Study: Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer

gloggawogga

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
3,067
Location
Houston, TX
Marijuana smoking -"even heavy longterm use"- does not cause cancer of the lung, upper airwaves, or esophagus, Donald Tashkin reported at this year's meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society. Coming from Tashkin, this conclusion had extra significance for the assembled drug-company and university-based scientists (most of whom get funding from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse). Over the years, Tashkin's lab at UCLA has produced irrefutable evidence of the damage that marijuana smoke wreaks on bronchial tissue. With NIDA's support, Tashkin and colleagues have identified the potent carcinogens in marijuana smoke, biopsied and made photomicrographs of pre-malignant cells, and studied the molecular changes occurring within them. It is Tashkin's research that the Drug Czar's office cites in ads linking marijuana to lung cancer. Tashkin himself has long believed in a causal relationship, despite a study in which Stephen Sidney examined the files of 64,000 Kaiser patients and found that marijuana users didn't develop lung cancer at a higher rate or die earlier than non-users. Of five smaller studies on the question, only two -involving a total of about 300 patients- concluded that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer. Tashkin decided to settle the question by conducting a large, prospectively designed, population-based, case-controlled study. "Our major hypothesis," he told the ICRS, "was that heavy, longterm use of marijuana will increase the risk of lung and upper-airwaves cancers."

The Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance program provided Tashkin's team with the names of 1,209 L.A. residents aged 59 or younger with cancer (611 lung, 403 oral/pharyngeal, 90 laryngeal, 108 esophageal). Interviewers collected extensive lifetime histories of marijuana, tobacco, alcohol and other drug use, and data on diet, occupational exposures, family history of cancer, and various "socio-demographic factors." Exposure to marijuana was measured in joint years (joints per day x 365). Controls were found based on age, gender and neighborhood. Among them, 46% had never used marijuana, 31% had used less than one joint year, 12% had used 10-30 j-yrs, 2% had used 30-60 j-yrs, and 3% had used for more than 60 j-yrs. Tashkin controlled for tobacco use and calculated the relative risk of marijuana use resulting in lung and upper airwaves cancers. All the odds ratios turned out to be less than one (one being equal to the control group's chances)! Compared with subjects who had used less than one joint year, the estimated odds ratios for lung cancer were .78; for 1-10 j-yrs, .74; for 10-30 j-yrs, .85 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 0.81 for more than 60 j-yrs. The estimated odds ratios for oral/pharyngeal cancers were 0.92 for 1-10 j-yrs; 0.89 for 10-30 j-yrs; 0.81 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 1.0 for more than 60 j-yrs. "Similar, though less precise results were obtained for the other cancer sites," Tashkin reported. "We found absolutely no suggestion of a dose response." The data on tobacco use, as expected, revealed "a very potent effect and a clear dose-response relationship -a 21-fold greater risk of developing lung cancer if you smoke more than two packs a day." Similarly high odds obtained for oral/pharyngeal cancer, laryngeal cancer and esophageal cancer. "So, in summary" Tashkin concluded, "we failed to observe a positive association of marijuana use and other potential confounders."

There was time for only one question, said the moderator, and San Francisco oncologist Donald Abrams, M.D., was already at the microphone: "You don't see any positive correlation, but in at least one category [marijuana-only smokers and lung cancer], it almost looked like there was a negative correlation, i.e., a protective effect. Could you comment on that?"

"Yes," said Tashkin. "The odds ratios are less than one almost consistently, and in one category that relationship was significant, but I think that it would be difficult to extract from these data the conclusion that marijuana is protective against lung cancer. But that is not an unreasonable hypothesis."

Abrams had results of his own to report at the ICRS meeting. He and his colleagues at San Francisco General Hospital had conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled study involving 50 patients with HIV-related peripheral neuropathy. Over the course of five days, patients recorded their pain levels in a diary after smoking either NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes or cigarettes from which the THC had been extracted. About 25% didn't know or guessed wrong as to whether they were smoking the placebos, which suggests that the blinding worked. Abrams requested that his results not be described in detail prior to publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal, but we can generalize: they exceeded expectations, and show marijuana providing pain relief comparable to Gabapentin, the most widely used treatment for a condition that afflicts some 30% of patients with HIV.

To a questioner who bemoaned the difficulty of "separating the high from the clinical benefits," Abrams replied: "I'm an oncologist as well as an AIDS doctor and I don't think that a drug that creates euphoria in patients with terminal diseases is having an adverse effect." His study was funded by the University of California's Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research.
-----------------------------------------
Study: Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer
By FRED GARDNER, Counterpunch
July 2, 2005


Link
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sounds great, but this still isn't a definitive study. I can see at least one possibility in which mj CAN cause cancer: if marihuana causes an extremely aggressive version of lung cancer (which causes people to die within a short period of time), then at any viewed moment, the number of people with cancer who are ill will be small.

Furthermore, if this form of cancer is so aggressive to metastatize (sp?) (spread out to other organs) very swiftly, the patients may have been excluded from the study (i.e. if a patient has a lung tumour which spreads out to the liver, the patient would be excluded from the study)
 
Thanks for posting this. It just keeps getting harder and harder to believe that this wonderful substance is illegal still. Where are the negatives?
 
