SMOKING MARIJUANA DOES NOT CAUSE LUNG CANCER
July 8, 2005 12:15 PM Subscribe
SMOKING MARIJUANA DOES NOT CAUSE LUNG CANCER "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. Over the years, Tashkin's lab at UCLA has produced irrefutable evidence of the damage that marijuana smoke wreaks on bronchial tissue. It is Tashkin's research that the Drug Czar's office cites in ads linking marijuana to lung cancer.
Turning off the Caps Lock key won't cause lung cancer either and it will make your FPP nicer and your gentle readers less annoyed. Also(and, yes, I RTFA and know it is there too), "irrefutable evidence" can't logically be reported false. At most he produce "some evidence" that was now found lacking.
posted by nkyad at 12:33 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by nkyad at 12:33 PM on July 8, 2005
Exposure to marijuana was measured in joint years ( joints per day x 365 ).
The "joint year" is my new favorite unit.
posted by selfmedicating at 12:33 PM on July 8, 2005
The "joint year" is my new favorite unit.
posted by selfmedicating at 12:33 PM on July 8, 2005
So, if his lab was producing irrefutable proof, then how did he refute it?
Actually if you read what the reported research studied, it doesn't say that pot doesn't cause cancer, it says that if you have cancer, you statistically didn't get it from smoking pot. That is a big difference. To see if pot actually caused cancer you'd have to take a significant number of people some that smoke, some that don't and compare their cancer rates.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:35 PM on July 8, 2005
Actually if you read what the reported research studied, it doesn't say that pot doesn't cause cancer, it says that if you have cancer, you statistically didn't get it from smoking pot. That is a big difference. To see if pot actually caused cancer you'd have to take a significant number of people some that smoke, some that don't and compare their cancer rates.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:35 PM on July 8, 2005
Much as one might like this to be valid - come on, doesn't that seem a little too good to be true? It's smoke! In your lungs! Can you really believe that heavy smoking of anything over time has no negative effect?
posted by freebird at 12:37 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by freebird at 12:37 PM on July 8, 2005
selfmedicating writes "The 'joint year' is my new favorite unit."
Thinking about it and the last few wars the US has got itself into, I wonder: what if the "Joint" in "Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Armed Forces" does not mean what we thought it meant all this time?
posted by nkyad at 12:39 PM on July 8, 2005
Thinking about it and the last few wars the US has got itself into, I wonder: what if the "Joint" in "Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Armed Forces" does not mean what we thought it meant all this time?
posted by nkyad at 12:39 PM on July 8, 2005
I had a really great comment but I forgot it. Are there any studies on the MariJuana's effect on memory?
freebird, I've heard that heavy pole smoking results in scabby knees but not lung cancer.
It is hard to believe that long term heavy dope smoking doesn't cause damage to the lungs and maybe it does but it might not necessarily cause cancer, there are other things that can go wrong with the gas sacs, ya know?
posted by fenriq at 12:42 PM on July 8, 2005
freebird, I've heard that heavy pole smoking results in scabby knees but not lung cancer.
It is hard to believe that long term heavy dope smoking doesn't cause damage to the lungs and maybe it does but it might not necessarily cause cancer, there are other things that can go wrong with the gas sacs, ya know?
posted by fenriq at 12:42 PM on July 8, 2005
I for one want every FPP about marijuana to start with an All Caps SHOUT.
posted by OmieWise at 12:43 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by OmieWise at 12:43 PM on July 8, 2005
That Norml article is one one the worst pieces of technical writing I have read in quite some time.
It is literally contradicting itself from one paragraph to the next.
I think the idea was that a meta study showed no increase in the risk of cancer among pot smokers. But there is also irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Hmm...
Did a pothead write this article while they were high?
posted by teece at 12:45 PM on July 8, 2005
It is literally contradicting itself from one paragraph to the next.
I think the idea was that a meta study showed no increase in the risk of cancer among pot smokers. But there is also irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Hmm...
Did a pothead write this article while they were high?
posted by teece at 12:45 PM on July 8, 2005
Much as one might like this to be valid - come on, doesn't that seem a little too good to be true? It's smoke! In your lungs! Can you really believe that heavy smoking of anything over time has no negative effect?
Well, the author of the study did research into other problems that pot smoking does cause, so it's not like this is from a NORML spokesbot.
posted by delmoi at 12:53 PM on July 8, 2005
Well, the author of the study did research into other problems that pot smoking does cause, so it's not like this is from a NORML spokesbot.
posted by delmoi at 12:53 PM on July 8, 2005
Turning off the Caps Lock key won't cause lung cancer either and it will make your FPP nicer and your gentle readers less annoyed.
Dude. It's almost 4 pm and it's Friday. Wait 20 minutes, smoke a joint, and then come back and apologize.
posted by VulcanMike at 12:53 PM on July 8, 2005
Dude. It's almost 4 pm and it's Friday. Wait 20 minutes, smoke a joint, and then come back and apologize.
posted by VulcanMike at 12:53 PM on July 8, 2005
Oh, but I want to believe!
posted by sacrilicious at 12:53 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by sacrilicious at 12:53 PM on July 8, 2005
Pollomacho
That's exactly what the Kaiser study did and found nothing (did you read the link?). The beauty of the case-control study design used by Tashkin is that it is efficient. You take all the cases and randomly sample from those that aren't cases. You don't have to follow and survey the entire population, just a sample Then you infer backwards to the rate of spliff sucking in the entire population to construct approximately what you would get from the study you propose and that Kaiser did. And, guess what, they got the same answer: nada, zilch, zero, nil, zippo, bupkis. Now, there could be recall bias that could affect the results, but since they got the same answer as the propsective cohort study used by Kaiser, it is unlikely.
Face it, the ganja-causes-lung-cancer hypothesis is dead and buried and the anti-weed faction will have to come up with another scare tactic.
