. Not a single case? I guess we'll need a citation for *THAT* claim. (NT)

[dysfunctional press]

30. same here...HEAVY smoker for 30+ years now...

and my most recent chest x-ray? my doctor's words were: "clean as a whistle".

but then, i don't smoke tobacco.

[zanne]

36. HAH! nt

[dysfunctional press]

39. hah?

:shrug:

[Perry Logan]

10. I meant to bring this up earlier. But I forgot.

[devilgrrl]

37. Forgot what? That the study's BULLSHIT?

:popcorn:

[zabet]

11. I don't believe it.

I have imbibed for over
32 years, and the majority
of the time on a daily basis.
I should be a walking, talking
cancer by now. I'm not, I am
still a sagitarius.
:smoke:

[Djinn]

102. specious

My grandmother smoked a packet of cigarettes a day for over 75 years and never got cancer, I guess smoking doesn't cause cancer.

My uncle worked with asbestos every day for neaover a decade and never contracted mesothelioma - I guess that link is bullshit too.

I've had unprotected sex and didn't get HIV or pregnant. Guess everything I was taught in sex ed was bullshit too.

I've smoked a shitload of pot pretty much every day of my life for the last 17 years but even if I never get cancer it'd hardly be demonstrative of anything.

[zabet]

107. My reply

was a play on words...
Cancer....Sagitarius..
signs of the Zodiac.

What did you miss? :shrug:

[LeftishBrit]

13. It's been known for some time...

that cannabis is worse for the lungs than tobacco, *cigarette for cigarette*. However, as it's also much less addictive, even fairly serious cannabis smokers smoke far fewer cigarettes than tobacco smokers do, so that they are less likely to get lung cancer than tobacco smokers.

I wonder whether the extra carcinogens and carbon monoxide are inevitable to cannabis smoking, or related to its being illegal, so that the quality of the cigarettes is not regulated? (Not being a smoker of anything at all, I am doubtless ignorant on this subject!)

[Ganja Ninja]

15. Then again people don't smoke 2 packs a day of cannabis.

And if anything this argues for more potent cannabis. More drug less smoke.

[Le Taz Hot]

16. So, where are all thedead bodies being kept?

Hmmmm? Doctors? Nurses on the board? Dead bodies? Anyone?

[librechik]

18. yep--cannabis has been smoked for thousands of years by whole societies

why didn't those cancers already emerge?

[EOTE]

41. Nonsense!

People only started smoking bud 30, maybe 40 years ago tops. That's why it's so important that we not legalize this herb that we know practically nothing about. If people are going to get lung cancer from smoking, we won't know until many years from now. And besides, who will protect our white women if minorities get their hands on the Devil's Weed?

[Le Taz Hot]

46. OK, I just did a quick search on

History of cannabis thinking you were serious UNTIL I read your last sentence. :rofl: But since I did the "research" (OK, looked up ONE thing on Google):

http://www.ukcia.org/culture/history/chrono.html

[unpossibles]

74. congratulations!

I think you win the award today for the most uninformed post I have read.

EDIT: sorry - I fell into the sarchasm. My bad.

[seabeyond]

38. with the hordes dropping dead from second hand smoke n/t

[B Calm]

17. Then we should eat it?

[lonestarnot]

20. I have heard that they put that stuff in brownies. mmmmmmmmm

I love brownies with walnuts. But I don't know about green brownies. Then we'd have to call them greenies and ick I don't think I could deal wit dat.

[tekisui]

19. Remember, kids, Always Use Your Bubbler!

[DFW]

22. Have to pass

I never smoked anything. I get coughing fits when I'm even near smoke.

I'm with Abraham Lincoln on this one: "What is a cigarette? A stinking weed
with fire on one end and a fool on the other."

Could as well have referred to joints, for all I care.

"Zat's not my department," says Werner von Braun

[iamthebandfanman]

23. no shit

no offense , but how anybody could thing putting smoke in their lung was okay is beyond me.
it doesnt help that joints dont have a filter either... haha...but there are other ways to consume pot... bongs are better but take away THC too... so.. its a give n take with that method... but they, theres always cooking with it!

if theyd just decriminalise or make it legal, we could get around the most harmful effects.

