Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Disclosure:

The statements in this forum have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and are generated by non-professional writers. Any products described are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Website Disclosure:

This forum contains general information about diet, health and nutrition. The information is not advice and is not a substitute for advice from a healthcare professional.

Is anybody MONITORING cancer rates in cannabis smokers?

Discussion in 'Seasoned Marijuana Users' started by ReturnFire333, Jan 6, 2014.

Page 1 of 6
  1. #1 ReturnFire333, Jan 6, 2014
    People always say "zero recorded cases of cannabis-caused lung cancer" like it's some gospel, but the thing is, are any medical professionals monitoring lung cancer in cannabis smokers? Are any studies actively being done? I would like to see the zero lung cancer claim in 20 years or so.

     
  2. #2 dekabos, Jan 6, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. #3 ReturnFire333, Jan 6, 2014
  4. #4 ReturnFire333, Jan 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2014
    Also I am immediately skeptical of studies that do not state exactly who conducted the study. All I see is the name of one professor of the University of California.
     
    Edit: I see nothing in that study report that provides any claim that marijuana does not increase lung cancer risk. 
     
    But after controlling for tobacco, alcohol and other drug use as well as matching patients and controls by age, gender and neighborhood, marijuana did not seem to have an effect, despite its unhealthy aspects. 
     
    That is such a generic statement it really holds no merit in the argument. This study seems to be highly propogated.
     
  5. #5 dekabos, Jan 6, 2014
  6. #6 Grizzly Tracks, Jan 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2014
    Same as the bullshit phrase "cannabis cures cancer".  That is propaganda and very misleading.  Hey, I'm all for increasing researching into the health effects (especially) medical), but let's not throw out a blanket statement.
     
    I also know there is research showing that certain elements are showing promise in curbing the growth of certain cancer cells.  This is a small percentage result in a small percentage of cancers at this point.  The statement may ultimately be true, but very misleading overall.
     
     
    Maybe use Marley as the poster boy for "cannabis cures cancer"?  I think not.   His cancer ate him alive as well as many, many more.
     
  7. #7 ReturnFire333, Jan 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2014
     
    This x1000. Cannabis has been shown to have possible anti tumor effects in regards that THC might be able to slow the development of tumors. That is not curing cancer, only aiding to a minimal extent. I for one am hoping that the legalization in Colorado will allow a ton of cannabis research to commence, it's time we got some facts on smoking it, and also on THCs effect on the brain.
     
  8. #8 dekabos, Jan 6, 2014
     
    :rolleyes:
     
    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/04/how-hemp-oil-cures-cancer-and-why-no-one-knows-2-2628774.html
     
    I agree that using the term "cure" isn't the most appropriate description, but on the other hand, what the hell DOES work 100% every single time for everybody? Just because it isn't an instant magical universal "cancer-free" button doesn't mean it can't blow other modern "treatments" out of the water in terms of effectiveness against cancer and overall quality of life as it does so.
     
    Fighting cancer is the fight of a lifetime. It takes major lifestyle changes to beat: diet, exercise, and yes, proper medicine. Bob Marley died because he held off from proper medical help hoping that his lifestyle was healthy enough to beat it alone. He held on for years, too, still working his ass off performing. Eventually he did go through chemo and lost his dreads, but to no avail obviously. Who knows if eating hash oil would have saved him, but at least then the chemo wouldn't have taken his locks and ground him down the way it does.
     
  9. #9 dekabos, Jan 6, 2014
     
    Having trouble reading? You have the complete results of Dr. Tashkin's study right there.
     
  10. #10 ReturnFire333, Jan 6, 2014
    Other studies claim atleast 4 fold increase in lung cancer risk, too much of a mixed bag of info.
     
  11. #11 dekabos, Jan 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2014
     
    Sources please. I'd like to give those studies a closer look to see just exactly what they claim and on what basis.
     
    Believe it or not, I'm willing to be proven wrong on this if the evidence is there. (Already a dedicated vape user :yummy: ) So far, though, I've seen quite a range of good reasons why cannabis smoke isn't even in the same ballpark as tobacco smoke, the only other widespread recreational smoke we can compare it to.
     
    Namely, cannabis smoke acts as a vasodilator (expands alveola in the lungs, letting go of fluids, mucus, etc.) instead of a vasoconstrictor, like tobacco smoke. Moreover, tobacco is commonly grown with radioactive fertilizers, pesticides, shit like that (it amazes me that this is still somehow the norm), so lungs hold onto that radioactive residue from tobacco. With longterm use, "hotspots" form, and not too surprisingly, ultimately become cancerous.
     
    There's lots more, but that sums up pretty succinctly (for me) why tobacco can lead to lung cancer and why cannabis doesn't.
     
  12. #12 ReturnFire333, Jan 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2014
     
    I found the claim of a study that reports up to 4 fold increase lung cancer risk on a website that was discussing the California study, however they did not link to the study.
     
    That being said, conventional tobacco is of course far worse than marijuana smoke, look at all the artificial additivies in it, that's a no brainer. But to use that fact to say that smoking cannabis is safe and has no cancer risk? And how do scientists determine "risk" for cancer anyways?
     
    Cannabis smokers typically  smoke less plant matter than tobacco smokers, but inhale it FAR deeper into the lungs, and some people hold it in for upwards past 3 seconds. Cigarette smokers take a small breath into their lungs typically, cannabis smokers take full, deep breaths of smoke.
     
    That being said reading these "studies" I can't help but feel that there was bias in them or some monetary influence, because they do not seem to be reporting all of the findings, and they just come across as being twisted to me, not straight forward.
     
    The California study for example, provides no explanation of its findings. All it says is that "we monitored these people who said all they smoke is marijuana, or marijuana and tobacco, and we magically found that there was no increase risk of cancer." I smell bullsh*t in that study and others like it.
     
  13. #13 dekabos, Jan 6, 2014
     
    They were measuring the occurrence of cancer in groups that smoked cannabis and tobacco, as well as each exclusively, and a control group who didn't smoke period. Tobacco smokers (with or without cannabis, though slightly less with than without) had ~10x more occurrence of various cancers, especially of the lungs, whereas the cannabis-only group (cannabis SMOKERS, keep in mind) had slightly less occurrence of all cancers, especially of the brain.
     
    This was a 20-year study. How much clearer does it need to be? Where are all the dead and dying stoners filling hospitals and needing respirators or holes in their throat, if it's so cancerous and harmful?  :confused_2:
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. #14 ReturnFire333, Jan 6, 2014
    Slightly less occurence of all cancers, so some of them still got cancer at a higher rate than non smokers, correct? That seems logical, tobacco is the highest, cannabis less so, and no smoking normal of course.
     
  15. #15 chzdgg, Jan 6, 2014
    I agree that pro legalization groups definitely exaggerate things  in their claims and yes smoking anything is bad for your lungs whether it's tea leaves, tobacco or cannabis. But the degree to which cannabis harms the lungs hasn't been studied widely enough. Perhaps if the DEA were to lift some of the research restrictions we could gain some valuable knowledge. In my personal experience smoking makes me cough a shit ton and I also end up coughing up a bunch of nasty shit the day after, that's the reason I switched to vaporizing. I know studies suggest that vaporizing gets rid of the irritants in smoke, but I am unable to find anything conclusive about what exactly is in the vapor besides cannabinoids (If anything).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. #16 dekabos, Jan 6, 2014
     
    No, it was that people who smoked both had slightly lower rates of cancer than tobacco-only smokers, and cannabis-only smokers had slightly lower rates of cancer (especially in the brain) than the control group - the non-smokers.
     
  17. #17 ReturnFire333, Jan 6, 2014
     
    Sounds like bullshit to me.
     
  18. #18 Grizzly Tracks, Jan 6, 2014
    Tar build up from smoking mmj is significant in the lungs as can be seen by x-rays.  This is not a scientific observation, but many instances of seeing chest x-rays of both non-smoker, cig smoker, and mmj users.
     
    Exercise often.  Eat right.  Beat the clock.
     
  19. #19 dekabos, Jan 6, 2014
     
    Sounds like you need to read the thing.
     
    Or, honestly, just believe what you want. You seem to know what answers you're looking for. Just know that you won't likely hear them in chorus around here.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. #20 ReturnFire333, Jan 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2014
     
    In reality is just seems like the UCLA got a nice paycheck from NORML or some organization like that. And no I won't hear the facts on here because people are in denial as fuck about smoking weed. Oh well I'm not pushing to change anyones opinions only find the facts out for myself personally and help other people avoid misinformation. You're inhaling tar and carcinogens, your risk is cancer is not going to be lower than a non smoker. That is some major denial right there to anyone who believe that.
     
Page 1 of 6

Share This Page