Marijuana.com

dedbr

Cannabis bigger cancer risk than cigarettes: study - Yahoo! News

I thought we needed to talk about this study. It says that one joint is equivalent to a pack of cigarettes. I really would like to see the whole study, but it seemed pretty conclusive to me.

I don't think the herb affects me near as bad as cigarettes, but that's just how I feel. I could be wrong........


Some Where In Ded Land...........Bunker City, USA....

__________________
Sometimes you can cut your own throat with your tongue.....
So remember to check out our most wonderful Posting Guidelines!

 

steakii

I guess its time to start vaporizing. I have noticed that weed makes me produce much more phlegm than cigarettes do, but i havent been smoking either for long enough(3 year each off and on alot) to notice a significant difference in actual damage to lungs. That is an interesting study. Most stoners believe that weed doesnt cause cancer, now there is a study that links the 2.

jbs4life97

And I'm sure the cigarette company's don't have anything to do with these "studies".

dedbr

I think maybe it's time to get off our high-horse about this and admit that there are negative consequences to smoking herb even though we like to think that there aren't.

You can't have it both ways, can you? It might be better to admit that it does do some harm, but the benefits far outweigh the problems it may cause..............


Some Where In Ded Land........

RT_Fufkin

You know, I've read this news story a few times and I have many, many questions, such as: Were these "joints" smoked by the group containing tobacco? were they also regular smokers of tobacco? Also, they don't really give the real metric, just a bunch of medical double-speak. "In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking." -- HUH? what does that mean? does it mean that all of these 79 cancer patients all at least smoked once a day for 10 years? How come there was no one quoted in this story from Mary Jane's side? That's not fair or balanced reporting at all. Also, I couldn't find this study anywhere on the European Respiratory Journal website, and when I went to the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand's site I found that many funds to perform these studies are from large pharmacy corporations.

I dunno, I'm just ranting...

 

Jake

Yep yep yep, ded, been reading up on the studies lately. I don't like how just about every study uses cigarettes as a measuring stick. It's not a good measuring stick!

What "cigarettes" are they using in their studies? Newports or Basic Lights? And you have to remember that cigarette users are generally addicts, and they settle in at around half a pack, a pack, or two packs a day.

Cannabis smokers also have a wide range of quality to choose from, from schwag to KB. Their tolerance and the quality dictates how much actual smoke is going through their lungs.

Plus, many cannabis smokers are also cigarette smokers.

There are just so many unexplored circumstances, that I've given up.

I just wish there was a "JUST CANNABIS" study. I don't think that one joint "equals" any amount of cigarettes. We're talking about two different burning substances here, with two different active chemicals.

I find it odd that the line used to be four cigarettes, and now it's 20?

I'd like a much more comprehensive study, covering all ages, covering all types of smokers.

__________________

ADIDAS

Hmmm, not too convincing of a study for me. Not to say it is false, but Im gonna need more than that to change my ways. They didnt elaborate on which ones smoked cigarettes too. I smoke mj exclusively, had about a pack of cigarettes in my whole life.

__________________
All Day I Dream About Smoking

SpiralArchitect

Eh, I don't know about this. It seems pretty unsubstantial, then again I could be wrong. Then again I could be right and they are just trying to spin the truth and make it seem like 'the devils weed', again.

I mean, if it causes cancer - I'd believe it, smoking anything can't be good for you.

But 20x as carcinogenic as a cigarette? A cannabis-induced cancer epidemic? C'mon now, it really sounds like they are spinning the truth.

I've been smoking tough for 3 years now and I have noticed next to no decrease in my lung performance or general health.

Besides, I could've sworn I read an article where it is proven Cannabis smoke can cause cancer, yet THC acts as some sort of anti-cancer in the body..... hm....

__________________
I embrace my desire to
feel the rhythm,
to feel connected enough to step aside and weep like a widow
to feel inspired, to fathom the power, to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain,
to swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human.

Turkey_Tuesday

Ive read many articles and stories of how weed is many times more carcinogenic than cigarettes and I personally think its bull shit, I smoked chronic everyday for about a year before I started smoking cigarettes and let me tell you the harsh effects on my lungs from cigarettes is very apparent. Ive quit smoking cigarettes two times for somewhat of a time and both times I continued to smoke green everyday and still noticed my lungs get quite better until I started smoking cigarettes again....

So does pot cause cancer.... well that would not surprise me but to say that its worse than cigarettes is just stupidity the proof is everywhere I have friends who don't smoke tobacco but smoke pot everyday for years there lungs have been in tip top shape I have other friends who only smoke cigarettes and they have been doing it for half the time as the pot friends and they cant run a block not to mention there constant coughing fits.

As for me I'm still smoking both everyday but am working on quitting tobacco for good, no plans anywhere in my future for my favorite lady Jane leaving my life.

Dark

I personally don't feel it's a very strong study.
I've seen so many studies by now, and they all say something different. Some say 4 cigarettes, some say 10, or 20, some say pot doesn't cause cancer. Who to believe? We'd like to believe the latter, but at this point I can't believe any of them. There just isn't enough study in this field yet, period.

Questioning 79 lung cancer patients is hardly a large group, nor is it an accurate way to study the effects of marijuana. That's 79 people. Did they expect none of them to smoke pot? Just because they smoke pot, and have lung cancer doesn't mean at all that the two are linked.

Let's take 79 patients with HIV/Aids, and see how many smoke pot. From that study, we can conclude how much more likely you are to get aids when smoking pot . You see my point? It's unfair to think that no one in that group of lung cancer patients smoked marijuana, and then when you find one that has, you contribute their cancer to marijuana.
Is it possible? Absolutely. But I wouldn't put all my belief on the dangers of marijuana into this one study.

EDIT: You want to see something a bit easier to trust? Fred Gardner: Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer
This is coming from a man that thought himself marijuana would cause lung cancer, and he says it does no such thing.
Not only that, a man named Stephen Sidney has a study where they use 64,000 patients, not 79 . The study discussed on that website is one where they used over 1,200 patients. Like I said it's hard to believe any of the claims so far, but I tend to side with the one with more information, and not just a few small paragraphs on Yahoo, or Fox(where I first saw this)

__________________