[devilgrrl]

24. Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; A03



The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.


:popcorn:

[dysfunctional press]

28. Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows

but the new zealand study involved interviews with 79 people...they must be more accurate than one involving over 2200 people, right...?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows

ScienceDaily (Apr. 17, 2007) — The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.

THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.

"The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer," said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine.

[annabanana]

47. Let's see... Tashkin and the NIH vs

someone in Hong Kong quoting a study published in the European Respiratory Journal (a quick search of their database turned up no article with cannabis in the title..)by a guy in New Zealand


I'll take Taskin, thank you!

[Gormy Cuss]

66. This study seems more sound, in that it examined a comparison group & had a much larger study group.

Doesn't guarantee that it doesn't have some weaknesses in selection methodology or analysis but if handed this and the New Zealand study, I'd be inclined to believe the Tashkin study more than the NZ one.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. What New Zealand study?

I can't find the article this OP seems to be talking about.

[Gormy Cuss]

101. An older Boston Globe article says it was published in Thorax journal

abstract here:
http://thorax.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/62/12/1058?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=beasley&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

[cobalt1999]

25. Duh. Your body hasn't evolved to inhale smoke.

...and people are surprised there are consequences?

[RebelOne]

26. My brother had throat cancer and he never smoked cigarettes,

only pot for years. Hmm, wonder if there is a connection.

[dysfunctional press]

31. probably not.

did he ever use chewing tobacco...? that's the type of tobacco use that leads to the most cancer. and it's usually throat/mouth.

[RadiationTherapy]

34. My brother's malignant nasal-pharyngeal tumor was attributed to welding

but he smoked tobacco and marijuana as well.

He also ate red meat.

And wore deodorant...

and used Mr. Clean in his toilet!

And ate hot dogs!

And Drank alcohol!!

OHHHH MYYYY GOOOOOOOOOD!!!

[devilgrrl]

27. I heard that one hit of pot will lead directly to harder drug use

:popcorn:

[ProfessorGAC]

Yeah I Saw A Movie About That

It leads to accidental shootings too. (Reefer Madness 1936)
The Professor

[devilgrrl]

33. It makes women loose... wink wink nudge nudge

;-)

[ProfessorGAC]

35. LOL!

My wife and i were watching part of it the other day. (It was on one of the movie channels.)

She said "Geez, it makes all the women whooooorrs." So, the rest of what we watched, everytime an actress would appear on screen we'd say "She's a whoooooor."
GAC

[EOTE]

42. Don't forget maniacal piano playing!

Faster!!! Play faster!!!

[ProfessorGAC]

43. Well, I Do That Anyway

So, when my wife saw that in the movie, she couldn't tell if the guy was high or just as nuts as me.
The Professor

[abq e streeter]

68. As a longtime blues ( and rock) musician...

that was the only scene in the movie that actually did strike me as pretty realistic.

[Occulus]

58. I heard the harder drugs were IN the pot.

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

32. Very few users smoke everyday.

While many cigarette smokers smoke 1+ packs a day. I think it's still clear where the greater risk is.

Besides, assuming this study is correct, just eat it or use a vaporiser and everything is good.

[dysfunctional press]

40. i do. but i almost always use a bong.

i smoke about an ounce a week- have been smoking for over 30 years, now.

[EOTE]

44. Well then, you should know that statistics show...

that you are now dead. Was it worth it?

Seriously though, an ounce a week. And I thought I was hardcore. I hope you're smoking the good stuff! :smoke:

[dysfunctional press]

62. i wouldn't have it any other way.

and it's mostly all me- my wife doesn't smoke at all, and only one of my friends does- but i don't see him nearly as much since he lives an hour or so away, and since he's changed jobs he's been a lot busier...

if it weren't worth it, i wouldn't be doing it.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

48. Holy shit, that's badass. Can I come to your house?

Granted the way my tolerance is, one good hit has me smiling. 3 of good weed would have me in a comatose state.

