To my knowledge there are no links between marijuana use and cancer. There was a guy on another board I go to that had access to databases of medical studies (not open membership unfortunately or I'd go dig it up) and he couldn't find any studies that said there was.

 

just as with tobacco, marijuana smoke contains a lot of bad stuff like carcinogens.

 

but I am still for legalizing marijuana

Edited July 30, 200817 yr by mr_genius

Just as with tobacco, marijuana smoke contains a lot of bad stuff like carcinogens.

 

but I am still for legalizing marijuana

Yeah but the thing is that casual marijuana use (a handful of joints a week) isn't anywhere near the amount your average smoker who pollutes the holy f*** out of their lungs.

really, how did you arrive at that amount?

Common sense - how many marijuana smokers do you know who smoke 10+ joints per day for an extended period of time? Your average user isn't Snoop Dogg.

By the way folks, it's really not that hard to google "Marijuana cancer link" and see what comes up.

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.

 

They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

 

"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."

 

Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.

 

While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

 

The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.

Clearly it's not a conclusive, double-blind study or anything along those lines, but if we're going to discuss whether or not smoking marijuana causes cancer, let's at least look at the data currently available, which says it doesn't.

Common sense - how many marijuana smokers do you know who smoke 10+ joints per day for an extended period of time? Your average user isn't Snoop Dogg.

 

Common sense tells me that there may be different substances between the two and they may have different rates of toxicity. How many cigarette smokers inhale and hold the smoke as much as pot smokers. I also do not know if a rolled filter cigarette is different then a pipe, or unfiltered. Also how many cigarette smokers burn their fingers trying to smoke the last bit of a cigarette?

By the way folks, it's really not that hard to google "Marijuana cancer link" and see what comes up.

Clearly it's not a conclusive, double-blind study or anything along those lines, but if we're going to discuss whether or not smoking marijuana causes cancer, let's at least look at the data currently available, which says it doesn't.

In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.

 

Seems like there have been other studies. IIRC weren't there a lot of studies that showed how wonderful tobacco was?

By the way folks, it's really not that hard to google "Marijuana cancer link" and see what comes up.

Clearly it's not a conclusive, double-blind study or anything along those lines, but if we're going to discuss whether or not smoking marijuana causes cancer, let's at least look at the data currently available, which says it doesn't.

Being at work I'm theoretically too busy to google that

That damn Showtime network.

Being at work I'm theoretically too busy to google that

I just figured I was the only one who wasn't high on something...

Nah I'm all for legalizing marijuana but even if it was legal, I wouldn't smoke it.

Seems like there have been other studies. IIRC weren't there a lot of studies that showed how wonderful tobacco was?

It wouldn't surprise me if there were. But that's not a reason to throw out the data we currently have. Like any supposedly scientifically done study, if we threw out every bit of research because people had done things wrong in the past we'd never have gotten past Newton. Is this man funded by the "Marijuana industry" or did he clearly do something wrong? Beats me. He admits to being a user, so he has motivation to work on that side, but you can't just toss data aside without giving me some sort of reason.

Seems like there have been other studies. IIRC weren't there a lot of studies that showed how wonderful tobacco was?

 

yea there have been. even the article quotes the guy running the study as saying

 

" previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar."

 

smoking pot isn't good for you, but neither is boozing. and illegal booze causes way more problems then it solves. i feel the same way about marijuana

Edited July 30, 200817 yr by mr_genius

It wouldn't surprise me if there were. But that's not a reason to throw out the data we currently have. Like any supposedly scientifically done study, if we threw out every bit of research because people had done things wrong in the past we'd never have gotten past Newton. Is this man funded by the "Marijuana industry" or did he clearly do something wrong? Beats me. He admits to being a user, so he has motivation to work on that side, but you can't just toss data aside without giving me some sort of reason.

 

I agree. But any self reporting study is suspect. Plus, from other studies I've read, marijuana has changed over the past few decades. Whether from selected breeding or natural mutations. Without a consistent operational definition for marijuana, it will be tough to really understand the data.

bs line of logic?

We would be taking an illegal substance and legalizing it. You are describing legal things and then making them illegal. The bs logic would be since A is bad we should allow all bad things as well.

 

Would legalizing cause usage to increase or decrease? I believe it would increase. So why would it be a bs line of reasoning to actually look at the risks and health costs before taking that step? It would seem that a prudent thing to do is analyze all factors before acting.

 

It's arbitrarily illegal. But that point aside, I'm simply saying that just because there are health care costs associated with something doesn't mean that's a good reason to not make it available. There are plenty of things that contribute to the costs of health care in this country, yet they're part of everyones daily lives. Sure it can be a factor to consider, but since it's forgotten or overlooked in so many other similar issues, to me it's not a very important one.

The bs logic would be since A is bad we should allow all bad things as well.

Carefull here Tex. You use this approach on here alot.

I have never used it, but can see the value to legalizing it. And taxing it. And regulating it.

 

hypothetical: if decriminalized, how much would % of users go up?

hypothetical: if decriminalized, how much would % of users go up?

And how many people only doing it because it is 'cool' or 'anti-establishment' will stop? Short term you may have an increase in users, but I think that long term you won't see much of a difference.

And how many people only doing it because it is 'cool' or 'anti-establishment' will stop? Short term you may have an increase in users, but I think that long term you won't see much of a difference.

I believe this as well. Marijuana is not hard to get and the fact that it's illegal isn't stopping people.

And how many people only doing it because it is 'cool' or 'anti-establishment' will stop? Short term you may have an increase in users, but I think that long term you won't see much of a difference.

 

I agree with this, I think there is a stigma attached to marijuana smoking much like cigarettes, to where people my age would support legalizing it, but it still wouldn't be considered a nonchalant act like drinking is in college.

hypothetical: if decriminalized, how much would % of users go up?

 

a lot

And how many people only doing it because it is 'cool' or 'anti-establishment' will stop? Short term you may have an increase in users, but I think that long term you won't see much of a difference.

 

if you can buy weed at the store, it's going to be consumed more. no question. i see more of a situation where some one smokes a joint after work rather than drinks a 6 pack. and honestly i prefer stoners to drunks.

if you can buy weed at the store, it's going to be consumed more. no question. i see more of a situation where some one smokes a joint after work rather than drinks a 6 pack. and honestly i prefer stoners to drunks.

Probably, but, I think part of the appeal of weed for younger folks is that its illegal.

 

Have to say, I would be happy to see MJ decriminalized. THe gov't spends (wastes) a ton of money enforcing laws on a drug that is, in my view, clearly less harmful to society than either alcohol or cigarettes. It isn't a cancer engine like cigarettes, it doesn't create people that are a hazard to public safety nearly as often as alcohol would... this just makes too much sense. It won't happen, at least not yet.

 

Drunks cause accidents, stoners just miss their exits.

Probably, but, I think part of the appeal of weed for younger folks is that its illegal.

 

I think there is a better distribution systen in place to get weed into a 18 year old hands then a beer.