Poor study only a partisan left wing news site would waste time reporting.
 
I have always felt that marijuana does not increase the chance of lung cancer. So many old school herb smokers that I know in perfect health man.

-weez
 
either way i feel that smoking marijuana puts a lot of poisons in your body and damages your lungs quite a bit. since i started vaporizing it instead of smoking i have noticed a tremendous difference.
 
^And those people would be idiots. Cannabinoids are naturally occurring chemicals that can be found in the brain without any drugs having entered the body (didn't they discover that fairly recently, too?). Anyone who would automatically assume that "cannabinoid" is some code for "cannabis" (which is I'm sure the people of whom you speak) is too uneducated for me to even give a damn about....

Yes, my standards for education are really fucking high. It's because I'm a science geek.
 
Although I'm pro cannabis (I use it medicinally - for phantom limb pain - as well as socially), I'm having difficulty with the idea that smoking anything does not have some detrimental effects on the lungs. Incomplete combustion of any plant material is going to produce polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and compounds like isocyanides etc that are harmful (as well as carbon monoxide) and they are harmful
 
Yeah, but benzopyrene in the magical pot smoke doesn't cause genetic damage! It's kind, man.
 
fastandbulbous said:
Although I'm pro cannabis (I use it medicinally - for phantom limb pain - as well as socially), I'm having difficulty with the idea that smoking anything does not have some detrimental effects on the lungs. Incomplete combustion of any plant material is going to produce polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and compounds like isocyanides etc that are harmful (as well as carbon monoxide) and they are harmful
Isn't it possible that it has a overall protective effect that more or less cancels out the carcinogenic action of the smoke? That might explain the discrepancies between the longterm stats and the short term evaluation of damage to the tissue. I'm sure there was some research posted on here recently that links it to the reduction of some brain and possibly other types of tumours.
 
Where are the negatives?

exacerbating existing mental problems, reduced lung efficiency(not to say tobacco doesnt do that too, but its also unhealthy:D )
 
^^ I doubt that the overall lung effecientcy would be decreased (at least by much anyway) from smoking only cannabis. The reason I say this is that I read some studies a couple of years back that found that cannabis does not damage and shut down sections of the lungs like tabacco smoke does. Sorry I can't remember the technical names for this. Basically this "irreparable damage" in a very advanced stage in heavy tobacco smokers is called emphasema. The tobacco smoke causes the permanent damage to sections of the lungs resulting in less and less usable lung capacity. In the end after continued heavy use a tobacco smoker may have to be put on an oxygen tank. The study found that cannabis smoke for some reason did not have this effect and a users lungs did not have reduced usable capacity. I wish I still had the links or a copy of the artices to share... sorry.

That having said I'm still not one to smoke that much. Although I do like the occasionanal smoke in the right setting.

Ps. Folks IMO its best smoked clean and green. Please do your health a favour and don't mix that dirty 'bacccers in. If you really must mix something in because you think weed is too expensive where you live then maybe think about something else like some daimina or some other smokable herb from your herbal high shop.

Ekstasis-//7
 
Isn't it possible that it has a overall protective effect that more or less cancels out the carcinogenic action of the smoke?

I honestly can't find any arguement to convince me of that, polycyclic hydrocarbons are carcinogenic and as far as I'm aware, nothing prevents them from being carcinogenic once they enter the body (it's actually the epoxide formed from metabolism that cayses the damage)
 
lthough I'm pro cannabis (I use it medicinally - for phantom limb pain - as well as socially), I'm having difficulty with the idea that smoking anything does not have some detrimental effects on the lungs. Incomplete combustion of any plant material is going to produce polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and compounds like isocyanides etc that are harmful (as well as carbon monoxide) and they are harm

That is a logical conclusion although it is sort of interesting that there is a slight indication from that data that there is a possible mild protective effect. perhaps there are other things in the chemical stew that counteract that response. That is interesting considering it apparently came from one of the U.S. governments so-called allies in the (insert hysterical laughter here)"war on drugs".

That's a kick in the ass for old Bush and his psuedo-moralistic morons.=D
 
Yeah, why the hell cant we give terminally ill people any drug they want. I mean come on, terminally ill people are no longer a contributer to society, if thats what the government is worried about, so we should give them any drugs they want. Its not like any damage is likely possible. Well except from cocaine and heroin.

Mushrooms and marijuana should definately be legal. I want to see some more research done on psychedelics. because I know there is nothing bad they will find.
 
PacificPro said:
Thanks for posting this. It just keeps getting harder and harder to believe that this wonderful substance is illegal still. Where are the negatives?

Have a look and you'll see. I hate the way people think wed is panacea for all ills. Everything has a bad side to it. Pro-marijunana people are usually as poor at delivering non-biased propaganda as those that wish to see weed and its advicates burn in hell. Marijunana can be harmful. Another left-wing load on nosense which will further the distance between pro and anti weed groups. Lets be realistic for once, inhaling smoke has gotta be bad on some level.
 
Top