[dysfunctional press]

63. seems like it might be a bit of a drive for you.

and i'm not exactly the meet-you-halfway type. :shrug:

[Ezlivin]

49. So now they're worried about our health? I suppose we won't burn any more coal.

They want to scare us into not using marijuana because it causes cancer, yet the powers-that-be are all for coal-fired power plants all over the nation and against any strict emissions control.

I'll worry about getting cancer from a joint as soon as I live in a carcinogen-free environment.

[jus_the_facts]

109. Don't forget car exhaust and industrial diseases as well....I agree with you....

....like totally! :smoke:

"Health nuts are gonna feel stupid one day...lying in hospitals dying of nothing." ~Redd Foxx~

[Selatius]

50. This other study disagrees.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2785476

They found no connection between lung cancer rates and marijuana use.

[Elidor]

52. Please be wise: vaporize

:evilgrin:

[Blue_In_AK]

53. I don't know too many people

who smoke 20 to 40 joints a day.

[devilgrrl]

55. Dude, I knew this guy who heard from someone else that he knew someone who smoked 4 packs of joints.

a day for 50 years until he was 65, then he died of lung cancer.

:sarcasm:

[Blue_In_AK]

59. :ROFL:

[devilgrrl]

61. I swear every anti-pot screed I've ever heard sounds just like that.

:crazy:

[Bluebear]

67. No but 'Smoking a joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer risk'

The article just popped up this morning, I have nothing at all against pot if someone wants to indulge. You just can't get your dealer to give you the little warning sticker about the possibility if disease though lol.

[spanone]

56. at least you die with a smile on your face.

[Occam Bandage]

60. No shit--unfiltered smoke is bad for lungs? Here I thought

that cigarettes were dipped in Cancer Juice and that's why they were bad.

[devilgrrl]

64. Is this study done by the same people who claim that oral sex causes throat cancer?

It wouldn't surprise me.

[Bluebear]

69. Darlin', enjoy away! I hadn't seen your other thread & this news article just came up today

I have nooooothing against people who indulge :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. From your own article...

"few have established a strong link between cannabis use and the actual incidence of lung cancer."

:shrug:

[Bluebear]

75. Correction, it's not "my article", I have no dog in this hunt

:)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. From the article you posted.

The article which has two different spellings for the team leader's name and doesn't cite the research paper in question.

That was the article I was talking about.

[Bluebear]

82. Complain to Reuters, OK?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

84. Why?

You're the one who linked it as a matter for discussion, you've got to share some of the responsibility for its failures.

Let this be a lesson to you the next time you post an article on a scientific subject.

[Bluebear]

86. You know what, the only lesson I learned here is you're an asshole & going on ignore.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

97. LOL. Again?

I lost an argument
With you today
I'm putting you on Ignore

"I wish you'd answer
My questions," you say
I'm putting you on Ignore

I moved back my goal posts
My strawman went long
I'm putting you on Ignore

Your facts are stupid
Your opinion is wrong
I'm putting you on Ignore

You won't let me win
Your logic's absurd
I'm putting you on Ignore

You misplaced that comma
You misspelt that word
I'm putting you on Ignore

You should be on Fox News
You'd fit right in
I'm putting you on Ignore

Shut up! Shut up!
Shut up! Shut up!
I'm putting you on Ignore

You always resort to
Ad hominem attacks
I'm putting you on Ignore

You stinky ugly
Dumb poopyhead hack
I'm putting you on Ignore

You debunked my rave
You derailed my rant
Say sorry, I mustn't
Continue, I can't
I just wish you weren't
So ignorant
I'm putting you on Ignore.

[unpossibles]

76. like the strong link between eating ice cream and drowning

oh wait - that's because both happen more in the summer. My bad...