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:55 PM on July 8, 2005
That's exactly what the Kaiser study did and found nothing (did you read the link?). The beauty of the case-control study design used by Tashkin is that it is efficient. You take all the cases and randomly sample from those that aren't cases. You don't have to follow and survey the entire population, just a sample Then you infer backwards to the rate of spliff sucking in the entire population to construct approximately what you would get from the study you propose and that Kaiser did. And, guess what, they got the same answer: nada, zilch, zero, nil, zippo, bupkis. Now, there could be recall bias that could affect the results, but since they got the same answer as the propsective cohort study used by Kaiser, it is unlikely.
Face it, the ganja-causes-lung-cancer hypothesis is dead and buried and the anti-weed faction will have to come up with another scare tactic.
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:55 PM on July 8, 2005
Can you really believe that heavy smoking of anything over time has no negative effect?
I could believe that different kinds of smoke can have different effects. So it is not unreasonable to say that some smoke could be very, very bad, and some smoke could be much less bad. It's a little early to say "good," though they mentioned that it "is not an unreasonable hypothesis" that marijuana smoke could protect against cancer. It's an interesting observation; for a while, I thought conventional wisdom said that alcohol was bad, but we now think moderate alcohol consumption is good for you.
It would be interesting to see if marijuana ingested in other ways (not by smoking) also has cancer-inhibiting properties. It could be that marijuana contains cancer-fighting ingredients (like many fruits, vegetables and plants do) and the smoke happens to be particularly mild. So the smoke doesn't directly cause cancer, and the benefits can shine through.
posted by drstupid at 12:59 PM on July 8, 2005
I could believe that different kinds of smoke can have different effects. So it is not unreasonable to say that some smoke could be very, very bad, and some smoke could be much less bad. It's a little early to say "good," though they mentioned that it "is not an unreasonable hypothesis" that marijuana smoke could protect against cancer. It's an interesting observation; for a while, I thought conventional wisdom said that alcohol was bad, but we now think moderate alcohol consumption is good for you.
It would be interesting to see if marijuana ingested in other ways (not by smoking) also has cancer-inhibiting properties. It could be that marijuana contains cancer-fighting ingredients (like many fruits, vegetables and plants do) and the smoke happens to be particularly mild. So the smoke doesn't directly cause cancer, and the benefits can shine through.
posted by drstupid at 12:59 PM on July 8, 2005
But it does cause arrests, munchies, and paranoia.
Mmmmm..Twinkies....WAIT..WHOSE THAT AT THE DOOR?!! DAMN..WHY AM I SUDDENLY IN CAPS..MAN MY COMPUTERS FREAKING OUT..
WHAT?
BUNNY..
BUNNY.
SHH..THEY CAN HEAR US!
posted by Mr Bluesky at 1:07 PM on July 8, 2005
Mmmmm..Twinkies....WAIT..WHOSE THAT AT THE DOOR?!! DAMN..WHY AM I SUDDENLY IN CAPS..MAN MY COMPUTERS FREAKING OUT..
WHAT?
BUNNY..
BUNNY.
SHH..THEY CAN HEAR US!
posted by Mr Bluesky at 1:07 PM on July 8, 2005
Humans have been exposed to smoke since cave days. We probably have at least SOME evolutionary pathways to metabolize its components. Radioactivity we haven't had much exposure to timewise. Nicotine is not carcinogenic. Do a google search on Polonium + tobacco, I really think there's a smoking gun there, so to speak.
posted by primdehuit at 1:07 PM on July 8, 2005 [1 favorite]
posted by primdehuit at 1:07 PM on July 8, 2005 [1 favorite]
A man may smoke packs of cigarettes a day and feel fine, yet one lung-full of smoke from an ordinary house fire is likely to knock him unconscious. As has been pointed out there are different kinds of smoke that produce different reactions.
posted by clevershark at 1:10 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by clevershark at 1:10 PM on July 8, 2005
Metabolites of nitrosamines such as NNAL and NNAL-gluc, as well as species of benzo-(a)-pyrene, stick to DNA and eventually cause mutations in lung cells. Some are lucky enough to be able to detoxify these substances, others not. In any event, mere exposure to smoke is not sufficient, it has to contain lung carcinogens in sufficient quantity to overwhelm the detoxification systems over time. It may be that the amount of mj smoked over time does not rise to that level.
posted by Mental Wimp at 1:13 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by Mental Wimp at 1:13 PM on July 8, 2005
I'd think that pot smoke would be bad for your lungs and might well cause cancer; I also think that, unlike with Pall Malls or Drum spliffs, I'd have a very hard time smoking 45 fat joints a day, so the harm would be limited. So maybe it's not that smoking pot won't cause cancer per se, but that it'd be hard to smoke a pound of weed a day for 35 years. So on preview (man I type slow) I'm with what clevershark and Mental Wimp just said.
For me the upshot is if I had an "airway problem" -- lung cancer, pneumonia, asthma, bad allergies, whatever -- I'd eat my weed; otherwise I wouldn't worry.
But now I have a hard time smoking any pot because I'm really rather shy and don't know anybody in Louisville who tokes. If I get lung cancer from anything I'm exposed to now it'll be from auto exhaust or Rubbertown fumes.
posted by davy at 1:20 PM on July 8, 2005
For me the upshot is if I had an "airway problem" -- lung cancer, pneumonia, asthma, bad allergies, whatever -- I'd eat my weed; otherwise I wouldn't worry.
But now I have a hard time smoking any pot because I'm really rather shy and don't know anybody in Louisville who tokes. If I get lung cancer from anything I'm exposed to now it'll be from auto exhaust or Rubbertown fumes.
posted by davy at 1:20 PM on July 8, 2005
We probably have at least SOME evolutionary pathways to metabolize its components.
posted by Mr Bluesky at 1:21 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by Mr Bluesky at 1:21 PM on July 8, 2005
Sigh...also smoking too much weed causes you to bore the pants off your buddies due to inane conjecture about the universe and how it operates.
Peyote anyone?
posted by Mr Bluesky at 1:23 PM on July 8, 2005
Peyote anyone?
posted by Mr Bluesky at 1:23 PM on July 8, 2005
healthy lungs; smoked brain. You're an idiot if you smoke anything--case closed.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:24 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 1:24 PM on July 8, 2005
SMOKING MARIJUANA DOES NOT CAUSE LUNG CANCER
STUDIES LINKING MARIJUANA TO HEARING LOSS INCONCLUSIVE
posted by googly at 1:25 PM on July 8, 2005
STUDIES LINKING MARIJUANA TO HEARING LOSS INCONCLUSIVE
posted by googly at 1:25 PM on July 8, 2005
You mean the ONDCP lies to people? Stop the presses! that is a complete shocker!
posted by clevershark at 1:26 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by clevershark at 1:26 PM on July 8, 2005
Picking up from what primdehuit said, this story - if true (I'd reeeeally prefer to see someone other than CounterPunch confirm the scientific details) - does raise the question of whether tobacco causes lung cancer. Are there any studies like this that have been done on people who smoke only organic, chlorine-bleach-free tobacco cigarettes?
posted by soyjoy at 1:42 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by soyjoy at 1:42 PM on July 8, 2005
ParisParamus: Mark Twain was an idiot? Voltaire? Oscar Wilde? George fuckin' Washington? Thomas Jefferson?
Wasn't Hitler a rabid anti-smoker?
You're an idiot if you're a knee-jerk absolutist. Jerk.
posted by loquacious at 1:47 PM on July 8, 2005
Wasn't Hitler a rabid anti-smoker?
You're an idiot if you're a knee-jerk absolutist. Jerk.
posted by loquacious at 1:47 PM on July 8, 2005
freebird : "Can you really believe that heavy smoking of anything over time has no negative effect?"
That's not what the study says. Only cancers are dealt with.
ParisParamus : "You're an idiot if you smoke anything--case closed."
Based on what? The only substance which has been smoked by large segments of the population, for extended periods of time, has been tobacco. Smoking, in general, hasn't been conclusively shown to be a a toxic method. It depends on what you smoke, and how much.
posted by Gyan at 1:50 PM on July 8, 2005
That's not what the study says. Only cancers are dealt with.
ParisParamus : "You're an idiot if you smoke anything--case closed."
Based on what? The only substance which has been smoked by large segments of the population, for extended periods of time, has been tobacco. Smoking, in general, hasn't been conclusively shown to be a a toxic method. It depends on what you smoke, and how much.
posted by Gyan at 1:50 PM on July 8, 2005
Re: all the people who hypothesize the difference is the dosage.
Please, actually read the cited numbers before making up theories off the top of your head. You are completely wrong, according to the article. I can't believe it, there's like 3 people who supposedly read the article before posting, spouting nonsense as though they were saying something meaningful. argh. I don't even smoke or like pot and it annoys me.
Re: "can't believe any smoke could not be harmful." uh, why? here's a completely made up possibility: say a certain smoke contains particulate matter that is mildly carcinogenic, and also particulate matter that stimulates the immune system. When you inhale this smoke, over time, pre-cancerous cells form (because of the toxic substance) and your immune system is stimulated, disposes of them, and becomes better and better at dealing with pre-cancerous cells.
posted by lastobelus at 1:52 PM on July 8, 2005
Please, actually read the cited numbers before making up theories off the top of your head. You are completely wrong, according to the article. I can't believe it, there's like 3 people who supposedly read the article before posting, spouting nonsense as though they were saying something meaningful. argh. I don't even smoke or like pot and it annoys me.
Re: "can't believe any smoke could not be harmful." uh, why? here's a completely made up possibility: say a certain smoke contains particulate matter that is mildly carcinogenic, and also particulate matter that stimulates the immune system. When you inhale this smoke, over time, pre-cancerous cells form (because of the toxic substance) and your immune system is stimulated, disposes of them, and becomes better and better at dealing with pre-cancerous cells.
posted by lastobelus at 1:52 PM on July 8, 2005
heheh....mr bluesky just made me drop my bong....
whoa, dude, is that pronounced blue sky or bloo-ski?
posted by es_de_bah at 1:54 PM on July 8, 2005
whoa, dude, is that pronounced blue sky or bloo-ski?
posted by es_de_bah at 1:54 PM on July 8, 2005
teece : "It is literally contradicting itself from one paragraph to the next."
Where? There was no meta-study, only a comprehensive study. Irrefutable evidence of "damage to bronchial tissue" != evidence of cancer.
posted by Gyan at 1:56 PM on July 8, 2005
Where? There was no meta-study, only a comprehensive study. Irrefutable evidence of "damage to bronchial tissue" != evidence of cancer.
posted by Gyan at 1:56 PM on July 8, 2005
soyjoy: I think it's extremely unlikely that the marijuana the average joe is smoking is organic & pesticide free. And 99% of joints I've seen were rolled with bleached paper that had a little glue strip on it, just like the paper cigarettes are made from. So I suspect you're grasping at straws.
loquacious: I rather suspect that many famous intelligent smokers would have become non-smokers given the same information & culture as we have now. There were plenty of cultured, intelligent people in history who owned slaves too. Anyone in current times who attempted to claim the right to own slaves could safely be described as an idiot. Private automobile ownership will eventually inevitably go the same route, since it also causes massive loss of life and other social damage in exchange for the benefit of individuals.
posted by lastobelus at 2:07 PM on July 8, 2005
loquacious: I rather suspect that many famous intelligent smokers would have become non-smokers given the same information & culture as we have now. There were plenty of cultured, intelligent people in history who owned slaves too. Anyone in current times who attempted to claim the right to own slaves could safely be described as an idiot. Private automobile ownership will eventually inevitably go the same route, since it also causes massive loss of life and other social damage in exchange for the benefit of individuals.
posted by lastobelus at 2:07 PM on July 8, 2005
lastobelus,
thats an interesting hypothesis.
for the last ten years i have been a daily pot smoker. for the first two years i had chronic irritation in my nose (runny, clogged, sneezing) but it was nothing that a few kleenex's couldnt solve.
but over the last three years i havent been sick for even one day. i dont work out, i dont eat all that great, and i have only just started drinking water regularily.
to be honest i was startled that my habit of smoking 3-4 bongloads a day hadnt totally screwed me and made me more of a target for colds, flus, etc. because as that other commentor said, smoke=bad.
but your theory might be the answer.
ironically yesterday was my first day weed-free in years and i was quitting for two reasons
1. what i can only surmise as "saturation", smoking pot doesnt really get me high any more, and when it does it only lasts 10-15 minutes.
2. long term health paranoia
its nice to know that after i take my month or two detoxxing i can return to smoking weed without fear that im giving myself cancer.
btw i never believed that a few puffs of herb through a bong could ever equal the destructiveness of packs of cigarettes. it just doesnt make physical sense. plus ive never heard of 60s hippies who exclusively smoked pot getting black lung or anything like it. now i know why.
PP,
if anyone needs a summer of getting baked its you bro.
posted by tsarfan at 2:08 PM on July 8, 2005
thats an interesting hypothesis.
for the last ten years i have been a daily pot smoker. for the first two years i had chronic irritation in my nose (runny, clogged, sneezing) but it was nothing that a few kleenex's couldnt solve.
but over the last three years i havent been sick for even one day. i dont work out, i dont eat all that great, and i have only just started drinking water regularily.
to be honest i was startled that my habit of smoking 3-4 bongloads a day hadnt totally screwed me and made me more of a target for colds, flus, etc. because as that other commentor said, smoke=bad.
but your theory might be the answer.
ironically yesterday was my first day weed-free in years and i was quitting for two reasons
1. what i can only surmise as "saturation", smoking pot doesnt really get me high any more, and when it does it only lasts 10-15 minutes.
2. long term health paranoia
its nice to know that after i take my month or two detoxxing i can return to smoking weed without fear that im giving myself cancer.
btw i never believed that a few puffs of herb through a bong could ever equal the destructiveness of packs of cigarettes. it just doesnt make physical sense. plus ive never heard of 60s hippies who exclusively smoked pot getting black lung or anything like it. now i know why.
PP,
if anyone needs a summer of getting baked its you bro.
posted by tsarfan at 2:08 PM on July 8, 2005
That's exactly what the Kaiser study did and found nothing (did you read the link?).
Actually I did read the article, did you? It said that Tashkin had long found a causal relationship, then when he read about the Kaiser study he decided to look a different direction, then it goes on to describe his method, which I've already talked about. If they wanted to talk about Kaiser they should have, but they only pass it over.
Particulates in your lungs are not good, period. Not coal dust, not asbestos, not smoke. If pot is so good why does it make you cough? That's your body's way of telling you that you aren't getting oxygen down there.
I don't buy the pot is evil bull shit, but I equally don't buy the Emperor's New Clothes crap from NORML either.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:12 PM on July 8, 2005
Actually I did read the article, did you? It said that Tashkin had long found a causal relationship, then when he read about the Kaiser study he decided to look a different direction, then it goes on to describe his method, which I've already talked about. If they wanted to talk about Kaiser they should have, but they only pass it over.
Particulates in your lungs are not good, period. Not coal dust, not asbestos, not smoke. If pot is so good why does it make you cough? That's your body's way of telling you that you aren't getting oxygen down there.
I don't buy the pot is evil bull shit, but I equally don't buy the Emperor's New Clothes crap from NORML either.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:12 PM on July 8, 2005
Pollomacho : "It said that Tashkin had long found a causal relationship"
No, it doesn't. It says, "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" The claims were made by the ONDCP, and Tashkin believed, but he hadn't "found" a causal relationship. Of 5 smaller studies, 2 reported a causal relationship.
posted by Gyan at 2:20 PM on July 8, 2005
No, it doesn't. It says, "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" The claims were made by the ONDCP, and Tashkin believed, but he hadn't "found" a causal relationship. Of 5 smaller studies, 2 reported a causal relationship.
posted by Gyan at 2:20 PM on July 8, 2005
Pollomacho: there may or may not be some degree of truth to the idea that any particulate matter is inherently harmful to the lungs. I don't know.
But positing the cough reflex as evidence that pot smoke is harmful is inane. The cough reflex doesn't know whether the particular particles that are entering the lungs are carcinogenic or not. It senses particles, it coughs. It's a reflex. If they invented a mist that cured cancer, improved your iq by 20 points and gave you 24 hour hardons, it would still make you cough. Unless they added something to it that dulled the cough reflex.
posted by lastobelus at 2:37 PM on July 8, 2005
But positing the cough reflex as evidence that pot smoke is harmful is inane. The cough reflex doesn't know whether the particular particles that are entering the lungs are carcinogenic or not. It senses particles, it coughs. It's a reflex. If they invented a mist that cured cancer, improved your iq by 20 points and gave you 24 hour hardons, it would still make you cough. Unless they added something to it that dulled the cough reflex.
posted by lastobelus at 2:37 PM on July 8, 2005
lastobelus : And 99% of joints I've seen were rolled with bleached paper that had a little glue strip on it, just like the paper cigarettes are made from. So I suspect you're grasping at straws.
Although the study quantified smoking in 'joint years' it is very unusual for serious pot smokers (like tsarfan) to actually smoke joints. Most smoke through bongs or pipes. So the paper is irrelevant, not to mention that fact that in most cigarettes it's the tobacco itself that's chock full of pesticides and bleach.
posted by miss tea at 2:37 PM on July 8, 2005
Although the study quantified smoking in 'joint years' it is very unusual for serious pot smokers (like tsarfan) to actually smoke joints. Most smoke through bongs or pipes. So the paper is irrelevant, not to mention that fact that in most cigarettes it's the tobacco itself that's chock full of pesticides and bleach.
posted by miss tea at 2:37 PM on July 8, 2005
tsarfan: PP,
if anyone needs a summer of getting baked its you bro.
Ha ha. Hear hear.
posted by greasepig at 2:48 PM on July 8, 2005
if anyone needs a summer of getting baked its you bro.
Ha ha. Hear hear.
posted by greasepig at 2:48 PM on July 8, 2005
i'm still sticking with my vaporizer
Yeah man, aromazap forever!
posted by ludwig_van at 3:00 PM on July 8, 2005
Yeah man, aromazap forever!
posted by ludwig_van at 3:00 PM on July 8, 2005
I think it's extremely unlikely that the marijuana the average joe is smoking is organic & pesticide free.
Depends on the source. If it's indoor grown, there probably isn't any, for numerous reasons (bad for business, dangerous, etc). Whether the average joe smokes marijuana grown on a farm in Indiana or inside some dude's basement is the real question. To which I really have no clue what the answer would be.
posted by shawnj at 3:11 PM on July 8, 2005
Depends on the source. If it's indoor grown, there probably isn't any, for numerous reasons (bad for business, dangerous, etc). Whether the average joe smokes marijuana grown on a farm in Indiana or inside some dude's basement is the real question. To which I really have no clue what the answer would be.
posted by shawnj at 3:11 PM on July 8, 2005
Radioactivity we haven't had much exposure to timewise.
Except for that whole baseline radiation thing. The earth is reasonably radioactive just sitting there. As are the cosmos.
Especially since you speak of cave-dwelling days since radon (very radioactive gas) comes from rocks.
And that whole sunburn thing... it's from radiation. It's ultraviolet radiation, but it's still radiation that causes cell damage that we have evolved a solution to deal with (shed the cells that have too much damage, start over with a new layer).
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:13 PM on July 8, 2005
Except for that whole baseline radiation thing. The earth is reasonably radioactive just sitting there. As are the cosmos.
Especially since you speak of cave-dwelling days since radon (very radioactive gas) comes from rocks.
And that whole sunburn thing... it's from radiation. It's ultraviolet radiation, but it's still radiation that causes cell damage that we have evolved a solution to deal with (shed the cells that have too much damage, start over with a new layer).
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:13 PM on July 8, 2005
You're an idiot if you discuss anything with ParisParamus--case closed.
posted by fenriq at 3:25 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by fenriq at 3:25 PM on July 8, 2005
If pot is so good why does it make you cough? That's your body's way of telling you that you aren't getting oxygen down there.
Uh, no that's your body's way of telling you your throat is irritated.
posted by delmoi at 3:39 PM on July 8, 2005
Uh, no that's your body's way of telling you your throat is irritated.
posted by delmoi at 3:39 PM on July 8, 2005
rather, you're an idiot if you attempt it - a master diplomat if you actually succeed.
posted by Mars Saxman at 3:42 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by Mars Saxman at 3:42 PM on July 8, 2005
shawnj writes "Whether the average joe smokes marijuana grown on a farm in Indiana or inside some dude's basement is the real question"
Considering all statistics I ever saw on the subject, and even discounting the governmental bias in some of them, I would say the average joe does not smoke pot - he blows his brains up on alcohol.
posted by nkyad at 3:55 PM on July 8, 2005
Considering all statistics I ever saw on the subject, and even discounting the governmental bias in some of them, I would say the average joe does not smoke pot - he blows his brains up on alcohol.
posted by nkyad at 3:55 PM on July 8, 2005
Surely it is less hazardous than chemical laden cigerettes, but it was my understanding any burned vegetable matter will cause cancer if inhaled.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 3:58 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by The Jesse Helms at 3:58 PM on July 8, 2005
Sugar Blues links the tobacco curing method with lung cancer -- claiming it's the heavy sugar concentration, not the tobacco itself, that causes lung cancer.
I don't quite believe it, and I have no idea how weed is "cured," but it's another factor to add to the marijuana vs. tobacco debate.
posted by Gucky at 4:10 PM on July 8, 2005
I don't quite believe it, and I have no idea how weed is "cured," but it's another factor to add to the marijuana vs. tobacco debate.
posted by Gucky at 4:10 PM on July 8, 2005
We're also discussing this over at MoFi, but mostly about whether pot makes people violent or paranoid. Here's the post I made there when I was annoyed at the article:
"This article is bullshit.
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.
This is somebody who hears what they want to hear, then tells the world what they heard. As a research scientist, I hate this type of person. We spend years doing careful research, making damn sure we don't overstate our results. Then a journalist, perhaps 'journalist', reads our publication or hears us at a conference, and tells the world that smoking pot doesn't cause cancer, or being a little overweight is healthier than being within the doctor-recommended BMI range, or that a cure for mad cow disease is just months away. Fucking assholes.
The first sentence tipped me off that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about:
'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.'
It certainly doesn't cause cancer of the airwaves, because airwaves don't get cancer - nor are they a part of the human body. It's not a spelling mistake - he mentions airwaves a few times in the article. He just misheard the word 'airway', and didn't bother to actually read Tashkin's research. If he did, he would have found that there is an increased risk for malignant primary adult-onset glioma associated with smoking marijuana. "Individuals who smoked marijuana at least once a month had an increased risk for MPAG, although no dose-response relation was observed." (2.8-fold increased risk) - from The Risk for Malignant Primary Adult-Onset Glioma in a Large, Multiethnic, Managed-Care Cohort: Cigarette Smoking and Other Lifestyle Behaviors in Journal of Neuro-Oncology, 2004.
That's another thing I hate - the article doesn't actually cite the research, or give you enough info to find the study from which Gardner is semi-quoting results. Maybe it just isn't published yet, and Tashkin is about to publish a paper that goes against everything he has found before linking mj smoking with cancer. But I doubt it.
(Also, the Sidney paper the article mentions did find an increased risk of cancer with smoking pot, just not lung cancer. And although it sounds impressive that they studied 64,000 people, only ~1400 had cancer, and since the mean age was 33, there's a good chance that the cancers people were expecting just hadn't shown up yet.)
"
After a pause, I'm still annoyed at the article. And here's a little more on the Sidney study: only 48 people had lung cancer, and the measurements were for people who had ever smoked pot, and never smoked pot - not the most useful measurment considering the wide variability in the amount people smoke.
So, unless there is a new study I don't know about, I feel confident in saying that 'pot != cancer' is bullshit. I see nothing to refute the two general cancer rules that
1) heat + cells = increased cancer risk
2) particulate matter + airways = increased cancer risk
(and just in case anyone cares, I am pro-legalization, so this isn't some anti-pot rant. Just an anti-misinterpretation of research rant.)
posted by yentruoc at 4:22 PM on July 8, 2005
"This article is bullshit.
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.
This is somebody who hears what they want to hear, then tells the world what they heard. As a research scientist, I hate this type of person. We spend years doing careful research, making damn sure we don't overstate our results. Then a journalist, perhaps 'journalist', reads our publication or hears us at a conference, and tells the world that smoking pot doesn't cause cancer, or being a little overweight is healthier than being within the doctor-recommended BMI range, or that a cure for mad cow disease is just months away. Fucking assholes.
The first sentence tipped me off that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about:
'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.'
It certainly doesn't cause cancer of the airwaves, because airwaves don't get cancer - nor are they a part of the human body. It's not a spelling mistake - he mentions airwaves a few times in the article. He just misheard the word 'airway', and didn't bother to actually read Tashkin's research. If he did, he would have found that there is an increased risk for malignant primary adult-onset glioma associated with smoking marijuana. "Individuals who smoked marijuana at least once a month had an increased risk for MPAG, although no dose-response relation was observed." (2.8-fold increased risk) - from The Risk for Malignant Primary Adult-Onset Glioma in a Large, Multiethnic, Managed-Care Cohort: Cigarette Smoking and Other Lifestyle Behaviors in Journal of Neuro-Oncology, 2004.
That's another thing I hate - the article doesn't actually cite the research, or give you enough info to find the study from which Gardner is semi-quoting results. Maybe it just isn't published yet, and Tashkin is about to publish a paper that goes against everything he has found before linking mj smoking with cancer. But I doubt it.
(Also, the Sidney paper the article mentions did find an increased risk of cancer with smoking pot, just not lung cancer. And although it sounds impressive that they studied 64,000 people, only ~1400 had cancer, and since the mean age was 33, there's a good chance that the cancers people were expecting just hadn't shown up yet.)
"
After a pause, I'm still annoyed at the article. And here's a little more on the Sidney study: only 48 people had lung cancer, and the measurements were for people who had ever smoked pot, and never smoked pot - not the most useful measurment considering the wide variability in the amount people smoke.
So, unless there is a new study I don't know about, I feel confident in saying that 'pot != cancer' is bullshit. I see nothing to refute the two general cancer rules that
1) heat + cells = increased cancer risk
2) particulate matter + airways = increased cancer risk
(and just in case anyone cares, I am pro-legalization, so this isn't some anti-pot rant. Just an anti-misinterpretation of research rant.)
posted by yentruoc at 4:22 PM on July 8, 2005
But now I have a hard time smoking any pot because I'm really rather shy and don't know anybody in Louisville who tokes.
Oh, man, you haven't been here for long, have you? Who wants to do a Louisville MeFi Smoke-Up?
posted by 235w103 at 4:26 PM on July 8, 2005
Oh, man, you haven't been here for long, have you? Who wants to do a Louisville MeFi Smoke-Up?
posted by 235w103 at 4:26 PM on July 8, 2005
yentruoc : "and Tashkin is about to publish a paper that goes against everything he has found before linking mj smoking with cancer. But I doubt it."
If this story is false, then it's an outright lie. Someone ought to just email Tashkin and confirm these results. If these results are true, what would you believe then?
posted by Gyan at 5:04 PM on July 8, 2005
If this story is false, then it's an outright lie. Someone ought to just email Tashkin and confirm these results. If these results are true, what would you believe then?
posted by Gyan at 5:04 PM on July 8, 2005
Who wants to do a Louisville MeFi Smoke-Up?
*crickets*
Believe me, there are lots of people smoking in Louisville, and the weed has gotten a lot better in the past 10 years. Course, I'm not there any more ...
Can you really believe that heavy smoking of anything over time has no negative effect?
That's not the question. The question is whether or not cannabis significantly causes lung cancer. It's certainly up in the air, but it looks much much better than commercial tobacco.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:53 PM on July 8, 2005
*crickets*
Believe me, there are lots of people smoking in Louisville, and the weed has gotten a lot better in the past 10 years. Course, I'm not there any more ...
Can you really believe that heavy smoking of anything over time has no negative effect?
That's not the question. The question is whether or not cannabis significantly causes lung cancer. It's certainly up in the air, but it looks much much better than commercial tobacco.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:53 PM on July 8, 2005
Emailing Tashkin is a great idea. I've just done so, and will post again if/when I get a copy or summary of the study.
As for whether I'll believe it, I'll bet I have higher standards for a null or negative association between smoking pot and cancer than NORML does, but probably not higher than Dr. Tashkin. So if he isn't being misquoted or misrepresented as I suspect, then I'll believe the result. Although, if Gardner got the numbers right, it's a study with only 36 heavy pot smokers with cancer. It would take some pretty nice statistical work to convince me with such a small number of subjects. Maybe there is a huge set of heavy pot smokers without cancer in the study that wasn't mentioned in the article.
Ah, just got an out of office until July 12 auto-email. So, no news before then, I suspect.
posted by yentruoc at 6:05 PM on July 8, 2005
As for whether I'll believe it, I'll bet I have higher standards for a null or negative association between smoking pot and cancer than NORML does, but probably not higher than Dr. Tashkin. So if he isn't being misquoted or misrepresented as I suspect, then I'll believe the result. Although, if Gardner got the numbers right, it's a study with only 36 heavy pot smokers with cancer. It would take some pretty nice statistical work to convince me with such a small number of subjects. Maybe there is a huge set of heavy pot smokers without cancer in the study that wasn't mentioned in the article.
Ah, just got an out of office until July 12 auto-email. So, no news before then, I suspect.
posted by yentruoc at 6:05 PM on July 8, 2005
BTW, this is the presentation being referred to,
June 26, 10:15: Morgenstern, H., Greenland, S., Zhang, Z-F., Cozen, W., Mack, T.M., and Tashkin, D.P. Marijuana Use and Cancers of the Lung and Upper Aerodigestive Tract: Results of a Case-Control Study.
You could try one of the others.
posted by Gyan at 6:27 PM on July 8, 2005
June 26, 10:15: Morgenstern, H., Greenland, S., Zhang, Z-F., Cozen, W., Mack, T.M., and Tashkin, D.P. Marijuana Use and Cancers of the Lung and Upper Aerodigestive Tract: Results of a Case-Control Study.
You could try one of the others.
posted by Gyan at 6:27 PM on July 8, 2005
International Cannabinoid Research Society which, as we all know, is NOT at all biased when it comes to studying the effects of pot on humans...
posted by Doohickie at 6:29 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by Doohickie at 6:29 PM on July 8, 2005
Here's a summary of the study, from NIDA:
Despite public opinion that the potential medicinal benefits of marijuana outweigh its risks, several lines of evidence from biochemical, cellular, tissue, and animal studies provide a biologically plausible basis for the hypothesis that marijuana is a risk factor for respiratory tract cancers. Thus far, however, there is no epidemiologic evidence for this association, primarily because of the long induction/latency of human carcinomas and the infrequent use of marijuana in the general U.S. population before the late 1960s. The major objective of this 5-year project is to estimate the effects of marijuana use on the risks of lung cancer and upper aerodigestive tract (UAT) cancers among Los Angeles County residents who are younger than 60 years of age. Secondary objectives are to assess the interaction effects of marijuana and tobacco use, estimate the effects of other factors for which the epidemiologic evidence is inconsistent or sparse, and initiate a molecular study by obtaining tumor specimens for cases and buccal cells from cases and controls. The design is a population-based, case-control study involving 600 lung cancer cases, 600 UAT cancer cases, and 1,200 controls. Histologically confirmed cases are being identified by the rapid ascertainment system of the University of Southern California Cancer Surveillance Program. One control is being matched to each case on age, gender, and neighborhood. The major source of data is personal interviews conducted with all subjects in their homes.
Doohickie : "International Cannabinoid Research Society which, as we all know, is NOT at all biased when it comes to studying the effects of pot on humans..."
Another knee-jerker. The society is not a research institute. It just arranges for meetings between researchers out there. Read the FPP. The lead researcher, Tashkin, is cited by the ONDCP in their ads. So, he's got cred with the prohibitionists.
posted by Gyan at 6:38 PM on July 8, 2005
Despite public opinion that the potential medicinal benefits of marijuana outweigh its risks, several lines of evidence from biochemical, cellular, tissue, and animal studies provide a biologically plausible basis for the hypothesis that marijuana is a risk factor for respiratory tract cancers. Thus far, however, there is no epidemiologic evidence for this association, primarily because of the long induction/latency of human carcinomas and the infrequent use of marijuana in the general U.S. population before the late 1960s. The major objective of this 5-year project is to estimate the effects of marijuana use on the risks of lung cancer and upper aerodigestive tract (UAT) cancers among Los Angeles County residents who are younger than 60 years of age. Secondary objectives are to assess the interaction effects of marijuana and tobacco use, estimate the effects of other factors for which the epidemiologic evidence is inconsistent or sparse, and initiate a molecular study by obtaining tumor specimens for cases and buccal cells from cases and controls. The design is a population-based, case-control study involving 600 lung cancer cases, 600 UAT cancer cases, and 1,200 controls. Histologically confirmed cases are being identified by the rapid ascertainment system of the University of Southern California Cancer Surveillance Program. One control is being matched to each case on age, gender, and neighborhood. The major source of data is personal interviews conducted with all subjects in their homes.
Doohickie : "International Cannabinoid Research Society which, as we all know, is NOT at all biased when it comes to studying the effects of pot on humans..."
Another knee-jerker. The society is not a research institute. It just arranges for meetings between researchers out there. Read the FPP. The lead researcher, Tashkin, is cited by the ONDCP in their ads. So, he's got cred with the prohibitionists.
posted by Gyan at 6:38 PM on July 8, 2005
I'd love to attend a Louisville meet-up, though I can't host one. I even promise not to bite anybody.
posted by davy at 7:16 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by davy at 7:16 PM on July 8, 2005
how can we reasonably compare smoking pot to smoking cigarettes? joint years DO NOT equal pack years. i always thought the risk of cancer was associated with dose of inhaled smoke.
posted by brandz at 7:19 PM on July 8, 2005
posted by brandz at 7:19 PM on July 8, 2005
i always thought the risk of cancer was associated with dose of inhaled smoke.
Well, there are factors like genetic susceptibility to cancer, co-irritants like coal dust or chemical fumes, etc.etc. But yeah, I'd expect the amount of smoke inhaled to matter a lot.
posted by davy at 7:58 PM on July 8, 2005
Well, there are factors like genetic susceptibility to cancer, co-irritants like coal dust or chemical fumes, etc.etc. But yeah, I'd expect the amount of smoke inhaled to matter a lot.
posted by davy at 7:58 PM on July 8, 2005
Fenriq, I don't want to respond to ParisParadouche (and I don't think I have in all my years as a MeFite), but at least allow me the play on his handle. Plus if peacay can call him a douchebag (and peacay, there's a movement to replace "douchebag" with "douche nozzle", as that is the business end), I can too!
BTW, ingesting pot produces better results than smoking it, or so I've read. I've only had pot brownies once and it did hit me like a sledgehammer, but it also upset my stomach.
posted by Devils Slide at 10:17 PM on July 8, 2005
BTW, ingesting pot produces better results than smoking it, or so I've read. I've only had pot brownies once and it did hit me like a sledgehammer, but it also upset my stomach.
posted by Devils Slide at 10:17 PM on July 8, 2005
Sugar Blues links the tobacco curing method with lung cancer -- claiming it's the heavy sugar concentration, not the tobacco itself, that causes lung cancer.
I don't quite believe it, and I have no idea how weed is "cured," but it's another factor to add to the marijuana vs. tobacco debate.
Interesting theory - and not the first time I've heard mention of carmelized sugar being a source of cancer.
Unfortunately, pot is cured with sugar as well. While hanging upside down in someplace dry and hot, you're supposed to spray the undersides of the leaves with a sugar/water mixture, which apparently helps the THC crystallize on the surface, making it more potent. Um, so I hear.
posted by davelog at 8:35 AM on July 9, 2005
I don't quite believe it, and I have no idea how weed is "cured," but it's another factor to add to the marijuana vs. tobacco debate.
Interesting theory - and not the first time I've heard mention of carmelized sugar being a source of cancer.
Unfortunately, pot is cured with sugar as well. While hanging upside down in someplace dry and hot, you're supposed to spray the undersides of the leaves with a sugar/water mixture, which apparently helps the THC crystallize on the surface, making it more potent. Um, so I hear.
posted by davelog at 8:35 AM on July 9, 2005
BBC Panorama programme Cannabis: what teenagers need to know - a look at the growing evidence of links between cannabis and psychotic illness in young people.
British youngsters are using Cannabis earlier and smoking more of it than any previous generation. Most don't even think of it as a drug, and the popular perception is that it has no serious long-term effects. However, the truth is that, until very recently, very little was known about how cannabis actually affects developing brains.
The programme meets young people who have developed psychotic illnesses after heavy cannabis use and speaks to the psychiatrists who have found links between users' genetic makeup and the risk of developing mental illness.
The programme features the work of scientists who have used the latest technology to look inside peoples' heads and see - quite literally - how cannabis changes the way people think. It meets the scientist whose unpublished new research suggests that cannabis can cause long-term chemical changes in users' brains
posted by Lanark at 11:46 AM on July 9, 2005
British youngsters are using Cannabis earlier and smoking more of it than any previous generation. Most don't even think of it as a drug, and the popular perception is that it has no serious long-term effects. However, the truth is that, until very recently, very little was known about how cannabis actually affects developing brains.
The programme meets young people who have developed psychotic illnesses after heavy cannabis use and speaks to the psychiatrists who have found links between users' genetic makeup and the risk of developing mental illness.
The programme features the work of scientists who have used the latest technology to look inside peoples' heads and see - quite literally - how cannabis changes the way people think. It meets the scientist whose unpublished new research suggests that cannabis can cause long-term chemical changes in users' brains
posted by Lanark at 11:46 AM on July 9, 2005
Is it just me, or is the "pot causes schizophrenia" thing the British equivalent of the Korean media's "fan death" madness? I've seen tons of recent articles about how we are just learning that pot smoking leads to schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses, but only from the British media, never from any other source. I'm wondering if this is just me, or if the meme is truly limited to British media?
posted by [expletive deleted] at 4:22 PM on July 9, 2005
posted by [expletive deleted] at 4:22 PM on July 9, 2005
smoking marijuana causes awesome.
posted by VulcanMike at 10:33 PM on July 9, 2005
posted by VulcanMike at 10:33 PM on July 9, 2005
OK, let's reset here. First of all, theories regarding cell function and reaction to contaminants are inadequate to establish causal relations in human health, Professor yentruoc's assertions (which, by the way, are not general theories about carcinogenesis, but rather kind of made up statements) notwithstanding. Only human studies can do that, preferably (but not ethically, in this case) randomized trials, otherwise well controlled observational studies using valid epidemiologic designs.
Second, the main theories about the extremely high causation of lung cancer by tobacco smoke involve certain nitrosamines and their metabolites, or electrophilic metabolites of benzo(a)pyrine and related chemicals. No information about the relative concentrations of such lung-specific carcinogens in ganja smoke has been presented here, so it makes little sense to assume that the overwhelming evidence of a strong tobacco/lung cancer link in humans can be easily transferred to doobie smoke.
So those of you who are still smoking the loco smoko and trying to discuss this intelligently, or those who are on the juice and likewise attempting to discuss the topic, please give up your vices temporarily and don't ad lib until the discussion is over (or make the appropriate disclaimer, like .
"I'm just making shit up"). Then we can all go back to baking our brains like the good little stoners we all are.
Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:59 PM on July 9, 2005
Second, the main theories about the extremely high causation of lung cancer by tobacco smoke involve certain nitrosamines and their metabolites, or electrophilic metabolites of benzo(a)pyrine and related chemicals. No information about the relative concentrations of such lung-specific carcinogens in ganja smoke has been presented here, so it makes little sense to assume that the overwhelming evidence of a strong tobacco/lung cancer link in humans can be easily transferred to doobie smoke.
So those of you who are still smoking the loco smoko and trying to discuss this intelligently, or those who are on the juice and likewise attempting to discuss the topic, please give up your vices temporarily and don't ad lib until the discussion is over (or make the appropriate disclaimer, like .
"I'm just making shit up"). Then we can all go back to baking our brains like the good little stoners we all are.
Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:59 PM on July 9, 2005
"ParisParamus: Mark Twain was an idiot? Voltaire? Oscar Wilde? George fuckin' Washington? Thomas Jefferson?"
None of those people had the benefit of modern medical research. In 2005, smoking is vile, intrinsically bad, and just plain stupid.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:22 PM on July 10, 2005
None of those people had the benefit of modern medical research. In 2005, smoking is vile, intrinsically bad, and just plain stupid.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:22 PM on July 10, 2005
« Older Meat Me in the Future | Drinking Is Not A Crime Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Oh wait a second. We don't need rationales. We have fear. Uh, and music.
posted by dreamsign at 12:32 PM on July 8, 2005