Cannabis and Small Cell Lung Cancer: Case Report

[GanjaPharma]

if i read that 2008 study correctly, it looks like they used some subjects who used tobacco AND cannabis...then they adjusted for the tobacco risk statistically?

for each joint-yr of cannabis smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking

the 8% per "joint year"(??) comes after they did whatever statistical adjustment they needed to weed out the tobacco use risk. no room for political spin there!

what if tobacco+cannabis is worse than tobacco use alone? and cannabis by itself is better than either?

why on earth didnt they toss out anyone except for cannabis only smokers? i can think of a few reasons.

1) they would have had fewer participants (wonder what the number was?)

2) they wanted a given result from their study. after examining all the data, they modeled their study to most closely resemble other studies that would tell them what they needed to hear.

I say NEEDED because there is a ton of money out there for any scientist willing to pimp his professional reputation for the feds. and none at all for a contrary opinion.

anyhoo, that bit was seriously fishy.

 

[ijim]

I cant believe people are still claiming that smoking pot doesnt cause cancer.
Talk about nieve.

Bump

 

[ijim]

if i read that 2008 study correctly, it looks like they used some subjects who used tobacco AND cannabis...then they adjusted for the tobacco risk statistically?


the 8% per "joint year"(??) comes after they did whatever statistical adjustment they needed to weed out the tobacco use risk. no room for political spin there!

what if tobacco+cannabis is worse than tobacco use alone? and cannabis by itself is better than either?

why on earth didnt they toss out anyone except for cannabis only smokers? i can think of a few reasons.

1) they would have had fewer participants (wonder what the number was?)

2) they wanted a given result from their study. after examining all the data, they modeled their study to most closely resemble other studies that would tell them what they needed to hear.

I say NEEDED because there is a ton of money out there for any scientist willing to pimp his professional reputation for the feds. and none at all for a contrary opinion.

anyhoo, that bit was seriously fishy.

Why do you need a study that says smoke irritating your lungs is bad. Don't you trust your own body and mind? Anybody that says smoke does not effect you lungs is either young or in denial.
At 57 and been a smoker since 1965 I will asure you that smoking Cannabis has its problems. But society has to weigh those problems with those that benefit society and go from there. I have a disability caused by smoking Cannabis. But have I said ooh that's bad. No insted of smoking doobs all day long I make Hash and butter thus I take a hit or two to replace a joint. Or make a stack of pancakes with butter and cruise all day. I love the taste and smell but I understand that all smoke can kill so I work from there.

 

[imnotkrazy]

Why do you need a study that says smoke irritating your lungs is bad. Don't you trust your own body and mind? Anybody that says smoke does not effect you lungs is either young or in denial.
At 57 and been a smoker since 1965 I will asure you that smoking Cannabis has its problems. But society has to weigh those problems with those that benefit society and go from there. I have a disability caused by smoking Cannabis. But have I said ooh that's bad. No insted of smoking doobs all day long I make Hash and butter thus I take a hit or two to replace a joint. Or make a stack of pancakes with butter and cruise all day. I love the taste and smell but I understand that all smoke can kill so I work from there.

The truth might hurt, but its better than saying there is no possible harm. Just breathing the air can kill in some places. I'll risk toking when I do because it eases rage quicker than eating does.

 

[pearlemae]

What I remember for my statistics class in college, low those many years ago, was that stats can be skewed to read what ever you want. So if your worried about cancer and weed then stop smoking weed. If you use tobacco and smoke weed why are you even reading this thread, much less worrying about cancer.
I DON'T SMOKE AND I DON'T CHEW AND I DON'T GO WITH THE DIRLS THAT DO/LOL Used to tho.

 

[One Love 731]

Ya find what your looking for. More than not ya hear what they want ya to hear. At least the government is working hard to get there spending limits raised and the American dollar is soon to be worth nothing. Allot of these study's are done with one of maybe 85+ Cannabinoids in mind while ignoring the rest and how they might effect the final result. 1

 

[Hydrosun]

I cant believe people are still claiming that smoking pot doesnt cause cancer.
Talk about nieve.

So Clown, didn't the tobacco industry keep the no cancer line through the 1990's even having their CEO's testify in front of congress that they didn't believe tobacco causes cancer?

I can't believe that clowns claim cannabis smoking causes cancer yet can't present any scientific evidence to support their fear mongering.

Talk about weak sauce.

 

[ijim]

The truth might hurt, but its better than saying there is no possible harm. Just breathing the air can kill in some places. I'll risk toking when I do because it eases rage quicker than eating does.

The benefits versus the harm. As long as people claim that Cannabis cures diseases the general public wont be behind legalization. Cannabis cures nothing. But there is no other compound that works as well to deal with all impairments. When you feel better any dealing with any impairment is easier. When we can stand up and say yes there are problems. Then we can advance the use of Cannabis in the general public. We will never normalize the use of Cannabis until we can face the problems with use and deal with them. The current trend of vaporizers, edibles and concentrates will go a long way in normalizing the use of Cannabis. To say what about tobacco or alcohol is just passing the buck. We cant begin to find the answers until it is legal and studied on large population segments. Then you will still have to weed out the cream from the bullshit. If you really give a shit. I will enjoy the taste and smell to the grave. But I have to consider others.

 

[b8man]

Cramming a ton of smoke into your lungs is very probably bad for you. Every one of you must have had that inkling when you wake up with an aching chest after a heavy session. It probably irritates cells enough to become cancerous.

But then again, what doesn't cause cancer?

It would be interesting to know why there aren't more studies which use decent figures and control groups. They've been trying to demonize weed for a long time; if the evidence had been there, i'm sure it would have been screamed into our ears 24/7.

 

[CLOWD11]

So Clown, didn't the tobacco industry keep the no cancer line through the 1990's even having their CEO's testify in front of congress that they didn't believe tobacco causes cancer?

I can't believe that clowns claim cannabis smoking causes cancer yet can't present any scientific evidence to support their fear mongering.

Talk about weak sauce.

Well Hydrotwat, not everyone who uses pot is in some delerious fairytale belief that burning shit and jamming it into your lungs is good for you.

Cannabis smoke contains many of the same cancer causing substances (carcinogens) as tobacco - at least 50 of them. In addition, cannabis is often mixed with tobacco when smoked.
One of these carcinogens is benzyprene. Benzyprene is in the tar of both tobacco and cannabis cigarettes. We know that benzyprene causes cancer. It alters a gene called p53, which is a tumour suppressor gene. We know that 3 out of 4 lung cancers (75%) occur in people who have faulty p53 genes. The p53 gene is also linked to many other cancers.
Cannabis also contains a substance called THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). It is the THC in the cannabis that changes your mood and behaviour. The amount of THC in a cannabis cigarette varies considerably. Researchers have shown that THC causes benzpyrene to promote the p53 gene to change.

http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk....-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer

You will obviously disagree that benzyprene causes cancer, so its no use talking to experts like you.

 

[One Love 731]

Well Hydrotwat, not everyone who uses pot is in some delerious fairytale belief that burning shit and jamming it into your lungs is good for you.

You grow with LED's

 

[dddaver]

GRANNY STORM CROW,...you're on.

 

[CLOWD11]

You grow with LED's

Yeah, and i even smoke the shit they produce. Does somehow using LEDs make my previous statement incorrect?

This plant tasted nice, probably still altering/damaging my dna in my lungs and throat, but thats the risk we smokers take.

 

[zymos]

...and another thread degenerates into personal attacks and name calling...

 

[THC123]

all i know is when i smoke a few joints every day for a few weeks my lungs dont feel good and i get short of breath

when i only vape after a week i can breathe normally again

i notice it especially on the bike

smoke is never good

 

[DoobieDuck]

I'm with Jim

I'm with Jim

The benefits versus the harm.... ...there is no other compound that works as well to deal with all impairments. The current trend of vaporizers, edibles and concentrates will go a long way in normalizing the use of Cannabis..

Spurr thanks for posting. I have trouble with the one guy aspect of this study.
Each individual using cannabis has to weigh the odds of the risks involved. Many patients are extremely ill, some facing death now, they use because the bennefits they receive are more than the risks.. My quality of life is improved moments after a hit of a doob. But I smoke very little, I injest most of my meds. A problem is we, and the goverment, have to rely on the scientific community to provide us honest factual studies. Those sometimes are skewed and not what they portray. Be well, DD

 

[headband 707]

Smoking is just bad for the lungs and you really don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out lol.. Although I love my joints I know intuitively that this is not a good idea .. peace out Headband707

 

[Coco_nuts]

He probably got the cancer from the polluted water and air. One case rofl so fucking lame. Look at cigarettes, friggin hundreds of thousands of cases.

 

[headband 707]

He probably got the cancer from the polluted water and air. One case rofl so fucking lame. Look at cigarettes, friggin hundreds of thousands of cases.

Yeah I think I agree with this one lol.. But when your sick all this shit adds up so this is why a doc asks you to vap. If I was a doc I would recommend vaping cannabis obviously..
There is definately a difference in vaping and smoking maybe it's just habit for me not sure.. peace out Headband707

 

[brotherindica]

@ all,

I will get the following studies tomorrow. It looks like there is a bigger body of evidence with respect to cannabis smoke and cancer (ex., lung), than I thought.:

"Cannabis use and cancer of the head and neck: case-control study"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18312888


"Cannabis smoking and risk of lung cancer in men: a pooled analysis of three studies in Maghreb"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19057263


"Epidemiologic review of marijuana use and cancer risk"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16054989

Hello Spurr,



Interesting topic, however I don't really believe there is 'hard' evidence linking cannabis to cancer.

Sorry I can't fully access all articles you've posted, I'll try too soon. From what I've read, here are a few points I noticed:


"Cannabis use and cancer of the head and neck: case-control study"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18312888

"RESULTS:

There were 75 cases and 319 controls. An increased risk of cancer was found with increasing tobacco use, alcohol consumption, and decreased income but not increasing cannabis use. The highest tertile of cannabis use (>8.3 joint years) was associated with a nonsignificant increased risk of cancer (relative risk = 1.6, 95% confidence interval, 0.5-5.2) after adjustment for confounding variables.
CONCLUSIONS:

Cannabis use did not increase the risk of head and neck cancer; however, because of the limited power and duration of use studied, a small or longer-term effect cannot be excluded."






"Cannabis smoking and risk of lung cancer in men: a pooled analysis of three studies in Maghreb"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19057263

"RESULTS:

Ninety-six percent of the cases and 67.8% of the controls were tobacco smokers and 15.3% of the cases and 5% of the controls were ever cannabis smokers. All cannabis smokers were tobacco users. Adjusting for country, age, tobacco smoking, and occupational exposure, the odds ratio (OR) for lung cancer was 2.4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-3.8) for ever cannabis smoking. This association remained after adjustment for lifetime tobacco packyears as continuous variable, OR = 2.3 (95% CI: 1.5-3.6). The OR adjusted for intensity of tobacco smoking (cigarette/d) among current tobacco smokers and never cannabis smokers was 10.9 (95% CI: 6.0-19.7) and the OR among current tobacco users and ever cannabis smokers was 18.2 (95% CI: 8.0-41.0). The risk of lung cancer increased with increasing joint-years, but not with increasing dose or duration of cannabis smoking.
CONCLUSION:

Our results suggest that cannabis smoking may be a risk factor for lung cancer. However, residual confounding by tobacco smoking or other potential confounders may explain part of the increased risk."










I'm not saying inhalation of any smoked matter is healthy. Believe any adult can realize inhaling smoke may not be the best thing for their health. Cannabis simply contains numerous beneficial molecules. Obtaining these molecules through smoking, well, eventually that *may* present a problem. Is smoking the healthiest option for cannabinoid delivery? No. Is it efficient and effective? Yes. Long term smokers would absolutely benefit from a good vaporizer, but I'm just not sure the evidence is 100% there to say cannabis smoking will cause cancer.


I haven't looked at the researchers/publishers of these studies, but that needs mentioning. Any study, ANY STUDY, is only as good as the researchers performing the study. From their academic history, research methods, data collect, organization affiliation, funding sources, etc. With the proper bias, funding, or intentions it's amazing what you can make 'data' say. Just my