Cannabis May Alter Human DNA?

[guitarist231]

Bah, my DNA is boring anyway. Good riddance, I say.

[hendy]

obviously they came into the study wanting to prove cannabis to be harmful, thus they came up with the statement "These results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke," the researchers conclude, "implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development."

The key word there is MAY.

[JmJ]

Remember guys, this is the internet. Anyone can post bullshit on it. The media only says what the people want to hear.. Everyone that was brainwashed by the propoganda back in the 30's 40's whatever, would not believe that marijuana was good for you at all if they had good news about it. I would be betting that those folks would get the idea in their mind that the apocolypse was coming, just because everything they ever knew and learned was a lie. Its for the good of the people. We all know, because we smoke Cannabis, we much more developed and smarter than the media thinks we are. We can see between the lines and find out the real truth for ourselves because we are self enlightened.

My favorite part of the article was this:

Using a newly developed highly sensitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method,

They can use these big long words to make it seem more legitiment also. Like I said, we all know it's a lie. Didn't your parents ever tell you not to believe everything people tell you, Oh and don't take candy from strangers (unless they are skittles )

[Neos]

The only thing that comes to mind that would make sense to me, is the fertilizer they use to grow.

They should do a study about oranges grown the same way as the tested substances.

In my, rather ignorant, view about tobacco and cannabis, they are completely different in all ways but methods of consumption and growing in earth.

[ThePhantom]

Here's what people need to understand. No matter what new study comes out, nothing changes about cannabis. It is still harmless. Look at the god damn real world! Nobody gets cancer from smoking cannabis. Nobody gets hurt from smoking cannabis throughout their life, no matter how much they smoke. Not to mention cannabis doesn't cause cancer, it cures it in hemp oil form. I can't wait for these assholes to see the truth... they should all publicly apologize and donate some of their money to people who were wronged by cannabis laws.

[Fungardner]

Listening to the mainstream rehtoric about cannabis will also alter your DNA....And make you crazy from all of the bullshit.

Peace,
FG

[wraughbit]

not to mention sugar changes DNA also....


Glycine Insertion in the Hinge Region of Lactose Repressor Protein Alters DNA Binding -- Falcon and Matthews 274 (43): 30849 -- Journal of Biological Chemistry


hell even bad eating habits. there's lots of things that have the potential to 'damage' your DNA.

It's a combination of factors, specially considering you will never know if the change was good or bad until you actually have kids.

[GreyMatterTripp]

Originally Posted by Broosh

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.

Very good boosh.

I posted the same quotes from doctor Tashkin regarding the anti cancer effects of cannabis.

Very nicely done, very nice.

[griffsta]

I wonder if the lawmakers and people who are ignorant to the truth came on this website and sat around and read all about what we have to say about bullshit stories like this, if they would wake up and realize what they are doing and saying, and how its wrong.

[ArgoSG]

Originally Posted by griffsta

I wonder if the lawmakers and people who are ignorant to the truth came on this website and sat around and read all about what we have to say about bullshit stories like this, if they would wake up and realize what they are doing and saying, and how its wrong.

No, because they are paid to create studies to further an agenda.

Keep in mind, the majority of serious scientists do not give a shit about what negative health effects cannabis has on the human body. They may find it curious, but in no relative sense. There are much bigger things they worry about. There's that business about the entire universe and how it functions, and then there's cognitive science, another huge gaping hole in our scientific understanding. We have people working on highly advanced fields currently under testing that can potentially transform our lives much more than the internet has, like Nanotechnology.Then there's finding cures/solutions for the major problems humanity is facing, the spread of infectious diseases, environmental problems, etc.

No serious academic would dedicate their full time energies to something as ridiculous as finding out whether or not Marijuana could cause cancer, or could damage DNA if they spent over a decade in school working their ass off for a PhD to try and make serious advancements in science. To put this into perspective, we already know tobacco use leads to a range of health problems and diseases, among them cancer. Tobacco is still perfectly legal. Even if every scientist could unanimously agree that inhaling unfiltered Cannabis smoke is ten times as dangerous as Tobacco, this would be relatively meaningless data.

It's more propaganda, and the sad part is, when it is dressed up as science it gets really dangerous, many people will simply believe articles that are like that immediately. All you need is a sound byte or a clip of text like "Marijuana causes damage to DNA, experts say" and people will be repeating this incessantly because we don't really live in a society where we can afford to fact check all the information we're exposed to. We believe things immediately because we survived best that way: An animal that assumed there was a predator in the rustling bushes and ran had the best chance of survival, even if it was just the wind, or a small bird. An animal that was skeptical, and decided to inquire to be sure, died if there was a predator in the rustling bushes. This isn't even the only explanation of how we are so gullible today, but this is one of the simplest points to explain. The others have to do with earlier cognitive processes in the brain which slowly evolved to create an understanding that something existed. For instance, you may own a car. You sit at this computer, and do not see your car. You would be in trouble however, if your brain told you your car didn't exist. Therefore, you believe your car exists. Life has been around for 4 billion years, it had plenty of time to evolve these mechanisms. We've had recorded history for a few thousand years, which is a grain of sand on a beach in comparison. Sorry, short science rant.

[CaValleySmoker]

The authors added: "It is well known that toxic substances in tobacco smoke can damage DNA and increase the risk of lung and other cancers. Scientists were unsure though whether cannabis smoke would have the same effect"

So smoke damages your lungs?? Really?!? Good job people, wasted tons of money on something even children know. Should pay me to do this shit.

Completely ridiculous.

[Gilu]

well I could always use an extra arm in masturbation, or packing a bowl and talking on a phone at the same time...

EDIT: also,

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_709-UY_kyd...-story-bro.png

[Rerun]

Stop it.
I already quit reading when i read cancer.

bah.
I thought it would be a positive story.

i hate propoganda.

[RebelINS]

Maybe I can grow a second cock

[Smokeitdown]

So thaaaaaaaaaaats why my kids have super strength and telepathic powers.



I can see the ad campaigns now...


"Marijuana; It will make you into a superhero!"