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

dunc · 2008-01-30, 01:44 AM

I suppose it depends how big you wrap 'em

Bill · 2008-01-30, 02:18 AM

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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

2008-01-30, 01:44 AM	#1
dunc You can now put whatever you want in this space :) Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 658	I suppose it depends how big you wrap 'em

2008-01-30, 02:18 AM	#2
Bill Selling porn allows me to stay in a constant state of Bliss - ain't that a trip! Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,914	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.