[walldude]

71. LOL.. I'll file this one right next to the article posted yesterday

about how pot smoke doesn't cause cancer at all. Which I will file right next to the "Clinton is a racist" and "Obama is a misogynist" articles. Which lay right next to the "Reagan was the greatest president ever" article, which is hiding under the "Global Warming is a hoax" article which is cross referenced with the "Iraq attacked us on 9/11" article which is filed under 9/11, which is right next to the "Guilani is the family values candidate" article.

I have many other articles filed but I think I made my point.

BTW BB I know you don't personally judge smokers, I just found it hilarious that you found an article that says the exact opposite of the "pro-pot" article I read yesterday(both of them are filed under "bullshit").. :toast:

[Bluebear]

89. Thanks walldude . . .

Meanwhile see my exchange with the now "ignored" above. Now it's MY fault that the article spelled the researcher's name wrong lol! This place is wearing thin on me :(

[JuniperLea]

78. Oh bong water!

My son the chemist always cautions... look at who sponsored the study... I'm not finding that information in the story linked. On first blush, I'd bet Big Pharma funded this research.

That being said... This is one study against how many others over how many years?

[JuniperLea]

85. I found this in the European Resperatory Journal

This is the most recent article I could find there that contained the word "marijuana"... and it was written in 2006...

http://erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/content/full/27/1/188?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=marijuana&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

Marijuana smoke
Compared to tobacco, marijuana has been somewhat neglected by researchers investigating the aetiology of COPD. This is surprising, considering that marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug worldwide, is constitutionally similar to tobacco (aside from the two active ingredients), is smoked without filters, and results in a four-fold greater particle burden on the respiratory tract than tobacco smoking 96. Conversely, fewer joints are smoked by marijuana smokers than cigarettes by tobacco smokers, and, while tobacco smoking is often a lifelong habit, most marijuana smokers cease smoking in later adult life.

Since a significant number of marijuana smokers also smoke tobacco, future research needs to be directed at investigating the possibility of a synergistic relationship between the two substances. In addition, a dose equivalence with tobacco would be informative in assessing the relative risk of COPD for marijuana smokers.

[HughMoran]

90. I believe it

I can't even smoke it any more - my lungs have given up - it just hurts now :(

[SOS]

92. Headline is false

"Cannabis bigger cancer risk than cigarettes: study"

Yet this conclusion is nowhere to be found in the actual study of 166 tobacco/cannabis smokers.

From the study:

"whether marijuana causes emphysema or lung cancer isn't clear, the researchers said."

"Do marijuana smokers go on to get chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?" he asked. "We don't know that."

"Smoking just one marijuana joint is the same as smoking five cigarettes in terms of the damage it does to your lungs" - Five, not 20.
No link to emphysema or lung cancer.
No mention of water pipes or vaporizers. Less tar?
Cannabis smokers showed no signs of emphysema.

http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=606862

How can the Yahoo headline be so utterly wrong?

[devilgrrl]

93. Perhaps it's intent was to mislead.

And it wouldn't be the first time that yahoo misled.

[mentalsolstice]

95. I never smoked big quantities of it...

However, for someone who needs pain control, I would love to see it legalized, as the painkillers I'm taking now also have significant health risks, and a joint works for me better than the other pharmaceutical options. And, certainly it should be legalized for end-of-life issues. I just watched my father-in-law die basically by starving to death (he died on 12-19-07). It's an ugly, smelly, gross situation. And the pain control the hospital dispensed didn't do a thing...

It's hard to rub a loved one's head and tell them that what they've got is as good as it gets.

[NoBorders]

104. Aren't joints kinda rare these days?

Especially with the potency of weed these days? Among my friends who smoke, a joint is a rare thing. They use that new electronic/glass heater doodad, which basically produceds no smoke.

[bemildred]

105. "The researchers interviewed 79 lung cancer patients"

Assuming this is not a joke, it is complete horseshit, as an attempt at science. It is like interviewing 79 pregnant women, finding out that a large number of them eat chocolate, and concluding that eating chocolate causes pregnancy.

[LostInAnomie]

112. That's it. I'm sticking with cocaine.

{sniiiiiiiffffffffffff}