Medical Marijuana Debate Forum - Washington Post-Smoking Marijuana does not lead to lung cancer
Medical questions     Health forums     MarketPlace     log in    

Washington Post-Smoking Marijuana does not lead to lung cancer

New Topic  Reply  Ask A Doctor - Offline
Medical Questions-> Health Forums -> Medical Marijuana Debate -> Washington Post-Smoking Marijuana does not lead to lung cancer
Medical Questions
Author Message
homerx

Supporter
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 3526
Location: Earth..usually, USA
Thanks: 432
Thanked:1275
Washington Post-Smoking Marijuana does not lead to lung cancer
Posted: 01-28-08 14:53pm

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; A03

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.
|
bobbette

Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 125
Location: ,
Thanks: 27
Thanked:4

Posted: 01-29-08 15:08pm

This question is very debateable-- i know i read somewhere a good while back that mj had many more times over the potential to cause lung cancer--and if not lung cancer --surely COPD, bronchitis, asthma, etc. as with anything else smoked regularly and heavily--it just makes sense. Don't know about the carcogenic issues with mj though...think that remains to be proven. For any pro-debate on anything--u can find as many cons.
|
homerx

Supporter
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 3526
Location: Earth..usually, USA
Thanks: 432
Thanked:1275

Posted: 01-29-08 15:22pm

Yeah, but I think the difference is that if you smoke tobacco then you are smoking all day where as with mj you usually smoke 1 or 2 or 3 joints a day and maybe its the quantity...not sure either but thats the way I took it...this was from The Washington Post so I think it is true Smile
|
bobbette

Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 125
Location: ,
Thanks: 27
Thanked:4

Posted: 01-29-08 15:26pm

u r probably right -- depends if u smoke a joint or 2 a day or the equivalent to half a pack--also do not know if they have carcinogens equal to that of cigs-- also in big mj crops they us pesticides, etc....
|
Users who thank bobbette for this post: homerx 
homerx

Supporter
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 3526
Location: Earth..usually, USA
Thanks: 432
Thanked:1275

Posted: 05-30-08 22:08pm

grow your own and you don't have to worry about pesticides..Smile
|
Related Topics
This Forum This Category All Forums
Jump to:  
New Topic   Reply
Medical Questions -> Health Forums -> Medical Marijuana Debate -> Washington Post-Smoking Marijuana does not lead to lung cancer



We comply with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health
information:
verify here.