Re: Chemicals in Marijuana Smoke May Harm DNA
- From: twofeathers <miketwofeathers@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:15:06 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 20, 9:06 am, twofeathers <miketwofeath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 20, 8:43 am, Gawd <rainbowfamilyoflivingli...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
love the way the media moguls twist shit up!
Cannabis alters human DNA BOGUS CLAIM!
Tuesday, June 16th, 2009 at 2:20 pm | By: Dudemaster
Let’s see if we can cast a shadow over this new reefer madness story,
“Cannabis alters human DNA“.
A scientific study was recently conducted to prove some harmful use of
Cannabis. The group focused their study specifically around ONE
carcinogenic called Acetaldehyde which may or may not be found in
burning cannabis and at unknown levels.
Acetaldehyde is an organic chemical compound and can be found in coco,
coffee, fruit, wheat, (bread), and is produced by plants as part of
their normal metabolism.
Acetaldehyde is toxic when applied externally for prolonged periods,
an irritant, and a probable carcinogen. So what’s the big deal? It’s
in my coffee, my sandwich, and my apple! It’s a naturally occurring
substance. The study group claims that Cannabis has a measurable
amount of Acetaldehyde inside of the smoke; and hergo, you inhale the
smoke then you inhale Acetaldehyde.
What the group doesn’t tell you is that even higher levels of
Acetaldehyde can be found in the air in cities around the world, and
even in your own home. Are they suggesting we stop breathing? Of
course not, the study was focused specifically on Marijuana and
nothing else. Therefore, it’s a study taken completely out of context
from the rest of the world.
Let’s put this into perspective; If you knew only the horrors of Sugar
and none of the benefits, then if you were like me, would you choose
to eliminate sugar from your diet entirely. The same can be said with
anything that is good for you.
What really brings their study into question is this next statement:
“The smoking of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with
the same degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more
tobacco cigarettes a day,” the team adds.
This last sentence demonstrates this group’s real agenda. You see,
their claim is in the face of real scientific research. Just recently,
UCLA pulmonologist Dr. Donald Tashkin, who has studied marijuana’s
effects on the lungs for three decades, studied heavy marijuana
smokers to determine whether the use led to increased risk of lung
cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD.
“What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of
some protective effect,” says Tashkin, whose research was the largest
case-control study ever conducted. The study was funded by the
National Institutes of Health.
Tobacco smokers in the study had as much as a 21-fold increase in
lung cancer risk. Cigarette smokers, too, developed COPD more often in
the study, and researchers found that marijuana did not impair lung
Tashkin, supported by other research, concluded that the active
ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, has an “anti-tumoral effect”
in which “cells die earlier before they age enough to develop
mutations that might lead to lung cancer.”
However, the smoke from marijuana did swell the airways and lead
to a greater risk of chronic bronchitis.
“Early on, when our research appeared as if there would be a
negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because
I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to
increased health effects,” Tashkin says. “But at this point, I’d be in
favor of legalization. I wouldn’t encourage anybody to smoke any
substances. But I don’t think it should be stigmatized as an illegal
substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an
intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm.”
This is just another reefer madness claim disseminated at the
coattails of those in England who continue to sing the reefer madness
song against the popular “Skunk” Marijuana. Between the lines of
words, you’ll find a system that has recently propped Marijuana back
up from a lower scheduled narcotic to a more serious level thus
instituting more serious punishment against the citizens of Great
Britain and they need a reason to keep it there. This study, along
with other bogus blogs and stories will likely be used in Parliament
as points of the argument.
Even after the mounting evidence that suggests this story is bogus, if
you are still concerned about the carcinogenic Acetaldehyde; then
vaporize and bake some cookies instead — and avoid my ham and swiss
same kind of thing you posted happened to cigerettes and see where it
got them? i could find one for water and i don't mean polutted
and then the coup de grace words from the doctor who they use as a
DT: They were young, so we didn’t follow them along enough to observe
subsequent risk of developing cancer. Even if we did, the sample was
too small to assess the risk of cancer. So that really wasn’t our
intent, our intent was to describe what changes are proven and then to
relate those changes to risks that have been associated with those
changes in other studies, not in our study.
HT: But you did show that marijuana smoking had no positive
association with cancer…
DT: That’s getting ahead of the game. That’s a recent study. What you
really need is an epidemiological study in order to test that
hypothesis, and that’s a real world study. We carried out such a study
involving roughly 600 lung cancer cases in Los Angeles County over the
period of a few years. Also about 600 cases of head and neck cancer
cases and about 1,040 controls that were matched to the cases, and we
used classical case control experimental design, epidemiologic design,
so that both the cases and controls were interviewed face to face and
administered a detailed questionnaire on their history of tobacco,
marijuana, and other drug use in their life-time, other factors that
might be related to cancer such as a family history, diet,
occupational exposures, socioeconomic status, etc. We simply used a
common statistical tool known as logistic regression analysis
controlling for all the known or imputed risk factors that we had
information on and failed to find any positive association between
marijuana use and either lung cancer or head and neck cancer; that was
the bottom line.
which the study i posted is that epidemiological study!! lol
enough said.....you have a nice day!!!! lol- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
oh and i should have added this:
HT: Have you considered the severe lack of anecdotal evidence of a
cancer link given the millions of marijuana smokers in America not
getting lung cancer?
DT: Well, I think that people who have smoked marijuana a lot and are
worried about cancer development might or probably will feel some
relief that there is some evidence not supporting that link but I
still feel that the heavy smoker might be at risk. The fact that we
didn’t find, or failed to find an association doesn’t mean there isn’t
one. I would be concerned if I smoked a lot of marijuana about this
possibility and also it does have other effects on the lung as
demonstrated by the bronchoscope. It does injure the lung and injure
the ability of the cells to protect the lung against infection. I
didn’t mention that it also depresses the activity of the major
inflammatory cell in the lung which is called the alveolar macrophage;
it interferes with the ability of the inflammatory cells to fight
bacteria. Which might increase susceptibility of the lung to
pneumonia, particularly if you have an underlying immunosuppressive
disorder such as AIDS or cancer treated with chemotherapy which is
often immunosuppressive, so there could be negative health impacts,
particularly individuals who might use marijuana medicinally.
HT: So, as a doctor, you believe that the possibility of infection
outweighs the benefits of appetite stimulation, pain suppression, and
the reduction of insomnia?
DT: I’m not saying that. The risk/benefit has to be assessed in any
given individual. If there is more potential benefit than risk in an
individual and nothing else works, then I think it’s reasonable to use
a risky drug(THC). But if you have a trivial problem for which the
benefit is uncertain, then I think that the risk may outweigh the
- Prev by Date: Re: Chemicals in Marijuana Smoke May Harm DNA
- Next by Date: Re: More bus info
- Previous by thread: Re: Chemicals in Marijuana Smoke May Harm DNA
- Next by thread: Re: Chemicals in Marijuana Smoke May Harm DNA