Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer - GoFuckYourself.com

RayBonga · 05-25-2006, 10:25 AM

Published yesterday by Scientific American.

Quote:

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 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.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...5F83414B7F0000

Love Sex · 05-25-2006, 11:17 AM

i know how it avoids it, cigs are grown and processed with massive amounts of chemicals causing the tabaccy not to be as pure as weed.

doesnt take a genius for this one plus there is no possible way for any one of these tests to even be semi accurate

VicD · 05-25-2006, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Love Sex

i know how it avoids it, cigs are grown and processed with massive amounts of chemicals causing the tabaccy not to be as pure as weed.

doesnt take a genius for this one plus there is no possible way for any one of these tests to even be semi accurate

You also need chemicals to grow weed...

klinton · 05-25-2006, 11:55 AM

yeaah,right........
but you know,everybody is different and react in different ways.
so if you FEEL that smoking is ok for you, then ok ;]

uno · 05-25-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicd

You also need chemicals to grow weed...

They don't call it "weed" for no reason. It's not very difficult to grow and a lot of it is in the lighting. Or so I've heard.

Cyrano · 05-25-2006, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicd

You also need chemicals to grow weed...

There's no need to use chemicals, I don't.

After Shock Media · 05-25-2006, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicd

You also need chemicals to grow weed...

What chemicals?

Lemme run down my list.

Water.
Vermiculite.
Bat guano.
Worm castings.
Peat moss.
Light.
Seeds.

hmmmmmmm.... I suppose technically each of those items is made up of a chemical element or a few but I do not think that is what you mean.

Manowar · 05-25-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uno

They don't call it "weed" for no reason. It's not very difficult to grow and a lot of it is in the lighting. Or so I've heard.

madawgz · 05-25-2006, 12:53 PM

wahoooooo!

pussyluver · 05-25-2006, 12:57 PM

A resonable person would assume smoking anything produces a cancer risk. That doesn't mean that you should be bared from hurting yourself that way though. McDonalds is prolly worse overall - got me!

05-25-2006, 12:53 PM	#9
madawgz 8.8.8.8 Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Noordermarkt Posts: 30,509	wahoooooo! __________________ TAEMDLRMSKRJIXMRLSMRJ.

05-25-2006, 11:17 AM	#2
Love Sex Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,905	i know how it avoids it, cigs are grown and processed with massive amounts of chemicals causing the tabaccy not to be as pure as weed. doesnt take a genius for this one plus there is no possible way for any one of these tests to even be semi accurate

05-25-2006, 11:55 AM	#4
klinton So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: online Posts: 8,766	yeaah,right........ but you know,everybody is different and react in different ways. so if you FEEL that smoking is ok for you, then ok ;]

05-25-2006, 12:57 PM	#10
pussyluver Clueless OleMan Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: ICQ - 169903487 Posts: 11,009	A resonable person would assume smoking anything produces a cancer risk. That doesn't mean that you should be bared from hurting yourself that way though. McDonalds is prolly worse overall - got me!