• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Study shows smoking marijuana does NOT cause lung cancer

I

imported_hscorpio

Golden Member
Tashkin controlled for tobacco use and calculated the relative risk of marijuana use resulting in lung and upper airwaves cancers. All the odds ratios turned out to be less than one ( one being equal to the control group's chances )! Compared with subjects who had used less than one joint year, the estimated odds ratios for lung cancer were .78; for 1-10 j-yrs, .74; for 10-30 j-yrs, .85 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 0.81 for more than 60 j-yrs. The estimated odds ratios for oral/pharyngeal cancers were 0.92 for 1-10 j-yrs; 0.89 for 10-30 j-yrs; 0.81 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 1.0 for more than 60 j-yrs. "Similar, though less precise results were obtained for the other cancer sites," Tashkin reported.
Click to expand...
Source

Tashkin reportedly conducted the NIDA backed study at UCLA to finally settle the issue of whether or not smoking marijuana causes lung cancer. The results were not what he expected, as the marijuana smokers actually had a lower risk of lung cancer than the control group. This isn't the first study that has raised the possibility that marijuana may actually protect against cancer: link.

When asked about this apparent protective effect Tashkin responded:
"The odds ratios are less than one almost consistently, and in one category that relationship was significant, but I think that it would be difficult to extract from these data the conclusion that marijuana is protective against lung cancer. But that is not an unreasonable hypothesis."
Click to expand...

Somehow I doubt he will get anymore funding or support from the federal government(NIDA) to explore that hypothesis. I also doubt the DEA will stop lying about it as they do in this quote: "In other studies, smoked marijuana has been shown to cause a variety of health problems, including cancer, respiratory problems, increased heart rate, loss of motor skills, and increased heart rate.DEA link"
 
the fact that weed doesn't have all those extra chemicals (like cigs) added in makes me think it would be much lower risk than cigs for sure...
 
Perhaps the author should read the study. The risk went up for both lung cancer and oral/pharrngyeal cancers. The test also appears flawed in that the results do not match intake ratio. There is likely another factor present.

the estimated odds ratios for lung cancer were 78; for 1-10 j-yrs, .74; for 10-30 j-yrs, .85 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 0.81 for more than 60 j-yrs. The estimated odds ratios for oral/pharyngeal cancers were 0.92 for 1-10 j-yrs; 0.89 for 10-30 j-yrs; 0.81 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 1.0 for more than 60 j-yrs. "Similar, though less precise results were obtained for the other cancer sites," Tashkin reported.
Click to expand...

The results for lung cancer went up, while oral/pharnygeal went down initially, but in the end also rose. To date, not ONE of these "studies" has stood the scrutiny of a reputable medical journal. Please don't go on to tell me about a conspiracy of doctors.
 
Originally posted by: maluckey
Perhaps the author should read the study. The risk went up for both lung cancer and oral/pharrngyeal cancers. The test also appears flawed in that the results do not match intake ratio. There is likely another factor present.

the estimated odds ratios for lung cancer were 78; for 1-10 j-yrs, .74; for 10-30 j-yrs, .85 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 0.81 for more than 60 j-yrs. The estimated odds ratios for oral/pharyngeal cancers were 0.92 for 1-10 j-yrs; 0.89 for 10-30 j-yrs; 0.81 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 1.0 for more than 60 j-yrs. "Similar, though less precise results were obtained for the other cancer sites," Tashkin reported.
Click to expand...

The results for lung cancer went up, while oral/pharnygeal went down initially, but in the end also rose. To date, not ONE of these "studies" has stood the scrutiny of a reputable medical journal. Please don't go on to tell me about a conspiracy of doctors.
Click to expand...

Which study are you refering too? Where does it say the results for lung cancer went up? There have been a couple older studies out of UCLA on smoked marijuana that concluded it does cause cancer, but this is the latest one and I believe the largest. If you have a link to the latest actual study please provide it as I have not managed to find it.
 
Originally posted by: maluckey
Perhaps the author should read the study. The risk went up for both lung cancer and oral/pharrngyeal cancers. The test also appears flawed in that the results do not match intake ratio. There is likely another factor present.

the estimated odds ratios for lung cancer were 78; for 1-10 j-yrs, .74; for 10-30 j-yrs, .85 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 0.81 for more than 60 j-yrs. The estimated odds ratios for oral/pharyngeal cancers were 0.92 for 1-10 j-yrs; 0.89 for 10-30 j-yrs; 0.81 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 1.0 for more than 60 j-yrs. "Similar, though less precise results were obtained for the other cancer sites," Tashkin reported.
Click to expand...

The results for lung cancer went up, while oral/pharnygeal went down initially, but in the end also rose. To date, not ONE of these "studies" has stood the scrutiny of a reputable medical journal. Please don't go on to tell me about a conspiracy of doctors.
Click to expand...

1.00 is the rate of Cancer amongst those not taking the substance. < 1.00 is below the normal rate of Cancers, IOW, as the guy from the study said, it almost appears that smoking pot prevents Cancer(those results all being < 1.00). Though he said it was pre-mature to actually come to that conclusion.
 
A ratio of .81 is greater than .78 every time, and 10 joints are less than 60 joints. This shows increased cancer rates.
 
Originally posted by: maluckey
A ratio of .81 is greater than .78 every time, and 10 joints are less than 60 joints. This shows increased cancer rates.
Click to expand...

Yes and both ratios (.81 and .71) are less than 1.0 which shows DECREASED cancer rates compared to the control group!
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: tss4
You guys are smoking dope if you think pot doesn't cause cancer! lol
Click to expand...

Really, this study seems to contradict that.
Click to expand...

It really does seem to defy common sense though. We all know how well established the relationship between tobacco and cancer is and just sort of assume it must be similar with marijuana. But obviously this study shows there is something in marijuana that is preventing cancer from occuring in heavy smokers as we would expect. I think it's quite interesting and hope they do a lot more research as to why cancer is not common with heavy marijuana smokers.
 
If it prevents cancer, then why does the risk rise as usage increases. That shows carcinogenic effects. Also, why are there NO studies published in Medical Journals that are conclusive?
 
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: tss4
You guys are smoking dope if you think pot doesn't cause cancer! lol
Click to expand...

Really, this study seems to contradict that.
Click to expand...

Please Sandorski, don't confuse him with the facts.
Click to expand...

Chill out killers. My post was a joke. Use of a common expression in an ironic fashion. You people have no sense of humor this morning. I have no idea if pot causes cancer as I have never ever studied it and haven't even bothered to read the OP. And BBond, do you really have to start with the partisan attacks that quickly?
 
Originally posted by: maluckey
If it prevents cancer, then why does the risk rise as usage increases. That shows carcinogenic effects. Also, why are there NO studies published in Medical Journals that are conclusive?
Click to expand...

Your looking at it the wrong way. If it DID cause cancer then we would see ratios grater than 1 across the board for all usage rates such as we see with tobacco smokers. The fact is that people who smoke more than 60 j-yrs have no increased risk of cancer than those who smoked less than 1j-yr. and those who smoked in more moderation actually have less risk of cancer than the control group.

The point is why are there NO studies published in medical journals that show marijuana causes cancer? There are tons of people that have been smoking pot for decades yet theres not one study to prove without a doubt, as we've done with tobacco, that marijuana causes cancer. Why? Maybe because smoking marijuana doesn't cause cancer.
 
I was in the Cal. St. Fullerton library one day waiting for my roommate to get off work (carpooling, worked across the street) and ran across some 1960's Congressional reports.

Boy, I wish I had them handy. They said that they concluded that there were no addictive properties in marijuana and that the side effects were minimal compared to cigarettes. Marijuana made people only 1/3 as physically impaired during use as did alcohol.

It was a fascinating read. Wish I could find them.
 
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I was in the Cal. St. Fullerton library one day waiting for my roommate to get off work (carpooling, worked across the street) and ran across some 1960's Congressional reports.

Boy, I wish I had them handy. They said that they concluded that there were no addictive properties in marijuana and that the side effects were minimal compared to cigarettes. Marijuana made people only 1/3 as physically impaired during use as did alcohol.

It was a fascinating read. Wish I could find them.
Click to expand...

You might be refering to The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse (a.k.a. "the Shafer Commission"), appointed by then-President Richard Nixon, that formally made its recommendation on March 22, 1972.

"Neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety," concluded the report's authors, led by then-Gov. Raymond Shafer of Pennsylvania. "Therefore, the Commission recommends ... [the] possession of marijuana for personal use no longer be an offense, [and that the] casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration no longer be an offense." The report was ignored by Nixon.
 
Originally posted by: hscorpio
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I was in the Cal. St. Fullerton library one day waiting for my roommate to get off work (carpooling, worked across the street) and ran across some 1960's Congressional reports.

Boy, I wish I had them handy. They said that they concluded that there were no addictive properties in marijuana and that the side effects were minimal compared to cigarettes. Marijuana made people only 1/3 as physically impaired during use as did alcohol.

It was a fascinating read. Wish I could find them.
Click to expand...

You might be refering to The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse (a.k.a. "the Shafer Commission"), appointed by then-President Richard Nixon, that formally made its recommendation on March 22, 1972.

"Neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety," concluded the report's authors, led by then-Gov. Raymond Shafer of Pennsylvania. "Therefore, the Commission recommends ... [the] possession of marijuana for personal use no longer be an offense, [and that the] casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration no longer be an offense." The report was ignored by Nixon.
Click to expand...

Y'know, that could've been in, but I know for sure that some of the reports were in the 60's. Like 67 or 68.
 
I guess it's just because of quantities involved. Smoking one or two cigarettes a day doesn't affect your probabilities to get lug cancer. But usually smokers smoke much more than that. On the other you hardly smoke more than one or two cannabis joints per day.
 
Originally posted by: Tango
I guess it's just because of quantities involved. Smoking one or two cigarettes a day doesn't affect your probabilities to get lug cancer. But usually smokers smoke much more than that. On the other you hardly smoke more than one or two cannabis joints per day.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the two joints at night.😉
 
Originally posted by: maluckey
A ratio of .81 is greater than .78 every time, and 10 joints are less than 60 joints. This shows increased cancer rates.
Click to expand...

Since the risk ratio is consistently less than 1.0 (the ratio for non-users), it's valid to conclude that something in marjuana has a protective effect.

The fact that risk goes up slightly with increased dosage could mean that there's another agent in marjuana that DOES increase risk with increased usage (and that the first, protective agent doesn't provide such increased protection with increased usage).

Thus, one can can reasonably conclude that marijuana has an OVERALL protective effect, even if there are components in MJ that in isolation increase risk.

But this is just one study, and we all know that health-related studies (coffee-drinking, wine-drinking, vitamin C, chololate, . . .) disagree all the time.
 
Shira, you may be right,

I remember when vitamin E was the be-all end-all. Now they say it is toxic in the doses reccomended in the early 80's. They used to say that eggs were horrible, now they are OK.

When a reputable study on this is published in a reputable journal, perhaps some answers will come out of this. Until then, it's not worth much. There were studies showing the benefits of large doses of Beta-Carotene as well, but we all know where that lead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top