cannabisnews.com: British Study Warns of Health Danger of Cannabis British Study Warns of Health Danger of Cannabis Posted by CN Staff on November 11, 2002 at 08:30:10 PT By Reuters News Service Source: Reuters Smoking three pure cannabis joints is as bad for your lungs as smoking 20 normal cigarettes and marijuana is more dangerous now than it was in the 1960s, British researchers said on Monday.In what it described as a shocking new report, the British Lung Foundation (BLF) said tar from cannabis cigarettes contained 50 percent more carcinogens -- the agents that produce cancer -- than tobacco. "Three cannabis joints a day cause the same damage to the lining of the airways as 20 cigarettes," it said in a statement.It also said the health dangers of cannabis have substantially increased since the 1960s because today's marijuana has increased amounts of a key chemical compound.Campaigners for the legalization of cannabis disputed some of the findings."Saying that cannabis is stronger now than it used to be is like saying that orange juice is stronger these days," said Alun Buffry, spokesman for the Legalize Cannabis Alliance."I smoked stuff in the 1960s which was certainly stronger than what's available now and, anyway, when it's stronger, people smoke less of it."BFL chairman Mark Britton said: "These statistics will come as a surprise to many people, especially those who choose to smoke cannabis rather than tobacco in the belief it is 'safer' for them.""It is vital that people are fully aware of the dangers so they can make an educated decision and know the damage they may be causing," he said.The BFL stressed it was not taking a moral stance on the contentious issue of legalizing the drug."We're not trying to say 'smoke' or 'don't smoke' cannabis," BLF Chief Executive Dame Helena Shovelton told BBC Radio. "We're saying that if you do, understand the risks involved in doing so."Don't have the same situation we had with tobacco, which was years of denial about the problems," she said.The BFL urged the government to implement a public health education campaign on health risks of the drug. Source: Reuters Published: November 11, 2002Copyright: 2002 Reuters Related Articles & Web Sites:Legalise Cannabis Alliance http://www.lca-uk.org/Cannabis Smoking 'More Harmful' Than Tobacco http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14714.shtmlMarijuana Doesn't Cause Lung Cancer http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10025.shtmlMarijuana Ingredient May Fight Brain Cancer http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread4890.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #22 posted by The GCW on November 11, 2002 at 18:11:31 PT Results w/ 20 votes Should the DEA seize medical marijuana plants in Oregon? 55.0% No - Legalize marijuana use! 15.0% No - The feds should stay out of state searches 20.0% Yes - National law supersedes state law 10.0% Yes - Drugs ruin lives 0.0% Don't know? 0.0% Leave me alone! total votes: 20 [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by The GCW on November 11, 2002 at 18:08:29 PT POLL http://www.dailyemerald.com/ Should the DEA seize medical marijuana plants in Oregon? No - Legalize marijuana use! No - The feds should stay out of state searches Yes - National law supersedes state law Yes - Drugs ruin lives Don't know? Leave me alone! [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by The GCW on November 11, 2002 at 17:53:02 PT This is the only thing I know about cancer % THC. US NY: PUB LTE: Investigate Cancer-Fighting Properties Of Pot http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1215/a03.html?1979 Pubdate: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 Source: Watertown Daily Times (NY)Author: Larry Seguin Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal) -----------------US: Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew In '74 http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n572/a11.html?1979 Pubdate: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 Source: San Antonio Current (TX) Author: Raymond Cushing ------------------Spain: Cannabis Destroys Brain Tumours http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n296/a03.html?1983 Pubdate: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 Source: Press & Journal (UK) -------------Spain: Dope Ingredient May Fight Cancer http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n296/a01.html?1983 Pubdate: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 Source: Newsday (NY) Author: Associated PressIf the Gov. has known that cannabis helps cancer and they with hold it from the population, are they liable?What will they do if the population finds out about this and things get frantic? 1 out of 4, every family will face cancer. Mine did. I would just assume the birds eat the hemp seeds that the Gov. is trying to exterminate, instead of the stuff that replaces hemp seeds.