Smoking or eating marijuana is not a cure for cancer

[TheRightStuff]

^ Maybe Tl/dr? I may edit later.

The article is still bullshit and I have seen studies saying cannabis treats some of those cancers as well. If someone can post those that would be great.

He doesn't deny that cannabinoids have anticancer properties - he's just saying that, like ALL cancer drugs, the results from petri-dishes in a lab don't automatically translate into how the drug works in a system as complex as the human body, that any treatment is necessarily going to be dose dependent, and that ROA is important, i.e. smoking or eating is most likely quite ineffective for this particular purpose.

It's really about advocates not overselling the potential. Scientific caution should be exercised by cannabis advocates if they want to be taken seriously.

Yet here you are blithely dismissing perfectly credible findings as "BS" just because they don't align with your pre-existing biases towards marijuana. Really, that's just as bad as the prohibitionists who simply dismiss pot as "evil" without properly considering the evidence, IMHO.

I'm all for cannabis therapies but I don't like the downplaying of risks and overstating of benefits - it makes marijuana look like just another pseudo-scientific "alternative" therapy.

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

You are making incredible assumptions about what I believe. Slimvictor highlighted some of the reason why the article is bullshit. If you knew just how horrible chemotherapy was I think you would change your mind and see how your last paragraph is very ironic. The risks with cannabis are just above zero. No other therapy in existence has less risk other than vitamin C therapy. (I'm not referring to smoking it, even though sitting beside a camp fire is a greater risk for your lungs).

 

[TheRightStuff]

You are making incredible assumptions about what I believe. Slimvictor highlighted some of the reason why the article is bullshit. If you knew just how horrible chemotherapy was I think you would change your mind and see how your last paragraph is very ironic. The risks with cannabis are just above zero. No other therapy in existence has less risk other than vitamin C therapy. (I'm not referring to smoking it, even though sitting beside a camp fire is a greater risk for your lungs).

Oh, I agree 100% - cannabis IS great for relieving the symptoms of chemo. I'd imagine the author of the OP would too. But what cannabis - in it's smoked or eaten form - probably isn't all that great for is curing cancers. That's really the take-home point of the article. People claiming cannabis is some sort of cure-all wonder-drug just make the legitimate therapies look bad by association.

 

[TheRightStuff]

RightStuff: Contrary to what you tentatively assumed earlier, I deeply appreciate contrary views and the discussion they can lead to. So, here are some interesting links:

http://www.medicaljane.com/2013/11/13/cannabis-based-brain-cancer-treatment-begins-human-trials/
http://www.newsweek.com/marijuana-might-kill-cancer-1289

Here is a quote from Numbers:

And, weed smokers actually have a (slightly) lower incidence of lung cancer than non-smokers. This is despite the fact that smoking anything is terrible for the lungs. Here is my source, and check out this:

Indeed. And, the review cited in the OP in regards to potential increased risk says pretty clearly that they found a lower risk of lung cancers too, it's just that they also found an increased risk for head, neck, cervical and prostate cancers. Swings and roundabouts.

Your source seems to be pretty much in consensus with the OP, for instance:

although evidence is mixed concerning possible
carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use.

Indeed it is.

And then

bronchial epithelial ciliary loss and impairs the microbicidal function
of alveolar macrophages, evidence is inconclusive regarding possible associated
risks for lower respiratory tract infection

This is what the OP refers to in the "dangers of long term use" section - hardly controversial stuff and here it is repeated by your source

Aside from a couple of loaded phrases I really don't see the problem with the article. It's not written from an enthusiastically pro (nor an anti for that matter) position but doesn't that mean it's just rubbish. There's nothing wrong with thinking critically about a subject once in awhile.

 

[slimvictor]

Again, the author made no claims about lung cancer - this is the study he referred to and it didn't find a link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer, however it DID find an increased risk of prostate, cervical, head and neck cancers in non-tobacco using marijuana smokers:

http://www.alcoholjournal.org/article/S0741-8329(05)00112-6/abstract

Did you read the conclusion of that study?

In summary, sufficient studies are not available to adequately evaluate marijuana impact on cancer risk.

 

[slimvictor]

Aside from a couple of loaded phrases I really don't see the problem with the article. It's not written from an enthusiastically pro (nor an anti for that matter) position but doesn't that mean it's just rubbish. There's nothing wrong with thinking critically about a subject once in awhile.

How about what I quoted earlier:

Marijuana use can only damage health, not improve it.

That is what I would call an enthusiastically anti-cannabis stance, and not one based on science but on the author's pre-existing beliefs, regardless of any scientific evidence.

 

[Hammilton]

The author says some things that are questionable, but by and large, he's right. Cannabis has not been proven in vivo, or in humano, and there are numerous studies that find damages caused by smoking it.

 

[theWhiteLarryBird]

Didnt read the article, but the title is pretty stupid if you ask me. If it were a cure, obviously people would be smoking even more of it.

 

[slimvictor]

The author says some things that are questionable, but by and large, he's right. Cannabis has not been proven to cure cancer in vivo, or in humano, and there are numerous studies that find damages caused by smoking it.

I think we can consider this (with my addition in red) to be an agreed-upon conclusion.
Rightstuff? Others?