NationStates Jolt Archive

just showing again how much i need to quit....smoking cigarettes :(

down to less than half a pack a day now so yay!

enjoy....

-------------------------------

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/523/3

Mary Jane Trumps Joe Camel
By Mary Beckman
ScienceNOW Daily News
23 May 2006

It seems logical that inhaling enough smoke will give you lung cancer. But a new study of Los Angeles residents suggests that smoking marijuana--even more than 22,000 joints in a lifetime--doesn't increase cancer risk. The results surprise many researchers, who point out marijuana has other ill health effects.
Decades of research have shown that cigarette smoking dramatically increases the risk of certain cancers. But controversy surrounds the risk of smoking weed. A 1999 study of blood donors suggested a link between marijuana and head and neck cancer, but a larger study in 2004 found no such connection. Still, work in the lab suggests marijuana can be dangerous. For example, pot smoke contains more of some cancer-causing chemicals than cigarettes do, thanks to the filterless nature of joints.

In hopes of settling the debate, pulmonologist Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues assembled the largest study to date. They identified cancer patients through the University of Southern California Tumor Registry, which compiles cancer data in Los Angeles County. From 1999 to 2003, 611 Los Angelinos age 60 and under came down with lung cancer, and 601 developed head and neck cancers, each a kind of malignancy that smokers would most likely suffer from. The team then identified more than 1000 control individuals in L.A. who did not have cancer. The researchers matched these individuals to cancer patients by age, gender, and other factors such as the neighborhood in which they lived. In confidential interviews, Tashkin's group determined marijuana usage as well as other risk factors for cancer such as cigarette smoking.

Statistical analysis revealed that smoking joints did not increase the risk of coming down with these cancers. About half of cancer patients and controls smoked marijuana, but more than 80% of cancer patients were current or former cigarette smokers. Even heavy tokers--who reported smoking a total of about 22,000 joints over their lifetime--did not have increased risk compared to nonsmokers. The researchers will present their findings tomorrow at the American Thoracic Society International Conference in San Diego.

The results surprised Tashkin. "I wouldn't give [marijuana] a clean bill of health, but at least this study says if there is a risk, it's very small," he says. Still, he says, marijuana has been shown to suppress the immune system and may increase the risk of pneumonia.

As for why marijuana use doesn't seem to increase cancer risk, pulmonary critical care researcher John Hansen-Flaschen of the University of Pennsylvania points out that cigarette smokers puff a lot more cigarettes than do marijuana users--a smoker with a 2-pack-a-day habit lights up 292,000 cigarettes over 20 years, for example. That's probably because marijuana isn't nearly as addictive as tobacco, says epidemiologist Steve Schwartz of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, who conducted the 2004 study.

Still poses a risk of psychosis, though.

Ha-HA!

Yet more proof that there is NO legitimate reason for the criminalisation of marijuana beyond the selfish views of the business lobbies!

Ha-HA!

Yet more proof that there is NO legitimate reason for the criminalisation of marijuana beyond the selfish views of the business lobbies!



legalize it!

I say make it legal and start giving it to all the crack heads with guns and it may help eliminate a lot of the murders going on in the USA

I belieive the only reason it is not legal is because the Government can't control it enough to tax it, so therefor they make it illegal to have.

I say make it legal and start giving it to all the crack heads with guns and it may help eliminate a lot of the murders going on in the USA

Pot isn't crack. Pot is one of the less addictive and dangerous drugs.

Pot isn't crack. Pot is one of the less addictive and dangerous drugs.


if not the least addictive and dangerous.

*smokes a joint*

Thats my point . Crack is the ultimate in bad drugs out there. If they were potheads they would mello out and stop robbing and merdering people.
I SPEAK FROM EXPEREINCE FROM BEING A USER OF ALL SORTS OF DRUGS

Well my lungs are pretty fucked and i'm not even a heavy user of weed. Don't smoke straights either (unless im bored).

Cigerrettes have been proven to cause cancer and all sorts of other illnessesbut continue to be legal to puchase legally. The reason for this is because they are under control of the government and are a way to make money for the government.

Cigerrettes have been proven to cause cancer and all sorts of other illnessesbut continue to be legal to puchase legally. The reason for this is because they are under control of the government and are a way to make money for the government.

Don't forget alcohol. Can't be denied that that's pretty damn dangerous, yet its still sold almost everywhere to everyone with an ID- fake or real.

My point exactly. If the government can tax it they will make it legal to sell or use it

My point exactly. If the government can tax it they will make it legal to sell or use it

My point exactly. If the government can tax it they will make it legal to sell or use it

Still poses a risk of psychosis, though.
Yeah, if you are predisposed to psychosis and smoke too much weed during adolescence.

22000 joints? Your mind will be somewhere out in the stratosphere. Good luck bringing it back down. Oh wait, you mean 22,000 over a long period of time right? :D

Ha-HA!

Yet more proof that there is NO legitimate reason for the criminalisation of marijuana beyond the selfish views of the business lobbies!

Psychosis?

Triple post. skills.

Yeah, if you are predisposed to psychosis and smoke too much weed during adolescence.

I don't think “they” are completely sure it's only during adolescence.

Liasia']Triple post. skills.
I was kinda dissapointed he stopped at three... :p

I don't think “they” are completely sure it's only during adolescence.

Most studies aren't entirely sure there are risks at all. This phycosis thing.. seems a bit tenuous. I mean, there are so many qualifying factors (age, predisposition to phycosis, heavy-ness of use etc).

22000 joints? Your mind will be somewhere out in the stratosphere. Good luck bringing it back down. Oh wait, you mean 22,000 over a long period of time right? :D


i say someone (who isnt the grateful dead) to attempt to smoke 22000 joints in a short period of time....

Hmmmm

I don't think “they” are completely sure it's only during adolescence.
Read this. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,1668785,00.html)
Some interesting quotes from it:
"current figures suggest that cannabis use increases the incidence of psychosis from 1% to 3% at most"
"If cannabis caused schizophrenia, the rate of incidence in countries where it's used more widely would be higher - but there's no evidence of that."
"the rate of schizophrenia [has not] increased in the UK, despite statistics showing that 50% of young people have tried it, compared with only 10% in 1970."

"John Macleod of the University of Birmingham is another sceptic. In May 2004 in the Lancet, he analysed 48 research studies on the alleged psychological and social harms of cannabis, concluding that two-thirds of them were of dubious methodology and that even the better ones failed to prove a causal relation"

I think the important thing coming out of this article is that there is no proof of a causal relationship between cannabis use and psychological harm.

if not the least addictive and dangerous.

Nobody has died a marijuana related death, and caffeine is 4 times more addictive than marijuana. Marijuana is safer than legal drugs. It shouldnt be legal, but decriminalized. If it were legal, it would cost like 2-3 times more.

Nobody has died a marijuana related death, and caffeine is 4 times more addictive than marijuana. Marijuana is safer than legal drugs. It shouldnt be legal, but decriminalized. If it were legal, it would cost like 2-3 times more.


but if it was legal it might be high grade stuff, worth the price.

also id pay a little more if it was legal stuff.

If we assume that a heavy toker averages 27.5 joints per ounce of marijuana (which is about right for me), 22,000 joints would be 500 pounds of marijuana. Even spread over 75 years, that is more than 2 ounces per week.

I'm not saying one can't consume 2 ounces in a week, but I doubt anyone could do it every week for 75 years.

Still poses a risk of psychosis, though.
So does living with my grandmother.

If we assume that a heavy toker averages 27.5 joints per ounce of marijuana (which is about right for me), 22,000 joints would be 500 pounds of marijuana. Even spread over 75 years, that is more than 2 ounces per week.

I'm not saying one can't consume 2 ounces in a week, but I doubt anyone could do it every week for 75 years.

An ounce lasts me a month, smoking as much as I like. 22 000 joints, I don't think I could do it. Besides, why waste the paper? :D

i say someone (who isnt the grateful dead) to attempt to smoke 22000 joints in a short period of time....

Hmmmm

I will attempt to do it within six months, if all you dear, helpful NSer's out there will supply me with 500 pounds of marijuana. And a skilled joint roller. I suck at that shit. Oh, also, if you could give me a bunch of speed/coke to keep me up for most of that time while I continously take joints to my dome...that would be much appreciated.

Oh well. Probably not. Whatever

*rips bong*

So does living with my grandmother.


as well as my mother.

as well as my mother.
Mine is too crazy to make me crazy :eek:

Mine is too crazy to make me crazy :eek:


that sounds disturbing.....

Hmmm maybe I should start smoking it then...

I think the law for canabis should be the same as what it will be for cigarettes in England soon, illigal in public places, but leagal in your own home.

Hmmm maybe I should start smoking it then...

I think the law for canabis should be the same as what it will be for cigarettes in England soon, illigal in public places, but leagal in your own home.


even if it is that way, as long as its legal, its good to me.

I wonder where they found somebody who remembered smoking 22k joints?

I wonder where they found somebody who remembered smoking 22k joints?


willie nelson?

The self-reported 22,000 figure shows that they were out of their minds...:rolleyes:

If breathing smog every day hurts the lungs, why wouldn't any smoke have a similar effect?

I don't buy it. I'll wait for some more studies...

If legalizing pot will make it cheaper so the unemployed addicts won't have to rob and steal to finance their habit, I'm all for it. Less crime is always a good thing, and people who want to rot their brain will do it whether you allow them to or not.

If legalizing pot will make it cheaper so the unemployed addicts won't have to rob and steal to finance their habit, I'm all for it. Less crime is always a good thing, and people who want to rot their brain will do it whether you allow them to or not.

LOL....Yeah, right....unemployed potheads stealing to finance their habit...That's F'n hilarious.

I don't know where you get your ideas about marijuana users, but they're grossly innaccurate.

1. Potheads can actually hold a job, despite what you may have seen on TV. In fact, I personally know potheads in engineering, law enforcement, firefighting, real estate....

2. Marijuana isn't that expensive. I could easily scrape up enough money to get a sack, even if I were dead broke. There's probably enough change in my car to get a dimebag.

3. Marijuana doesn't have serious withdrawal symtoms. One might get a bit bored or cranky or possibly experience some insomnia or appetite loss, but no one would steal to get a weed-fix, unless they're the type that's going to steal regardless.

4. Marijuana has never been demonstated to impair cognitive ability over the long-term. It does not kill brain cells.

Seriously, legalize pot. That way, more people will be high and I'll have less competition for world domination.

The self-reported 22,000 figure shows that they were out of their minds...:rolleyes:

I doubt anyone actually claimed to have smoked 22,000 joints. They probably claimed to smoke X joints per day, which was probably more of a peak than an average, and then claimed to have smoke for a certain number of years. Then, someone involved in the study or the reporter got the 22,000 by projecting peak use over the entire time period.

If breathing smog every day hurts the lungs, why wouldn't any smoke have a similar effect?

Smog is filled with a large number of inorganic chemicals, many of which may cause cancer.

Marijuana smoke is mostly organic, and even the inorganic chemicals are naturally occuring.

Tobacco would cause far fewer cases of lung cancer if it weren't loaded with inorganic chemicals during growth, harvest, and handling.

Of course, that only pertains to cancer. Marijuana can still cause other typres of lung damage. Emphysema and broncitis, for example.

I wasn't even aware that joints were thought to have caused cancer in the first place. It's psychosis and lazyness that counts.

Well it seems this research is a bit flawed. No one they found claimed to smoke more than 22,000 joints in their life... yet they seem to have been able to find many smokers who had smoked around 300,000 cigarettes in 20 years. It seems like there is a bit of a flaw in this study. Maybe the researchers were high on pot or something.

But seriously I don't know anyone who has ever smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day. Where did they find these people?

It's like saying 100-year-old has a higher risk of dying within the next 12 months compared to a 10-year-old. Or 1 pint of vodka is more likely to get you drunk than 1 pint of beer.

300,000 cigarettes in 20 years or 22,000 joints in a lifetime. Is no one seeing a disparity in figures here? I call bullshit on this study.

well either way. you're putting crap into your lungs. its like burning money by purchasing cig. you're just wasting your god-given body. DEAL WITH REALITY DAMNIT! :)

well either way. you're putting crap into your lungs. its like burning money by purchasing cig. you're just wasting your god-given body. DEAL WITH REALITY DAMNIT! :)

I'm not saying that it has no health risks, just no more than other vices which are both legal and socially acceptable in our society; alcohol, tobacco, over-eating, casual sex.

As for the money, well, it comes out of my entertainment funds, and it makes whatever I do with the rest of that money more enjoyable. :D

Who are you to judge what I choose to do with my body? Your god isn't mine. I happen to be quite fond of pondering spiritual matters like the nature and desires of our creator, if we in fact have or had one, while stoned out of my goddamned mind.

I pay my bills. I pay my taxes. I've never taken a dime of government assistance, and other than marijuana, I don't break the law. I'm sick and tired of having to worry about cops all the time. I'm sick of being looked down on by drunks, sluts, and lardasses. I'm sick of being judged by people like you. I deal with reality every damn day. What I choose to do at the end of the day, in my home, is my goddamned business.

Well it seems this research is a bit flawed. No one they found claimed to smoke more than 22,000 joints in their life... yet they seem to have been able to find many smokers who had smoked around 300,000 cigarettes in 20 years. It seems like there is a bit of a flaw in this study. Maybe the researchers were high on pot or something.

But seriously I don't know anyone who has ever smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day. Where did they find these people?

It's like saying 100-year-old has a higher risk of dying within the next 12 months compared to a 10-year-old. Or 1 pint of vodka is more likely to get you drunk than 1 pint of beer.

300,000 cigarettes in 20 years or 22,000 joints in a lifetime. Is no one seeing a disparity in figures here? I call bullshit on this study.

I agree, there is a disparity in these figures. However, that is pretty usual. Someone may smoke 2 packs a day in 20 years. Or even one. Thats just 150,000 cigarettes. But hey though, do you know how fucking difficult it would be to smoke 150,000 joints in 20 years? At, say, .75 grams per joint (a somewhat small joint, really), thats approximately 251 pounds of marijuana over 20 years, averaging almost four ounces per week. Thats a shitload of weed, man. Possible, but I would call it highly improbable. But in Cigarette sized joints, it would be between 1.5 and 2 times that amount. which is insane.