& You're right, it is still not a reason to cage a human, that uses cannabis. [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by krutch on November 11, 2002 at 17:03:03 PT: I Just Read the Entire Report It is alarmist, but not pseudo-science. Reuters does a wonderful job turning it into pure propaganda. The authors of the review keep harping on the composition of the MJ smoke, but avoid trying to explain why the cancer data does not conform to the conclusion that mj smoking causes lung cancer. To them this is an obvious conclusion based on he composition of the smoke. I am not so sure. If it where as simple as that I think we would see an unmistakable relationship in the epidemiology studies. that is not the case. So I agree with those who ask "where are the bodies?". [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by krutch on November 11, 2002 at 15:31:44 PT: Nasarius, it is not a study It is a review of previous research. It is a library research paper. See the article from New Scientist on the same research posted below this article. I would not go as far as to call it junk science, but it fails to mention that epidemiology studies of long term mj smokers fail to support the conclusions. see:http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10025.shtml [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by Nasarius on November 11, 2002 at 14:41:48 PT Journal? Anyone know which scientific journal this will be published in? I want to see their methods and their numbers. Guys, don't denounce this as pseudoscience just because you don't like its findings. That's just as bad as the US government dismissing all sorts of valid science. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by DdC on November 11, 2002 at 12:27:51 PT Smoking in India and China...Any problems? The thousands of years of toking a hookah full of opium? Or ganja toked in chiloms by millions? Organic tobacco by Native Americans, Turk's and Egyptians? Is cannabis an expectorant? Does it open small vessels in the lungs as it does the brain? Are 400,000 chemical cigarette smokers dying needlessly each year by not mixing the deadly toxins added to the commercial brand cigarettes, with ganja? Are thousands dying from Asthma when ganja is the only known remedy to stop a full blown attack? Are people not treated for brain tumors because no research has been released on ganja reducing their size since it was censored in 74? Are x presidents not treated for Altzheimers do to the side effects of Nancy Saying NO! Are Parkinson patients and MS spasms forced on barbiturates and toxic addictions to save the children? Are cancer patients dying for the Gipper, for the sake of the terrorwar on Americans using ganja? Does the Church still practice medicine, perpetuating the war on ganja? Do the politicians spend a lot of time looking for a medicinal use of ganja? None? None ever found by the Supremes and their staff? The entire Congress never got curious? N.I.D.E.A.th or No One? Not the I.O.M. or Doctors? Not one? The Senate just sits there along with the Executives in the Long Branch. None found? Has ganja ever been found to inter-react with other Pharmaceuticals? Does alcohol? Has ganja ever killed anyone? Has aspirin? Alcohol? Pharmaceuticals? Pesticides? Herbicides? Nuclear radiation? Crude Oil? Meat or Milk? Any mention of the hundreds of man made chemicals added to American fascist cigarettes? If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities. Voltaire ***$$$***No Medical Value***$$$*** http://www.cannabinoid.com/wwwboard/politics/binaries/27/27582.gif [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Unknown Pleasures on November 11, 2002 at 12:14:23 PT Where is all the cancer? Okay, so if three joints do as much lung-damage as 20 cigarettes, where are the statistics on cancer-plauged pot smokers? What is the mortality rate for potheads?Why are these alarming statistics not printed? [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by DdC on November 11, 2002 at 11:52:56 PT If we believe absurdities... ...we shall commit atrocities. VoltaireThe struggle between the two worlds...[Fascism and Democracy] can permit no compromises. It's either Us or Them!" Benito Mussolini Address, from Palazzo Venezia balcony October 27, 1930 "The German people have no idea of the extent to which they have to be gulled in order to be led." "The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one." From Benito Mussolini contributing to the "London Sunday Express," December 8, 1935 "How many murders, suicides, robberies, criminal assaults, holdups, burglaries and deeds of maniacal insanity it causes each year, especially among the young, can only be conjectured...No one knows, when he places a marijuana cigarette to his lips, whether he will become a joyous reveller in a musical heaven, a mad insensate, a calm philosopher, or a murderer..." HARRY J ANSLINGER Commissioner of the US Bureau of Narcotics 1930 1962 "All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it." Just Say NO!"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise." From Benito Mussolini contributing to the "London Sunday Express," December 8, 1935 "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others." Harry Anslinger, U.S. Commissioner of Narcotics, testifying to Congress on why marijuana should be made illegal, 1937. (Marijuana Tax Act, signed Aug. 2, 1937; effective Oct. 1, 1937.) "The masses have little time to think. And how incredible is the willingness of modern man to believe." "Another weapon I discovered early was the power of the printed word to sway souls to me. The newspaper was soon my gun, my flag - a thing with a soul that could mirror my own." Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini together in the heyday of 1930s fascism. Marijuana is much more dangerous than tobacco MythSmoked marijuana contains about the same amount of carcinogens as does an equivalent amount of tobacco. It should be remembered, however, that a heavy tobacco smoker consumes much more tobacco than a heavy marijuana smoker consumes marijuana. This is because smoked tobacco, with a 90% addiction rate, is the most addictive of all drugs while marijuana is less addictive than caffeine. Two other factors are important. The first is that paraphernalia laws directed against marijuana users make it difficult to smoke safely. These laws make water pipes and bongs, which filter some of the carcinogens out of the smoke, illegal and, hence, unavailable. The second is that, if marijuana were legal, it would be more economical to have cannabis drinks like bhang (a traditional drink in the Middle East) or tea which are totally non-carcinogenic. This is in stark contrast with "smokeless" tobacco products like snuff which can cause cancer of the mouth and throat. When all of these facts are taken together, it can be clearly seen that the reverse is true: marijuana is much SAFER than tobacco. Cannabis is Safe http://www.cannabinoid.com/wwwboard/politics/binaries/27/27623.gif"No class or group or party in Germany could escape its share of responsibility for the abandonment of the democratic Republic and the advent of Adolf Hitler. The cardinal error of the Germans who opposed Nazism was their failure to unite against it. ....the 63% of the German people who expressed their opposition to Hitler were much too divided and shortsighted to combine against a common danger which they must have known would overwhelm them unless they united, HOWEVER TEMPORARY, to stamp it out." -William L. Shirer,D.E.A.th Deceptions http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/ddc/DEAth.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by afterburner on November 11, 2002 at 11:39:52 PT: so-called science; so-called research. This so-called science is equivalent to the so-called research sponsored by the Tobacco industry for years to prove that Tobacco is safe. Now we know better. Equivalent scare tactics were used when LSD was a popular illegal drug: "LSD causes chromosome damage," they said. The rumor was enough to warn many people off it. ego destruction or ego transcendence, that is the question. Let adults make informed decisions about which side effects they are willing to tolerate. Cannabis is not an enforcement issue, it is a medical and spiritual issue. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by medicinal toker on November 11, 2002 at 10:49:02 PT definitely political science! This is just a rehash, but it proves nothing, and it certainly shouldn't be used as an excuse to put people in cages.One only need look as far as the US government's Compassionate IND program and the study done by Dr. Ethan Russo to refute the claims of harm.And as for myself, a daily user for over 30 years, lung tests and other exams show no damage. My lung function is normal or should I say NORML.But I suppose we'll see this bunk study repeated over and over again by prohibitionists, but wishing ain't going to make it so.Cannabis is SAFE! [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by WolfgangWylde on November 11, 2002 at 10:45:43 PT What this article fails... ...to mention (but others reporting on this same study have mentioned) is that the nefarious effects attributed to marijuana with respect to tobacco are caused almost entirely by the way marijuana is smoked - i.e. sucking down a big hit, and holding it in the lungs for as long as possible. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by John Tyler on November 11, 2002 at 10:26:53 PT More propaganda Watch, as decrim. and legalization nears, or the prohibs think it is nearing, you will see more and more "junk science" propaganda stories like this planted in the media. You plant a phoney story, then you can cite it as a reference in a later article if need be. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by schmeff on November 11, 2002 at 10:22:27 PT Science vs. 'political' science Note this comment from the previous article (right below this one):"A key finding highlighted by the review of 90 published papers is that the amount of smoke taken into the lungs is two thirds larger if cannabis is being smoked."No new research here, just a rehash of previously published papers. If you follow the money (which is always good advice), you will realize that there is no serious money involved in finding ANYTHING beneficial about cannabis.We do know that the government of the US of DEA spends billions demonizing the herb, both through the ONDCP (Office to Nurture and Disseminate Cannabis Propaganda) and NIDA.The National Institute of Drug Abuse is a taxpayer funded body that produces volumes of junk science. Their funds come from you and me, but their mandate comes from the ONDCP. They invest billions to pound round pegs into square holes to "prove" a pre-determined result, i.e: cannabis will destroy civilization as we know it. It's not science, it's political science...a way to appease the hand that feeds it.Propaganda, often abbreviated down to it's first two letters: PR. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by knox42897 on November 11, 2002 at 10:21:37 PT: Dr. Russo plese comment on this bogus study I have used Mj for atleast 15 years. Personally, I believe it prevents or helps prevent lung cancer. I smoke MJ and then a tobacco cig. It is my belief, that the MJ smoke cancels out the negative effects of tobacco smoke. My lungs may get "irritated" but I don't have a persistent cough and I rarely get sick from colds. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Sam Adams on November 11, 2002 at 09:58:18 PT Sheer propaganda To see blatantly biased "science" touted by the media is a scary display. What other "news" are they trumpeting that is equally bogus?All this study shows is that the "researchers" have all invested in GW Pharm. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by krutch on November 11, 2002 at 09:35:35 PT: Good Point BGreen In fact in the related post to this article we find:"John P. Morgan of City University of New York Medical School said heavy marijuana smokers do show some symptoms of lung damage, such as coughing, frequent colds and bronchitis, but not the life-threatening conditions seen among tobacco smokers."http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10025.shtmlI discovered from the New Scientist post that this is a survey article. No research was conducted. It is a review of other people's work. Unfortunately, they choose to ignore John P. Morgan's research. His data is based on tracking the health of MJ smokers. In my mind this is far more valid than speculation.They can't show you the bodies. As far as I can see there are none. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on November 11, 2002 at 09:24:58 PT BGreen Have a safe trip and we'll see you when you get back. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by BGreen on November 11, 2002 at 09:23:01 PT Show me the bodies These are nothing more than laboratory studies, but they don't have human trials, and they certainly don't have the ill adults to parade in front of the cameras.Now, I'm going to Amsterdam. I'll try to check in if I have the time.Eat it or vaporize it!!!!!!!! [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by krutch on November 11, 2002 at 09:10:47 PT: Shocking?? Nothing shocking here. We have been hearing this argument for years. I have trouble understanding how 50% more carcinogens equates to almost 7 times the lung damage. Reuters and other new agences are notorious for doing a poor job of reporting the results of scientific research.The idea that pot is more carcinogenic now than it was in the 60's is suspect. Where did they get a typical sample of bud from the 60's? Also did they account for the fact that one smokes much less kind bud than dirt weed? Three joint a day is allot of kind bud. Its not allot of dirt weed.Was this data based on epidmoligy, or animal studies, or is it just another study where reseachers look at the composition of the smoke and speculate on the effects? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Naaps on November 11, 2002 at 09:04:56 PT Health Hysteria Touting the ill effects of cannabis versus tobacco still doesn’t justify prohibition. If indeed, 3 joints were equivalent to 20 cigarettes, and smoking 20 or 80 cigarettes a day isn’t illegal, so by extension neither should smoking 3 or 10 joints a day. Prohibition’s roots were founded in racism, xenophobia, and a belligerent assertion of the state authority over the individual’s autonomy in their own body. Medical findings too often funded specifically to determine nefarious consequences of occasionally partaking have no legitimate bearing on the original unsavory reasons for enacting prohibition. Of course, zealous prohibitionists rejoice as medical consequences are trumped up touting all manner of evil, be it legitimate, or bucket scraping dishonest.The article fails to mention other means of inhaling the smoke. Vaporizers may be a healthier choice. Probably the amount of vegetative matter is what counts, hence smoking smaller quantities of very potent herb is better than large blunts of marginally better than hemp schwag. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by pokesmotter on November 11, 2002 at 08:46:26 PT: the key issue in this article is britain's attitude toward weed. "We're not trying to say 'smoke' or 'don't smoke' cannabis," BLF Chief Executive Dame Helena Shovelton told BBC Radio. "We're saying that if you do, understand the risks involved in doing so." This is the kind of stuff that is good to hear. Informative, yet not forceful. i have a feeling if the study was done here in the US, John Walters would give a televised speech: "weed is bad. it is worse than cigarrettes. don't smoke it." the statement "understand the risks" applies to lots of things that are quite legal and should be used in moderation. one day i think weed will be quite legal. but it is a ways away. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment