You probably saw this on FARK, but this just in... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CityOfAngels · 10-27-2005, 10:25 AM

Found at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051026/...r_dc&printer=1

Quote:

Pot not a major cancer risk: report
By Amy Norton
Wed Oct 26,12:29 PM ET

Although both marijuana and tobacco smoke are packed with cancer-causing chemicals, other qualities of marijuana seem to keep it from promoting lung cancer, according to a new report.

The difference rests in the often opposing actions of the nicotine in tobacco and the active ingredient, THC, in marijuana, says Dr. Robert Melamede of the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs.

He reviewed the scientific evidence supporting this contention in a recent issue of Harm Reduction Journal.

Whereas nicotine has several effects that promote lung and other types of cancer, THC acts in ways that counter the cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana smoke, Melamede explained in an interview with Reuters Health.

"THC turns down the carcinogenic potential," he said.

For example, lab research indicates that nicotine activates a body enzyme that converts certain chemicals in both tobacco and marijuana smoke into cancer-promoting form. In contrast, studies in mice suggest that THC blocks this enzyme activity.

Another key difference, Melamede said, is in the immune system effects of tobacco and marijuana. Smoke sends irritants into the respiratory system that trigger an immune-regulated inflammatory response, which involves the generation of potentially cell-damaging substances called free radicals. These particles are believed to contribute to a range of diseases, including cancer.

But cannabinoids -- both those found in marijuana and the versions found naturally in the body -- have been shown to dial down this inflammatory response, Melamede explained.

Another difference between tobacco and marijuana smoking, he said, has to do with cells that line the respiratory tract. While these cells have receptors that act as docks for nicotine, similar receptors for THC and other cannabinoids have not been found.

Nicotine, Melamede said, appears to keep these cells from committing "suicide" when they are genetically damaged, by smoking, for instance. When such cells do not kill themselves off, they are free to progress into tumors.

THC, however, does not appear to act this way in the respiratory tract -- though, in the brain, where there are cannabinoid receptors, it may have the beneficial effect of protecting cells from death when they are damaged from an injury or stroke, according to Melamede.

All of this, he said, fits in with population studies that have failed to link marijuana smoking with a higher risk of lung cancer -- though there is evidence that pot users have more respiratory problems, such as chronic cough and frequent respiratory infections.

If marijuana does not promote lung cancer, that could factor into the ongoing debate over so-called medical marijuana. Melamede said he believes "marijuana has loads of medicinal value," for everything from multiple sclerosis, to the chronic pain of arthritis, to nausea caused by cancer treatment.

U.S. government officials, however, maintain that the evidence for medical marijuana is not there. Ten states allow people to use marijuana with a doctor's prescription, but the Supreme Court has ruled that federal law trumps state law.

SOURCE: Harm Reduction Journal, October 18, 2005.

Nice one.

VitaminH · 10-27-2005, 01:48 PM

The lowered cancer risk has been suspected for some time. As with any medical studies, this needs to be peer reviewed and further studies done. No, I'm not trying to be some stick in the mud saying this proves nothing, but it doesn't definitively prove that there is no cancer risk either. One should also remember that pot still likely causes things like emphysema and chronic bronchitis and the like, which are not fun.

As far as my opinion on pot goes, legalize it for all I care. It tends to be far less damaging to people than things like coke and meth. And it's not bloody likely to be more addictive than nicotine, which IIRC is at least in the top five of most addictive substances known. I want to say it's number 2 right behined heroin, but someone will for sure correct me if I'm wrong.

CityOfAngels · 10-27-2005, 05:41 PM

Indeed. Good points.

Let's compare the legalities of marijuana and tobacco.
Tobacco:
- Legal for persons 18 and over (in California)
- Kills millions of people every year.
- Contains one of the most physically addictive substances known to man, which just so happens to also be a carcinogen.
- Is also mentally addictive due to its small high.
- Brings in tax dollars and even more money for schools, etc.
- Has a small high that is often fully tolerated after frequent use.

