cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Cancer Risk Played Down





Marijuana Cancer Risk Played Down
Posted by CN Staff on May 24, 2006 at 07:22:27 PT
By Heather Burke, Bloomberg News
Source: Boston Globe
New York -- People who smoke marijuana may be at less risk of developing lung cancer than tobacco smokers, according to a study presented yesterday. The study of 2,200 people in Los Angeles found that even heavy marijuana smokers were no more likely to develop lung, head, or neck cancer than nonusers, in contrast with tobacco users, whose risk increases the more they smoke.
The findings seemed to be a surprise; marijuana smoke has some of the same cancer-causing substances as tobacco smoke, often in higher concentrations, said the senior researcher, Donald Tashkin, a professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. One possible explanation is that THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, a key ingredient in marijuana not present in tobacco, may inhibit tumor growth, he said.``You can't give marijuana a completely clean bill of health," said Tashkin, who planned a presentation of the study yesterday before the American Thoracic Society. ``I wouldn't give any smoke substance a clean bill of health. All you can say is we haven't been able to confirm our suspicions that marijuana might be a risk factor for lung and head and neck cancer."About 1,200 adults under 60 with cancer of the lung, tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus, took part in the study, as well as about 1,000 without cancer. The study ran from 1999 to 2003.Marijuana use was found to have been no greater or less in any of the groups, 44 percent of those with lung cancer, 41 percent with head or neck cancers, and 42 percent of those without cancer, Tashkin said.Other studies had suggested that marijuana smoking was a risk factor for cancer, Tashkin said. Marijuana smokers inhale more deeply than tobacco smokers, and often hold the smoke in their lungs more than four times longer, depositing more tar, he said.The results of Tashkin's study corroborated some earlier research, said Paul Armentano of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which advocates legalizing marijuana use. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, Tashkin said.Note: Tobacco is called a bigger threat.Source: Boston Globe (MA)Author:  Heather Burke, Bloomberg NewsPublished: May 24, 2006Copyright: 2006 Globe Newspaper CompanyContact: letter globe.comWebsite: http://www.boston.com/globe/Related Articles:Marijuana Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21869.shtmlMary Jane Trumps Joe Camelhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21868.shtmlNo Link Between Marijuana Use and Lung Cancerhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21866.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #39 posted by Hope on May 25, 2006 at 19:41:06 PT
It seems like our representatives should be
rising up in our stead to disband this bunch of crooks.I'm referring, of course, to the Food and Drug Administration.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by Hope on May 25, 2006 at 19:25:26 PT
Comment 36
Believe it or not? Stunning.http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/05/25/adhd_drugs_sent_2500_to_hospital/ 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by FoM on May 25, 2006 at 19:09:57 PT
cannabliss
Are you looking for this article? http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/05/24/marijuana_cancer_risk_played_down/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by cannabliss on May 25, 2006 at 19:04:06 PT
For the children?
While looking for the original article, I stumbled across the following:http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/05/25/adhd_drugs_sent_2500_to_hospital/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by Hope on May 25, 2006 at 16:09:08 PT
Comment 30
"Suggests"? Aaarghhh! Prohibitionists. The headlines for this news (ha), all over the place, are very double speak. They are worse than "the definition of is is" guy! They just can't make themselves say it, can they?They were wrong. Marijuana is not generally harmful and is quite beneficial to some people in many different ways.Prohibitionists, young and old, large and small, and prohibition enforcers and enablers....You are liars! You've been lying for years. You've been shown the truth. You're still lying. Stop it! By sucking up to the government and the industries that control it...yes, they do...like you have, you have caused lives and relationships to be ruined, and people to suffer hideously, you've caused them to be tortured, humiliated, put in cages (imprisoned), paranoid, frightened, bound their hands and dragged them, hit and cursed and robbed them, stolen their children from them, persecuted them, degraded them, and even caused many of them to be killed because of your horror/scare pogram. Stop it! YOU are killers! Little ole, self-righteous, scaredy cat YOU!How many more must you sacrifice on the altar of prohibition, to appease your prohibition god, or desire, or whatever hateful thing it is? Maybe it's Shadenfreude? That or just, Iniquity, would be a good name for the demon of spirit behind prohibition.By the way, I feel very sincerely that I must say, your god is not my God. I'm a Christian. Those of you prohibitionists who claim to be in Christ...You pervert the very gospel of Christ if you cling to prohibition and it's fruit, and continue to disregard the gospel of Love, Peace, FREEDOM, and LIBERTY! Yeah...we were warned that we would be persecuted by the ever present equivalent of the Sadducees and Pharisees. Boy!Pervert the gospel of Christ? That's not a good thing. Is it? It was so easy to do, to despise and persecute the consumers of substances that you didn't proscribe to, too. Wasn't it?To be "unclean" according to the Law (of Moses) was a bad thing. It was immoral. To be unclean was immoral. Nothing from outside a human, going into him can make him unclean. What can make him unclean or immoral, is what comes out of his heart.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by potpal on May 25, 2006 at 15:32:33 PT
Observer
Good observation. Thought the same thing.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by Sam Adams on May 25, 2006 at 14:58:20 PT
observer
My thoughts were the same upon seeing the headline. "Spin" is too nice a word. The headline is a bald-faced lie. There is NO cancer risk from cannabis, that is the result of the study.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by runderwo on May 25, 2006 at 14:15:14 PT
charmed quark
It's not even THC they are testing for. It is even more infuriating than that to anyone who is not ignorant on the subject. They are testing for THC-COOH, the inactive metabolite of THC.So it doesn't even matter that you are high while driving. All that matters is that you broke the law sometime in the past 30 days, and that is reason enough to revoke your driving privileges and put you in jail.Meanwhile, murder or rape someone and drive around all you want while you're on bail.That's "justice", when you are part of a group that conservative society is desperate to marginalize out of existence - with manufactured consequences, and stigmas propagated through ignorance.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by observer on May 25, 2006 at 13:56:55 PT
The Spinning Globe
Marijuana Cancer Risk Played DownInteresting to see the way the Globe played this news. The headline "Marijuana Cancer Risk Played Down," seems to say that pot really does cause cancer, but that has been "played down" by someone. This is the understanding a casual reader will get from skimming the headlines: cannabis causes cancer, but someone (maybe those wicked Legalizers?), has played down the marijuana cancer risk. It is always a challenge to read between the drug war propaganda lines. I'm beginning to suspect that the effect is much larger than NIH and hirelings are willing to admit. The study seems to be structured to not show positive health effects that cannabis may have. In other words, a shrewd NIH grantee will go way out of his/her way to not show any cancer-fighting effects of cannabis. At best, they might let slip that cannabis users fare no worse than non-users. But God forbid that government (NIH, etc.) tells the long forbidden truth that cannabis actually fights cancer. 
http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/propaganda
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by FoM on May 25, 2006 at 13:33:08 PT
New Marijuana Study Suggests FDA Statement Wrong
No elevated risk for lung cancer even for heavy pot smokers.By Maia SzalavitzMay 24 2006When the Institute of Medicine wrote its 1999 report on the medical research on marijuana, it seemed to use the fact that the drug was smoked as a kind of “get out” clause, in what appeared to be an attempt to avoid appearing to fully endorse medical marijuana. Although it did debunk fears about marijuana as a “gateway drug” and the idea that it is highly addictive and noted that marijuana held promise in the treatment of a number of conditions, the group’s report said that because “of the health risks associated with smoking, smoked marijuana should generally not be recommended for long term use.”Complete Article: http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=572
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by Dan B on May 25, 2006 at 11:18:14 PT
Thanks, runderwo
You are correct: nicotine does not cause cancer; it promotes it. While the difference is subtle, you do well to have me take note of it. Nicotine is not a carcinogen because, by definition, carcinogens cause cancer. Nicotine just makes cancer grow easier where carcinogens are found. So, it does not cause cancer; it just makes cancer easier to develop from things that do cause cancer. It also makes cancer chemotherapy less effective. And, where cancer is already present, it increases the growth of blood vessels that feed such cancers, thereby causing cancer tumors to grow at a faster rate. It also increases the growth of plaques associated with atherosclerosis by causing more rapid angiogenesis (the aforementioned growth of new blood vessels).Here are some fascinating links on the subject that I found after I made a search to learn more about what runderwo said:http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1041803352088_14/?hub=Health
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Nicotine_Makes_Lung_Cancer_Chemo_Less_Effective.asp
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010707/fob5.aspSincerely, thanks for clearing that up, runderwo. It is good to learn.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by FoM on May 25, 2006 at 09:56:36 PT
Related Article from NORML
Cannabis Smoking Not Linked To Lung Cancer, Case-Control Study Says***May 24, 2006 - San Diego, CA, USASan Diego, CA: Smoking cannabis, even long-term, is not positively associated with increased incidence of lung-cancer, according to the findings of the largest population-based case-control study performed to date. Lead investigator Donald Tashkin of the David Geffen School of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, at the University of California-Los Angeles, presented the results at the 2006 International Conference of the American Thoracic Society in San Diego.Investigators assessed the possible association between cannabis use and the risk of lung cancer in middle-aged adults (ages 18-59) living in Los Angeles. Researchers conducted interviews with 611 subjects with lung cancer and 1,040 controls matched for age, gender and neighborhood. Data was collected on lifetime marijuana use, as well as subjects' use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, diet, occupation, and family history of cancer. Investigators used a logistical regression model to estimate the effect of cannabis smoking on lung cancer risk, adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, education, and cumulative tobacco smoking and alcohol use."We did not observer a positive association of marijuana use -- even heavy long-term use -- with lung cancer, controlling for tobacco smoking and other potential cofounders," investigators concluded. Their data further revealed that one subset of moderate lifetime users (10-The five-year trial was sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH).NORML Senior Policy Analyst Paul Armentano said that Tashkin's findings reaffirm the results of prior case-control studies dismissing a causal link between cannabis use and certain types of lung and upper aerodigestive tract (UAT) cancers. These include: a 2001 John Hopkins University hospital-based case-control study that found neither "lifetime use" nor "ever use" of cannabis were associated with head, neck or lung cancer in younger adults; a 2004 University of Washington case-control study that found "no association" between cannabis use and incidents of oral cancer, regardless of how long, how much or how often individuals had used it; and a 1997 Kaiser Permanente retrospective cohort study that found that cannabis use was not associated with increased risks of developing tobacco-use related cancers of the lung and upper aerodigestive tract or other cancers in men and women who used marijuana but did not smoke tobacco."The most remarkable aspect of this study is that its findings are, in fact, unremarkable," Armentano said. "As has been previously reported by the US Institute of Medicine and others, there is no conclusive evidence that marijuana causes cancer in humans, including those cancers generally related to tobacco use."Armentano suggested that cannabis consumers who desire the rapid onset of action associated with inhalation but who are concerned about the potential harms of noxious smoke can dramatically cut down on their intake of carcinogenic compounds by engaging in vaporization rather than smoking.For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Senior Policy Analyst, at (202) 483-5500. Additional information on cannabis and cancer is available in NORML's report, "Cannabis Smoke and Cancer: Assessing the Risk," available online at:http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891URL: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6912
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 22:49:46 PT
afterburner
That's definitely different! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by afterburner on May 24, 2006 at 22:19:46 PT
How's This FoM? 
cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis cannabis 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 20:31:54 PT
lombar 
Thanks lombar. I really want to know why we dropped out of the top three. It matters because I want people to be able to find us like they were able and if it's censorship I want to know that too. All of us have worked hard. We have donated our time and thoughts trying to help people understand about cannabis. It matters even though it might not seem important to any one other then me. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by lombar on May 24, 2006 at 20:19:29 PT
You are in..
Position 28, page 3 (10 results per page). That search engine stuff I never really got.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 16:49:22 PT
Hope
It's all strange to me too. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by Hope on May 24, 2006 at 16:47:28 PT
We're bigger....
so we were down sized?Lot's of computer stuff that is beyond me. It seems strange.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 16:41:06 PT
Hope 
We were getting too big. Ron Bennett told me that we are close to 20 times bigger then shows in the stats. I don't know why.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Hope on May 24, 2006 at 16:39:41 PT
We've been down sized?
Why?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by charmed quark on May 24, 2006 at 16:34:06 PT
Ignore this study and proceed
There have been a number of studies that were unable to find any correltation between marijuana smoking and cancers. But the government still pushes "smoking dope will give you cancer". To be honest, there ARE good studies that heavy pot smoking can cause bronchitis, but I've never seen an anti-drug ad that went "Smoking dope could give you bronchitis". That would make a funny ad.It's just like the studies of pot and driving. Study after study shows no strong link between being "high" on pot alone and accidents. They've done simulator studies, accident reviews, etc., and no real link. Some studies show some decrease in acccidents, some show a slight increase. You average them out and there is no link. Yet many states are putting in "zero tolerance" laws where if you have any detectable levels of THC in your blood then you are considered to be "driving under the influence" and treated just like you were driving drunk. And the Federal propaganda machine shows teenagers running over little kids on tricycles because they are high.So, none of these studies matter. Just ignore them.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 16:31:06 PT
dongenero
The way I look at this is we have always been number 3 on google using cannabis as the search word. Cannabis.com was one, cannabis culture was two and we were three. Now I can barely find anything on google concerning us. It has only happened since we have been downsized.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by dongenero on May 24, 2006 at 15:41:51 PT
FoM
No problem with regard to the editing.......I should take time to be sure what I'm posting, no worries.As for CNews on search engines, I think one of the issues is how many sites have links TO you.CNews obviously refers to many, many sites by virtue of linking to all of the various news sources and posted links in these forums, but, there may not be many sites linking to CNews.There are lots of other issues for search engine placing and I am not an expert but let's see.....another is that titles on the web pages can make a difference too. I think that one of the biggies though, is how many sites refer to yours.You can also pay google to enhance your position. I see though that cannabis.com comes up at the top. That has Cnews right on the front page. CNews itself comes up in the search at #10. That's still quite good I think.I'm surprised to see christiansforcannabis.com so prominently positioned!Maybe CNews should offer small, cool looking graphic link banners that web masters could apply to their sites in order to link to you. If enough other sites do this it could ultimately enhance CNews' position in the search engines.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 14:56:23 PT
dongenero 
I wish there was a general edit feature but there just isn't one. I'm sorry. I have been trying to figure out how to get CNews back up where it has been for years under cannabis as the search word on google. CNews is the only site that dropped out. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by dongenero on May 24, 2006 at 14:50:18 PT
yes columnist...sorry
I always fly through my postings and often don't proof read enough.....sorry.I should try to take more time in making my posts.I always see it once it's posted and then I can't change it......darn!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by sam adams on May 24, 2006 at 14:12:19 PT
nicotine
I remember from health class in 7th grade that nicotine also paralyzes the cilia - little hairlike extensions that line the bronchial tubes. The purpose of the cilia is to continually sweep irritants up and out of the lungs.Nicotine shuts 'em down. Cannabis does the direct opposite - it's an expectorant, meaning that it accelerates the process of cleaning stuff out of the lungs.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by runderwo on May 24, 2006 at 13:18:30 PT
Dan B
Nicotine is not a carcinogen. Nicotine suppresses the immune response to malignancies. Nicotine in gum or patches or whatnot would not lead to cancer in the absence of a carcinogen that would cause a malignancy.It is the other junk in corporate tobacco that causes cancer, and nicotine acts as an enabler for the cancer's unimpeded growth and spread. A nasty one-two punch.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 12:21:24 PT
OH Well Duh!
Thanks whig. It didn't make any sense to me. Words and how they can be nothing like they are or something like that. LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by whig on May 24, 2006 at 12:18:48 PT
FoM
I think he meant "columnist."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 12:16:37 PT
dongenero
What do you say that Steve Chapman is a communist? He generally has always been on our side I thought. I'm a little confused.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 12:10:05 PT
Dan B
I'm glad you have steady employment but it's great to see you have a little time to drop in here. The link didn't work but I could tell what article it was by the URL. Here it is. PS: Thank you. Sometimes I wonder if I had a life before CNews. It's been a long time doing news. It's been about 8 years so far. Makes me tired just thinking about it.http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21860.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by dongenero on May 24, 2006 at 12:09:30 PT
Dan B link
The Baltimore SUN article is a Steve Chapman reprint. He's a comumnist with the Chicago Tribune.Here is the CNews link....................http://cannabisnews.com/news/21/thread21860.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Dan B on May 24, 2006 at 12:01:37 PT
Thanks, and another article
I appreciate you, Hope and FoM, for your consistent presence here. I know that you run things, FoM, but that just makes your presence here that much more appreciated.I have been very busy over the past year or so, but now I am off for the summer. It feels good to have full time employment again, but they sure are keeping me running during the fall and spring semesters.Below is a link to an article from the Baltimore Sun in that I thought everyone might be interested.Dan B
The Phony Threat of Liberal Drug Laws
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on May 24, 2006 at 09:18:52 PT
Dan B 
I just want to say it's really good to see you. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by afterburner on May 24, 2006 at 09:13:00 PT
Beauty, Hope
"Save Lives! Legalize!"Short and sweet. Right to the point!Respect!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Hope on May 24, 2006 at 08:34:06 PT
Save Lives! Legalize!
Save Lives! Legalize!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Hope on May 24, 2006 at 08:33:27 PT
Hey Dan...Good to see you, as always.
:0)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Hope on May 24, 2006 at 08:32:45 PT
This is a 32 year old "scoop" to us....
Surely this will kill the beast of prohibition. Surely.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Dan B on May 24, 2006 at 07:46:34 PT
More news for prohibitionists to ignore
Just thought I'd mention that MSN.com is also carrying a story on this study (courtesy of Reuters) at this address: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12943013Of course, for most of us who have studied this issue for any length of time, the reaction to this study is shock...that many people (including, apparently, some who call themselves "scientists" and "journalists") don't already know this very basic fact about cannabis. Anyone here could have predicted this result, and I would be willing to wager that those who knew about this study did. It's a no brainer. Here is the reason why cannabis does not cause lung cancer: THC and other cannabinoids actually fight cancer. In fact, they have been shown in at least two studies (that I know of) to shrink various types of cancer tumors. Nicotine has the opposite effect: it is a carcinogen. Cannabis has no nicotine. Tobacco does.The problem is not that there are no studies that show cannabis is a safe, effective drug. The problem is that prohibitionists lie that there are no such studies so that they can continue to profit from prohibition in the myriad ways that they do.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment