• CD Moderators: someguyontheinternet
  • Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

I thought Cannabis didnt lead to cancer =(

It's bullcrap.

Fox News is running an alarmist story today under the outrageous headline, “Marijuana Not Only Gets You High, It Damages Your DNA.”

The ‘news’ story, which several other mainstream media outlets are also promoting, is based on a new British study assessing the effects of, ahem, “calf thymus DNA treated in vitro (in a Petri dish) … with the smoke generated from 1, 5, and 10 cannabis cigarettes.”

Yes, really.

So how did Fox “We report, you decide” News summarize this non-story? Let’s take a look.

What Fox News reported: “Smoking marijuana not only gets you high, but it also alters your DNA.”

What the study actually said: “[T]hese results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke, implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development.”

What Fox News reported: “There have been many studies on the toxicity of tobacco smoke,” researcher Rajinder Singh said in a news release. “Cannabis in contrast has not been so well studied.”

What Fox News didn’t report: From the March 2009 issue of the scientific journal Medicinal Research Reviews, “Research on the chemistry and pharmacology of cannabinoids and endocannabinoids has reached enormous proportions. … [A]pproximately 15,000 articles on Cannabis sativa L. and cannabinoids and over 2,000 articles on endocannabinoids (are available in the scientific literature).”

What Fox News reported: “Singh said cannabis smoke contains 400 compounds including 60 cannabinoids. It also contains 50 percent more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke, Singh added.”

What Fox News didn’t report: From the November 2007 issue of the scientific journal Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, “Vaporization of marijuana does not result in exposure to combustion gases, … and [was] preferred by most subjects compared to marijuana cigarettes. … The Volcano [vaporizer] device is an effective and apparently safe vehicle for THC delivery, and warrants further investigation in clinical trials of cannabis for medical purposes.”

What Fox News reported: “‘The smoking of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day,’ the team wrote in the journal.”

Except for the fact that it isn’t. In fact, here’s what Donald Tashkin of the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, had to say about the subject earlier this month in an interview with the McClatchy newspaper chain. (**Note: Dr. Tashkin has performed US-government sponsored studies of marijuana and lung function for over 30 years and is considered to be the United States’ — if not the world’s — foremost expert on the subject.)

“What we found instead was no association (between marijuana smoking and cancer) and even a suggestion of some protective (anti-cancer) effect. … Early on, when our research appeared as if there would be a negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects. But at this point, I’d be in favor of legalization (of marijuana). I wouldn’t encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don’t think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm.”

Just for the record, in 2006, Tashkin led the largest population case-control study (yes, Dr. Tashkin actually performed research on humans, not ‘calf thymus DNA’) ever to assess the use of marijuana and lung cancer risk. The study, which included more than 2,200 subjects (1,212 cases and 1,040 controls), reported that marijuana smoking was not positively associated with cancers of the lung or upper aerodigestive tract – even among individuals who reported smoking more than 22,000 joints during their lifetime.

Let the folks at Fox put that in their pipe and smoke it.

http://blog.norml.org/2009/06/17/fox-news-infected-with-reefer-madness/
 
...even among individuals who reported smoking more than 22,000 joints during their lifetime.


seems like BL might've taken part in this...=D

it's probably another attempt to make people scared of legalization

and last time i checked calf DNA doesnt mean i'll get cancer, im no calf
 
....and then....there is this...

Recent work by Roth et al. demonstrates that THC treatment of murine hepatoma cells caused a dose dependent increase in CYP1A1 gene transcription, while at the same time directly inhibiting the enzymatic activity of the gene product [23]. Thus, despite potentially higher levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in cannabis smoke compared to tobacco smoke (dependent on what part of the plant is smoked), the THC present in cannabis smoke should exert a protective effect against pro-carcinogens that require activation. In contrast, nicotine activates some CYP1A1 activities, thus potentially increasing the carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoke [24].

In conclusion, while both tobacco and cannabis smoke have similar properties chemically, their pharmacological activities differ greatly.

Components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some.

Both types of smoke contain carcinogens and particulate matter that promotes inflammatory immune responses that may enhance the carcinogenic effects of the smoke.

However, cannabis typically down-regulates immunologically-generated free radical production by promoting a Th2 immune cytokine profile. Furthermore, THC inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate some of the carcinogens found in smoke.

In contrast, tobacco smoke increases the likelihood of carcinogenesis by overcoming normal cellular checkpoint protective mechanisms through the activity of respiratory epithelial cell nicotine receptors.

Cannabinoids receptors have not been reported in respiratory epithelial cells (in skin they prevent cancer), and hence the DNA damage checkpoint mechanism should remain intact after prolonged cannabis exposure.

Furthermore, nicotine promotes tumor angiogenesis whereas cannabis inhibits it.

It is possible that as the cannabis-consuming population ages, the long-term consequences of smoking cannabis may become more similar to what is observed with tobacco. However, current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke.

It should be noted that with the development of vaporizers, that use the respiratory route for the delivery of carcinogen-free cannabis vapors, the carcinogenic potential of smoked cannabis has been largely eliminated [47,48].


http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/21



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
The smoke from cannabis, the plant from which marijuana is derived, contains compounds that can damage DNA and increase the risk of cancer just like tobacco smoke, says a new study from the United Kingdom.
I feel bad if any of you were surprised by the fact putting burning plant material into your lungs is not good for your health. I only skimmed but this whole article just seemed like one big scare tactic.

he plant from which marijuana is derived, contains compounds that can damage DNA and increase the risk of cancer just like tobacco smoke,
If im not mistaken this is a carcinogen & those could be found in anything you try to smoke. Im sure the powers that profit from prohibition will start stuffing mad millions into all sorts of crazy "marijuana is bad" studies that may work on the spine/mindless. If that is the case its a good sign for those of pro-legalize stand point since they're being forced to react on something they didnt want to touch at all for a long long time.

Legalization threatens the revenue of very old money. Rest assured these people will do everything in their power to keep Cannabis Sativa illegal and ensure their family will maintain first dibs milking the cash cow that is/has become prohibition .
 
dosent burning anything make carcinogens? am i wrong here?

flawed article.

i guess they just want us drinking solvents. :(
 
same old bullshit.

"cannabis contains compounds which have been known to cause cancer" and "cannabis use causes cancer" are too very different statements. science has been saying for a long time that "pot contains a bunch of chemicals so it probably causes cancer" . . but then when science did a study to see if there was any correlation between pot and lung cancer they found out they were wrong.

this article is just more weasel-worded garbage using the old, failed paradigm.
 
dosent burning anything make carcinogens? am i wrong here?

flawed article.

i guess they just want us drinking solvents. :(

No, I think you are right.

One could always use a vaporizer. Dr. Ted Mikuriya (sp?), who I once met in Berkeley, had a gadget that used a heat gun to vaporize the active principles of the pot, as he was uncomfortable as an MD telling people to smoke anything.
 
First of all Tobaccos legal so whats the issue about what causes cancer and what doesnt... everyone knows cigarretts DO cause cancer. Plus why would Marijuana be perscribed to Cancer patients ( with great sucess) but cause it at the same time???
I call BS. Its not the best thing for your lungs, for obvious reasons. . . but this is such a contradiction.. . MJ causes cancer but here cancer patient have some MJ it will help cure you..???
 
Egypt, the difference is that Cannabis does not have a multi-billion dollar tobacco company backing it up in legal representation. They have a lot of pull with some of our senators.
 
My sister's boyfriend has brain cancer. (3 Tumors, 1 large, 2 smaller ones branching off from the big one)

It has affected his cognitive skills such as speech and coordination. Doctors tried Marinol with little success. He then was offered to try vaporizing cannabis leaf. Since he started that treatment about a month ago, the two smaller tumors are receding and the tissue is dying :)

This was not the case before cannabis treatment, he was given a prognosis of only 12 months to live, cannabis might just have extended his life.
 
Swift Serenity, there's no way to prove the cannabis was the reason the cancer went into remission. There are plenty of stories like this out there - the media isn't very interested. They wouldn't find any doctor to give them a quote for the article.
 
I was thinking the same thing as the DR, smoking ANYTHING will give you cancer. The sun gives you cancer too.
 
Swift Serenity, there's no way to prove the cannabis was the reason the cancer went into remission. There are plenty of stories like this out there - the media isn't very interested. They wouldn't find any doctor to give them a quote for the article.

Yup exactly.

There is just no way to tell what sent the tumors into remission so cannabis won't get any credit :(
 
Yup exactly.

There is just no way to tell what sent the tumors into remission so cannabis won't get any credit :(

but could it not also deserve credit? I mean how many things could it have been? Something did it, this we know..... so wouldn't people try to find out what made the cancer go away? i mean find out everything that person ate or drank or smoked or whatever and see if it works on other patients.... why not ya know?
 
The sun gives you cancer too.

It's funny that as a group of people we have to deal with a giant ball of flame in the sky that is so bright it blinds you if you look at it for even a minute, and it gives you cancer if you stay in it for to long, but we need it so badly.

That's actually hilarious.
 
Top