THC is anticarcinogenic: US gov, 1996

[Socrates the Greek]

Statistics show that the number of people with lung cancer as a direct result of smoking pot is insignificant compared to lung cancer caused by cigarettes and the nicotine hook. :canada:

 

[Sаbine]

Statistics show that the number of people with lung cancer as a direct result of smoking pot is insignificant compared to lung cancer caused by cigarettes and the nicotine hook. :canada:

Very optimistic indeed! The source?
Lung cancer isn't the only cancer potentially associated with cannabis tar, btw.
On top of that, many (if not the majority) pot smokers are habitual tobacco smokers as well, which doesn't help much, eh?

 

[Cliffy]

May I ask you one simple question?

I wish you good health, but let's hypothesize a little bit. Suppose you get cancer, what are you going to do in terms of trying to cure it? Are you going to resort to smoking pot and hoping the disease will go away, or you visit an oncologist who will put you on chemo, etc.?

Please be honest answering my question. Thanks.

You can bet the bank I would not expose myself to the barbaric and sadistic practice of chemo therapy. There are plenty of ways to cure cancer in spite of what the "medical" profession try to tell us. Millions of people have been unnecessarily been tortured and killed by doctors and the pharmaceutical companies. I would eat pot before I would smoke it, but if I felt it was necessary to smoke it, I would use an atomizer. Pot is only part of a cancer cure regime that includes diet, herbs and supplements.

Cancer is a form of suicide. As the old expression goes, anger will eat you up inside. The most important part of a cancer cure is a change of mind set. I'm not into suicide and I sure as hell would not let the "health" industry kill me.

 

[Sаbine]

You can bet the bank I would not expose myself to the barbaric and sadistic practice of chemo therapy. There are plenty of ways to cure cancer in spite of what the "medical" profession try to tell us. Millions of people have been unnecessarily been tortured and killed by doctors and the pharmaceutical companies. I would eat pot before I would smoke it, but if I felt it was necessary to smoke it, I would use an atomizer. Pot is only part of a cancer cure regime that includes diet, herbs and supplements.

Cancer is a form of suicide. As the old expression goes, anger will eat you up inside. The most important part of a cancer cure is a change of mind set. I'm not into suicide and I sure as hell would not let the "health" industry kill me.

Although the amount of stereotypes in your message is somewhat frustrating, thank you very much for your candid response.

 

[MHz]

You can bet the bank I would not expose myself to the barbaric and sadistic practice of chemo therapy. There are plenty of ways to cure cancer in spite of what the "medical" profession try to tell us. Millions of people have been unnecessarily been tortured and killed by doctors and the pharmaceutical companies. I would eat pot before I would smoke it, but if I felt it was necessary to smoke it, I would use an atomizer. Pot is only part of a cancer cure regime that includes diet, herbs and supplements.

Cancer is a form of suicide. As the old expression goes, anger will eat you up inside. The most important part of a cancer cure is a change of mind set. I'm not into suicide and I sure as hell would not let the "health" industry kill me.

How about a chunk of hash between the toes?

For those that don't like the 'side-effects' of THC this next method suggests 'purified water drops' for certain ailments and other sites promote getting extra oxygen into the blood and keep you body at ph 7.6 (natural level of blood)

24 Hour Cancer Cure at Miracle Mineral Solution - MMS will Detox the Body

 

[petros]

Since it was missed the first time.

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection


[SIZE=-1]By Marc Kaufman[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Washington Post Staff Writer[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Friday, May 26, 2006 [/SIZE]

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.
They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.
"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."
Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.
While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.
The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company​

 

[darkbeaver]

This is not true. No potential anti-cancer experimental compound offered by a pharmaceutical company is ever approved to treat cancer patients if it showed no significant anti-cancer effect in clinical trials.

The body may be sufficiently poisoned to the point that even the cancer is poisoned. This is tissue damage, not remedial treatment at all. The used oil from the crankcase of my old pick up would probably do as well or better.

 

[petros]

For those that don't like the 'side-effects' of THC this next method suggests 'purified water drops' for certain ailments and other sites promote getting extra oxygen into the blood and keep you body at ph 7.6 (natural level of blood)

Even better. Well water that has it's pH balanced.

 

[darkbeaver]

Very optimistic indeed! The source?
Lung cancer isn't the only cancer potentially associated with cannabis tar, btw.
On top of that, many (if not the majority) pot smokers are habitual tobacco smokers as well, which doesn't help much, eh?

You reiterate needlessly, everyone knows that smoke and lungs is not a good combination. Essentially you're arguing against many thousands of years of scientific experimentation which have already long since determined the plants great utility.

 

[Sаbine]

The body may be sufficiently poisoned to the point that even the cancer is poisoned. This is tissue damage, not remedial treatment at all. The used oil from the crankcase of my old pick up would probably do as well or better.

That's why there are medical nanotechnologies being developed that allow nanoparticles to selectively kill cancer cells and whole malignant tissues in situ without damaging healthy ones.

You reiterate needlessly, everyone knows that smoke and lungs is not a good combination. Essentially you're arguing against many thousands of years of scientific experimentation which have already long since determined the plants great utility.

That's why I hope THC will eventually find its way to the pharmaceutical market and will be available to cancer patients.

 

[darkbeaver]

That's why there are medical nanotechnologies being developed that allow nanoparticles to selectively kill cancer cells and whole malignant tissues in situ without damaging healthy ones.




That's why I hope THC will eventually find its way to the pharmaceutical market and will be available to cancer patients.

Whole Cannabis passes the cell walls and it is already in the human drug cabinet for a long time. You want a patentable synthetic, that is inferior in every way to the real thing. Why not work with nature instead of against it. We will never improve upon the perfect.

 

[Sаbine]

Whole Cannabis passes the cell walls and it is already in the human drug cabinet for a long time. You want a patentable synthetic, that is inferior in every way to the real thing. Why not work with nature instead of against it. We will never improve upon the perfect.

Not everything in cannabis is good for one’s organism, especially when you burn the plant you’re getting various byproducts of very unpleasant kinds straight into your lungs.
I have to admit it’s really hard to discuss scientific findings in cannabis research with the drug den minded opponents.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Very optimistic indeed! The source?
Lung cancer isn't the only cancer potentially associated with cannabis tar, btw.
On top of that, many (if not the majority) pot smokers are habitual tobacco smokers as well, which doesn't help much, eh?

Not me, 1981 I took a baseball bat and flattened a new pack I had bought Medallion was the brand into a dime, I place a fishing hook on it and hung it in front of my desk at work. I looked at it for a whole year and then I donated to a friend which helped him quit as well. I figured if I am going to smoke I will only smoke a substance which will provide benefits such as eating well, becoming creative with music as I play musical instruments and as well great socializing substance.

 

[AnnaG]

Whole Cannabis passes the cell walls and it is already in the human drug cabinet for a long time. You want a patentable synthetic, that is inferior in every way to the real thing. Why not work with nature instead of against it. We will never improve upon the perfect.

Sorry, but nothing is perfect, in that not one human being reacts to it in exactly the same way as another. So it is impossible to achieve a perfect, totally comprehensive quality of it.

Eat well, keep fit, smoke dope to prevent cancer, die anyway. Big deal. I personally don't care what does or doesn't cause cancer or what does or doesn't prevent it, I stopped being interested when I heard that peanut butter gives lab rats cancer. Everything gives lab rats cancer. I'm going to eat, drink, and smoke what I like and enjoy it, because I know no matter what I do I'm not getting out of here alive and my habits might make a difference of only a few percent in the number of years I have here. Quality, not quantity...

Egg Zachary! And I prefer to have my head's contents functioning in a healthy manner, complete with memory, a regular heart rate, no paranoia, etc.

Since it was missed the first time.

I reread that and noticed they only studied 3 types of cancer.

 

[petros]

Not everything in cannabis is good for one’s organism, especially when you burn the plant you’re getting various byproducts of very unpleasant kinds straight into your lungs.
I have to admit it’s really hard to discuss scientific findings in cannabis research with the drug den minded opponents.

So then don't burn it. Ingestion gives you more bhang for your buck.

 

[AnnaG]

You reiterate needlessly, everyone knows that smoke and lungs is not a good combination. Essentially you're arguing against many thousands of years of scientific experimentation which have already long since determined the plants great utility.

So? Pretty much ANYTHING can be found to have a use.

Not everything in cannabis is good for one’s organism, especially when you burn the plant you’re getting various byproducts of very unpleasant kinds straight into your lungs.
I have to admit it’s really hard to discuss scientific findings in cannabis research with the drug den minded opponents.

You're saying there's no objectivity in the abusers? Well, go figure.

 

[DurkaDurka]

I read a few. They said THC is a n ingredient in pot.
People will try strange things in order to get high. And even offer weird excuses to rationalize getting high.

Ohh please, injecting "THC"? How do you suppose someone is going to go about extracting pure THC from cannabis without a serious chemist setup?

 

[petros]

Ohh please, injecting "THC"? How do you suppose someone is going to go about extracting pure THC from cannabis without a serious chemist setup?

That's what makes this thread so funny.

 

[AnnaG]

Ohh please, injecting "THC"? How do you suppose someone is going to go about extracting pure THC from cannabis without a serious chemist setup?

How do you think scientists come up with results of studies about cannibis in the first place? With campfires, a concave rock, and a convex rock?

That's what makes this thread so funny.

One of the things, yup. It's a silly thread based upon a silly comment by a silly person being replied to by people being silly. You expected different?

I suspect the OP posted this thread in yet another attempt to rationalize his/her use of pot-smoking as a recreational habit.

 

[DurkaDurka]

How do you think scientists come up with results of studies about cannibis in the first place? With campfires, a concave rock, and a convex rock?

One of the things, yup. It's a silly thread based upon a silly comment by a silly person being replied to by people being silly. You expected different?

I suspect the OP posted this thread in yet another attempt to rationalize his/her use of pot-smoking as a recreational habit.

Do you really think your average pot smoker has a chemist lab where they extract THC from their stash so they can inject it? :smile: