Smoking a joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer

[RageCash-Ben]

Sounds like alot of people didn't read the article or are in complete denial.

[Bill]

So, I guess those two studies last year, and the other studies in previous years, that found that grass had a protective effect on lung cancer, were just horrible hippie propaganda then.

Will those filthy medical hippies never give up?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...501729_pf.html

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/new...ht-lung-tumors

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000508/m...o-cause-cancer

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html

Dirty medical hippies, daring to release studies that don't claim grass causes cancer - haven't they read this 20 year old much debunked propaganda? Why do they hate america?

[hashbury]

Originally Posted by Bill

So, I guess those two studies last year, and the other studies in previous years, that found that grass had a protective effect on lung cancer, were just horrible hippie propaganda then.

Will those filthy medical hippies never give up?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...501729_pf.html

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/new...ht-lung-tumors

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000508/m...o-cause-cancer

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html

Dirty medical hippies, daring to release studies that don't claim grass causes cancer - haven't they read this 20 year old much debunked propaganda? Why do they hate america?

I saw one of those articles in high times.

[dunc]

I suppose it depends how big you wrap 'em

[Bill]

I did want to add, I thought you were referring to the old studies, I didn't realize you were referring to this new one.

The new study still has to explain why the epidemiologists and pulmanologists just released a series of large studies that showed that cannabis had the effect of reducing lung cancers.

Here's an example of the older articles - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/141891.stm

these kinds of claims have been contradicted by several large studies, one released in 2006, the other in 2007.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...7F0000&ref=rss

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2696726.shtml

This new study will get peer reviewed and repeated - I'm sure the governments will fund repeat tests - so we'll see if they come up with an explanation for the different results.

This new NZ study was done with roughly 300 people, the studies above are described as large, one was done with about 2500 people, the other I thought was even more.

[FanTC]

I vote double diddly dog bullshit too.
I'm living proof of it. I smoke a minimum of a pack and a half to 2 packs of cigs a day and since Katrina, a minimum of 5 3.5 to 4 gram joints a day.

I use a rolling machine so I don't roll those pregnant hooters that are quarter inch of paper on each end and a gram or 2 of reefer in the middle.
According to that, I'm smoking bout the equiv of a carton of cigs of cancer a day.

Pre 2005, I smoked cigs about the same rate and prolly a minimum of 2 joints a day. Shouldn't I have died sometime in the early 90's?

Sometimes you wanna get higher
And sometimes you gotta start low
Some people think they gonna die someday
I got news ya never got to go
~Ted Nugent

[ponygirl]

Originally Posted by RageCash-Ben

Sounds like alot of people didn't read the article or are in complete denial.

well, I read the article

The researchers interviewed 79 lung cancer patients and sought to identify the main risk factors for the disease, such as smoking, family history and occupation. The patients were questioned about alcohol and cannabis consumption.

In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking.

"While our study covers a relatively small group, it shows clearly that long-term cannabis smoking increases lung cancer risk," wrote Beaseley.

That's an awfully small sample group. How many of those patients did smoke more than one j a day for 10 years, or 2/day for 5? And the line 'after adjusting for other variables' is kinda vague too. Did the person(s) who smoked the pot also smoke cigarettes? Or work in a high risk environment?

I'm not saying smoking it isn't bad for your lungs. Any smoke inhalation is bad. But I don't know if this particular study shows clearly that there's that much of an increased risk by pot smoking alone.

or maybe I am in denial

[cosmiccat]

I smoked my share back in the 80's but don't anymore. Don't want it, don't miss it, never got addicted. Inhaling any smoke has to be bad but 20 times doesn't sound right. Then again what do I know!

[SheepGuy]

I used to do a lot of drugs, pot, acid, mushrooms, peyote, coke, pretty much everything except heroin and speed. The only drugs I became addicted to were legal ones, nicotine and alcohol. I still smoke and I'm still an alcoholic.
The governments spend big money on persecuting folks who smoke an innocuous little plant that is not physically addictive, and ignore the taxable physically addictive drugs because they are an income source for them.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by SheepGuy

...pretty much everything except heroin and speed...

You speak as if those 2 are in the same class

[SheepGuy]

Originally Posted by Greenie

You speak as if those 2 are in the same class

I used to hang out with a girl who once banged cold coffee because she couldn't get any speed, her legs turned purple and she stayed in the hospital for a while, as soon as she got out she started cranking again.
That kind of shit scares me.
Heroin I don't know much about, never even seen it, but I know myself too well to try anything new that is physically addictive. Smoked opium once and enjoyed it way too much. I'm sure I'd love heroin.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by ponygirl

Any smoke inhalation is bad.

(I'm half-sure you put that in there for me.)

[LeRoy]

Originally Posted by RageCash-Ben

Sounds like alot of people didn't read the article or are in complete denial.

Denial of what???


or maybe you didn't understand the first 3 words "Smoking a joint" means the paper is being smoked too.

Sounds like you didn't read my post either. Nowhere did it say in the article that marijuana contained the carcinogens. My Aussie friend would mix chronic and tobacco too. What a waste IMO. Darn Aussies need to learn how to smoke cancerfree weed.