Marijuana:
- Illegal.
- I don't know the statistics of marijuana and death, but I'm sure that if it even kills people at all, it kills less people than cigarrettes do.
- Is not physically addictive.
- Can be mentally addictive due to the amazing feeling you get from use.
- Tax dollars are spent to rid us of this rather than made by producing it.
- Has an incredible high, but doesn't impair nearly as many motor skills that alcohol does. Occasional users usually have no tolerance for marijuana, as the effects are fast and you don't have to use a lot of it to get relaxed. Tolerance can be built, but you have to smoke every day to build it.

So cigarrettes are worse for us than marijuana, they kill more people than marijuana, they hardly produce any high at all (unlike marijuana), and they're physically addictive (unlike marijuana), yet they're legal (unlike marijuana). What's up with that? And before you say, "We don't want everyone walking around high all day long," remember that alcohol is legal. You can legally get drunk all day long (in the comfort of your own home), yet who actually does that other than alcoholics and people trying to kill themselves?

If we can keep alcohol restricted, yet legal, we can do the same thing with marijuana. No, I don't think you should be able to go into work high, just as it's not cool to go into work drunk. I don't see ANY reason to make it illegal, though, while tobacco and alcohol, two substances that are substantially worse than marijuana on many scales, are perfectly legal.

hannukah harry · 10-28-2005, 12:32 AM

CityOfAngels

you seem to forget... black and brown people smoke da reefer. and it makes what people crazy, crazy, i tells ya. which is why it can't be legal.

/sarcasm.
//lots and lots of sarcasm
///slashy

skinnymofo · 10-28-2005, 07:37 AM

if pot were legal, every single smoker in the whole us (or nearly every one) will immediately start growing weed. its incredibly simple to do. simply plant the sprouted seeds and wala.
making liquor is illegal (for the no brewer permitted) and brewing is semi complicated.
they wouldnt make hardly anything in taxes so it will stay illegal unfortunately.
also a regular smoker is hard to pick out, people go to work stoned all the time and go mostly unnoticed. clear eyes a just a small amount of self control and its impossible to tell a stoner from a slightly slow person.

hannukah harry · 10-28-2005, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinnymofo

if pot were legal, every single smoker in the whole us (or nearly every one) will immediately start growing weed. its incredibly simple to do. simply plant the sprouted seeds and wala.
making liquor is illegal (for the no brewer permitted) and brewing is semi complicated.
they wouldnt make hardly anything in taxes so it will stay illegal unfortunately.
also a regular smoker is hard to pick out, people go to work stoned all the time and go mostly unnoticed. clear eyes a just a small amount of self control and its impossible to tell a stoner from a slightly slow person.

i think most people aren't going to take the time to grow their own. it's faster and easier to buy, especially if you want premium shit. if all you do is smoke skank, than sure, grow your own. but anything else most people will pay for.

CityOfAngels · 10-28-2005, 09:18 AM

Edit above post (I assume): "aren't"

MooseMan3000 · 10-29-2005, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinnymofo

if pot were legal, every single smoker in the whole us (or nearly every one) will immediately start growing weed. its incredibly simple to do. simply plant the sprouted seeds and wala.
making liquor is illegal (for the no brewer permitted) and brewing is semi complicated.
they wouldnt make hardly anything in taxes so it will stay illegal unfortunately.
also a regular smoker is hard to pick out, people go to work stoned all the time and go mostly unnoticed. clear eyes a just a small amount of self control and its impossible to tell a stoner from a slightly slow person.

Assuming you're right about everybody growing their own (which I don't think is true: see Harry's post), keeping it illegal and enforcing that policy costs money. Legalizing it makes it free.

Also, if you can't pick out a smoker from a stupid person, what's the harm? The only people who will be hurt if people are stoned are the stoners themselves, because they won't be able to perform well, and because of that they won't be able to get good jobs. Oh wait, that's already true. So who gives a shit?

Siege · 10-29-2005, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CityOfAngels

Marijuana:
- Illegal.
- I don't know the statistics of marijuana and death, but I'm sure that if it even kills people at all, it kills less people than cigarrettes do.

Marijuana itself won't kill you. You'd have to smoke A LOT (somewhere in the triple digits) in a row for it to kill you.

I guess you could say that some people do stupid shit after and end up killing themselves/others while under the influence.

Xerxys · 11-09-2008, 02:17 PM

Spammer Attacks again..........

OK, so according to this chart, marijuana is the lowest dangerous drug in USA, and also according to Marijuana Health Mythology which is a stupid site that deals with conspiracy theories, there have been very few cases linked with marijuana ending up in death, all this I got from the first few results on google marijuana death stats!!

Why is that though?? Why is marijuana illegal, what would be the result of making the childrens' book Cinderella illegal?? OK, I know you cant compare the two but seriously, we get dependent on more things in life, especially things you never notice like coffee!!

Zeraph · 11-09-2008, 06:53 PM

I think the tobacco lobbyist have been behind putting the pressure on to keep pot illegal all along. They stand the most to lose. Who wants a cig when you can have pot?

Amaras · 11-09-2008, 07:35 PM

Guys,
I smoked pot for 24 years. I don't anymore. It was what it was, when it was.
I've been exposed to a helluva a lot of info about this, and the OP is just as full of SHIT
as those that say pot will make you go crazy, lower your IQ, etc....

Is pot less harmful than crack, or smoking? Yes.
But would you rather get shot with a BB gun or a .354 caliber weapon? Or not shot at all?

ANYTHING that triggers (I might misuse some terms, but I know the gist is right) the pleasure
centers in the brain leads to harm. The brain's ability to regenerate the receptors required
becomes atrophied, leaving you in a constant state of depletion. You stop, your brain
eventually comes back to normal (that's called neuroplasticity).

Also, it leads to a fairly dull existence, when I think back. I'll probably smoke again,
once in a while, but I don't really care when.

Smoke, don't smoke pot, it's your choice. Just don't believe the hype from EITHER side
of the issue.

MSD · 11-11-2008, 08:08 PM

Cannabis was outlawed because of a massive lobbying effort on the part of paper companies, aided by Hearst's publishing empire, who realized that hemp paper would put wood pulp paper out of business. Now it's a matter of habit to keep it illegal for most, and the anti-drug zealots backing them up loudly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grolsch

ANYTHING that triggers (I might misuse some terms, but I know the gist is right) the pleasure
centers in the brain leads to harm. The brain's ability to regenerate the receptors required
becomes atrophied, leaving you in a constant state of depletion. You stop, your brain
eventually comes back to normal (that's called neuroplasticity).

Anything that binds to a particular receptor will affect your brain chemistry, but it's only when your brain habituates artificial receptor saturation and develops more receptors because the foreign substance is a receptor antagonist that a substance is physically addictive. Anything else is psychological habituation.

Caffeine, for example, binds to adenosine receptors and prevents your brain from getting the message that you need to sleep; in response your brain constructs more adenosine receptors to compensate and you need more caffeine to stay awake. THC, cannabidol, and the gang bind to endogenous cannabinoid receptors but do not lead to receptor construction. Same goes for cocaine, which is a CNS stimulant (fun fact: ritalin binds to the same receptor as cocaine) but not physically addictive. Non-physically addictive substances can be psychologically habit-forming, which is why potheads and coke "addicts" are around.

Fun fact 2: Tylenol is deacetylized to the primary amine and conjugated wtih arachidonic acid to N-arachidonoylphenolamine, also known as AM404, an endogenous cannabinoid which produces its analgesic effects. Unfortunately, this does not translate to Tylenol helping my chronic back pain like smoking does.

thingstodo · 11-14-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSD

Cannabis was outlawed because of a massive lobbying effort on the part of paper companies, aided by Hearst's publishing empire, who realized that hemp paper would put wood pulp paper out of business. Now it's a matter of habit to keep it illegal for most, and the anti-drug zealots backing them up loudly.

That may be true; however, I saw a documentary titled Grass narrated by Woody Harrelson Grass (1999) that went into the subject. I don't remember specifics, but there was something to do with racism and the original head of the first DEA agency. According to imde:

This film explores the history of the American government's official policy on marijuana in the 20th century. Rising with nativist xenophobia with Mexican immigration and their taste for smoking marijuana, we see the establishment of a wrong headed federal drug policy as a crime issue as oppposed to a public health approach. Fuelled by prejudice, hysterical propaganda and political opportunism undeterred by voices of reason on the subject, we follow the story of a costly and futile crusade against a substance with questionable ill effects that has damaged basic civil liberites.

Amazon.com video review: This playful documentary from Ron Mann (Comic Book Confidential) is less a social history of marijuana than a satirical portrait of the American government's systematic seven-decade campaign to demonize the devil's weed. Mann excerpts hysterical educational scare films, clips from campy overheated features like Reefer Madness and High on the Range, and a hilarious anti-drug spot by an obviously stoned Sonny Bono to contrast decades of exaggeration and blatant misinformation with two official (and subsequently ignored) government studies that find pot to be a relatively harmless drug, both less addictive and less dangerous than either alcohol or cigarettes. Narrated in an easy, conversational tone by hemp activist Woody Harrelson, it's a well-researched and smartly organized argument against the war on drugs, at least this drug. And Mann makes no pretense at balance: he's preaching to the converted with a sarcastic sermon. When the official record is missing, he even fabricates his own slyly ironic mock newsreels and newspaper clippings, which undercut the strength of the real documents but never hurts his case as a whole. This witty history lesson is a thinking man's Reefer Madness for the pro-pot movement.

And from another another review:

Grass tells the fascinating story of the REAL history of the American government's fight against marijuana use. The fight to criminalize other drugs is addressed but that theme is only tangential to the theme of this film. Grass is narrated by actor Woody Harrelson who does a great job of narrating while not interfering with your ability to view rarely seen archival footage from newsreels and public school educational films that tired so hard to discourage young people from smoking marijuana.

We quickly learn that the fight to criminalize marijuana use began in the early 1900s when Americans noticed that Mexicans coming here for work used marijuana at the end of the day to relax after hard labor. Rumors traveled that the drug made the Mexican men wild and physically dangerous and so laws against the drug were passed. We also get great archival footage of narcotics agent Anslinger fighting drugs use and even FDR signing laws into effect that criminalized marijuana with stiff legal penalties. On the other hand we also see former mayor of New York LaGuardia's own six year study to understand the true effects of marijuana on people and how Anslinger wanted so badly to destroy every copy of this report that he could get his hands on. In one particularly hard to swallow scene, we meet a young man who came home a decorated hero from Vietnam--but after his trial for possession of marijuana he was sentenced to 50 years in prison! Wow, that WAS a harsh sentence.

But the bottom line is that however pot was criminalized, it was stupid and our "War on drugs" has been a huge waste of money. There is a lot more about the movie out there. I tried to only include material relating to the subject.

10-27-2005, 01:48 PM	#2 (permalink)
VitaminH An embarrassment to myself and those around me... Location: Pants	The lowered cancer risk has been suspected for some time. As with any medical studies, this needs to be peer reviewed and further studies done. No, I'm not trying to be some stick in the mud saying this proves nothing, but it doesn't definitively prove that there is no cancer risk either. One should also remember that pot still likely causes things like emphysema and chronic bronchitis and the like, which are not fun. As far as my opinion on pot goes, legalize it for all I care. It tends to be far less damaging to people than things like coke and meth. And it's not bloody likely to be more addictive than nicotine, which IIRC is at least in the top five of most addictive substances known. I want to say it's number 2 right behined heroin, but someone will for sure correct me if I'm wrong. __________________ "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte

10-28-2005, 12:32 AM	#4 (permalink)
hannukah harry Junkie	CityOfAngels you seem to forget... black and brown people smoke da reefer. and it makes what people crazy, crazy, i tells ya. which is why it can't be legal. /sarcasm. //lots and lots of sarcasm ///slashy __________________ shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

11-09-2008, 07:35 PM	#12 (permalink)
Amaras Junkie Location: At my daughter's beck and call.	Guys, I smoked pot for 24 years. I don't anymore. It was what it was, when it was. I've been exposed to a helluva a lot of info about this, and the OP is just as full of SHIT as those that say pot will make you go crazy, lower your IQ, etc.... Is pot less harmful than crack, or smoking? Yes. But would you rather get shot with a BB gun or a .354 caliber weapon? Or not shot at all? ANYTHING that triggers (I might misuse some terms, but I know the gist is right) the pleasure centers in the brain leads to harm. The brain's ability to regenerate the receptors required becomes atrophied, leaving you in a constant state of depletion. You stop, your brain eventually comes back to normal (that's called neuroplasticity). Also, it leads to a fairly dull existence, when I think back. I'll probably smoke again, once in a while, but I don't really care when. Smoke, don't smoke pot, it's your choice. Just don't believe the hype from EITHER side of the issue. __________________ Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. -Noam Chomsky Love is a verb, not a noun. -My Mom The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later. -Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

10-27-2005, 05:41 PM	#3 (permalink)
CityOfAngels Oh shit it's Wayne Brady! Location: Passenger seat of Wayne Brady's car.	Indeed. Good points. Let's compare the legalities of marijuana and tobacco. Tobacco: - Legal for persons 18 and over (in California) - Kills millions of people every year. - Contains one of the most physically addictive substances known to man, which just so happens to also be a carcinogen. - Is also mentally addictive due to its small high. - Brings in tax dollars and even more money for schools, etc. - Has a small high that is often fully tolerated after frequent use. Marijuana: - Illegal. - I don't know the statistics of marijuana and death, but I'm sure that if it even kills people at all, it kills less people than cigarrettes do. - Is not physically addictive. - Can be mentally addictive due to the amazing feeling you get from use. - Tax dollars are spent to rid us of this rather than made by producing it. - Has an incredible high, but doesn't impair nearly as many motor skills that alcohol does. Occasional users usually have no tolerance for marijuana, as the effects are fast and you don't have to use a lot of it to get relaxed. Tolerance can be built, but you have to smoke every day to build it. So cigarrettes are worse for us than marijuana, they kill more people than marijuana, they hardly produce any high at all (unlike marijuana), and they're physically addictive (unlike marijuana), yet they're legal (unlike marijuana). What's up with that? And before you say, "We don't want everyone walking around high all day long," remember that alcohol is legal. You can legally get drunk all day long (in the comfort of your own home), yet who actually does that other than alcoholics and people trying to kill themselves? If we can keep alcohol restricted, yet legal, we can do the same thing with marijuana. No, I don't think you should be able to go into work high, just as it's not cool to go into work drunk. I don't see ANY reason to make it illegal, though, while tobacco and alcohol, two substances that are substantially worse than marijuana on many scales, are perfectly legal.

10-28-2005, 07:37 AM	#5 (permalink)
skinnymofo Addict ed to smack Location: Seattle	if pot were legal, every single smoker in the whole us (or nearly every one) will immediately start growing weed. its incredibly simple to do. simply plant the sprouted seeds and wala. making liquor is illegal (for the no brewer permitted) and brewing is semi complicated. they wouldnt make hardly anything in taxes so it will stay illegal unfortunately. also a regular smoker is hard to pick out, people go to work stoned all the time and go mostly unnoticed. clear eyes a just a small amount of self control and its impossible to tell a stoner from a slightly slow person.

10-28-2005, 09:18 AM	#7 (permalink)
CityOfAngels Oh shit it's Wayne Brady! Location: Passenger seat of Wayne Brady's car.	Edit above post (I assume): "aren't"

11-09-2008, 02:17 PM	#10 (permalink)
Xerxys Junkie Location: My head.	Spammer Attacks again.......... OK, so according to this chart, marijuana is the lowest dangerous drug in USA, and also according to Marijuana Health Mythology which is a stupid site that deals with conspiracy theories, there have been very few cases linked with marijuana ending up in death, all this I got from the first few results on google marijuana death stats!! Why is that though?? Why is marijuana illegal, what would be the result of making the childrens' book Cinderella illegal?? OK, I know you cant compare the two but seriously, we get dependent on more things in life, especially things you never notice like coffee!!

11-09-2008, 06:53 PM	#11 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	I think the tobacco lobbyist have been behind putting the pressure on to keep pot illegal all along. They stand the most to lose. Who wants a cig when you can have pot?