|
Home > Archive > Drugs pot > October 2005 > Cannabis cancer risk played down
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Cannabis cancer risk played down
|
|
| Phil Stovell 2005-10-18, 11:02 am |
| This is what I've been saying in various threads where we've compared the
carcinogenic effects of cannabis and tobacco.
When one compares the actual amount of plant material smoked, the
difference becomes greater. I estimate that a cannabis cigarette contains
25% as much plant material as a tobacco one. Cannabis smokers also don't
smoke 30 a day, every day.
It is now time to legalise and regulate cannabis, for adult consumption.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4350642.stm
Cannabis cancer risk played down
Cannabis smoke is less likely to cause cancer than tobacco smoke, a
leading US expert says.
Dr Robert Melamede, of the university of Colorado, said that, while
chemically the two were similar, tobacco was more carcinogenic.
He said the difference was mainly due to nicotine in tobacco, whereas
cannabis may inhibit cancer because of the presence of the chemical THC.
But health campaigners warned against complacency.
Cannabis remains the most commonly-used drug in the UK with one in 10
people using it in the last year, according to the British Crime Survey.
The Class C drug, which was downgraded in 2004, has already been linked to
mental health problems and breathing difficulties.
But scientists are also exploring whether it can be used to treat a range
of conditions, including multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's disease.
Dr Melamede said whereas nicotine activated carcinogenic compounds, THC -
one of 60 cannabinoids derived from the cannabis plant - had been shown to
inhibit them in mice cells.
"Compounds found in cannabis have been shown to kill numerous cancer types
including lung, breast, prostate, leukaemia, lymphoma and skin cancer."
But he said the effects of cannabis were complex as evidence also
suggested low doses of THC could stimulate growth of lung cancer cells.
Smoking
And he added the two could interact as cannabis was often smoked with
tobacco.
"It is possible that as the cannabis-consuming population ages, the
long-term consequences of smoking cannabis may become more similar to what
is observed with tobacco.
"However, current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have
a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to
tobacco smoke."
Jean King, director of tobacco control at Cancer Research UK, said many of
the studies that had looked at the link between cancer and cannabis had
used purified cannabinoids.
"Results from such studies may not represent the overall effects of
cannabis smoke, which contains more than 400 chemicals.
"Smoke from tobacco and cannabis contains many of the same carcinogens,
and cell damage linked to lung cancer has been found in the lungs of
chronic cannabis smokers."
And she added there should be no complacency as cannabis was often smoked
with tobacco, which is responsible for a quarter of all cancer deaths in
the UK.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
| |
| JohnR 2005-10-18, 11:02 am |
| "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.18.12.49.33.870774@stovell.org.uk...
> This is what I've been saying in various threads where we've compared the
> carcinogenic effects of cannabis and tobacco.
>
><snip>
>
> He said the difference was mainly due to nicotine in tobacco, whereas
> cannabis may inhibit cancer because of the presence of the chemical THC.
>
> But health campaigners warned against complacency.
>
Are they warning against the complacency of allowing this ridiculous state
of affairs to continue with no valid reasons to prohibit some drugs.
| |
| Phil Stovell 2005-10-18, 11:02 am |
| On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:05:41 +0100, JohnR wrote:
> Are they warning against the complacency of allowing this ridiculous state
> of affairs to continue with no valid reasons to prohibit some drugs.
No, we need to do MORE studies until we get the correct result, we mustn't
be complacent with this wrong one.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
| |
| Dexter Broadhurst 2005-10-20, 6:16 pm |
| "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
> It is now time to legalise and regulate cannabis, for adult consumption.
Anyone else see 'Stoned in Suburbia'?
| |
|
|
I find it interesting that one of the "mental health" arguments that often
(now) gets trotted out is that the emergence of "Skunk" (which is 100
million times more potent than the stuff the Daily Mail readers may have
toked once or twice whilst at college) - means that the cannabis todays kids
are smoking is a shortcut to instant schitzophrenia
Which of course is another good reason to have it subject to the same sort
of controls that other consumables are in our risk-averse society, and
legalise it.
| |
| Shaun aRe 2005-10-20, 6:16 pm |
|
"Dexter Broadhurst" <qrnq_fghssrq_ghexrl@ubgznvy.pb.hx> wrote in message
news:43554ace$0$24647$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>
>
> Anyone else see 'Stoned in Suburbia'?
YES! It was XXXXing brilliant! Ya see the posh old gal?
Narrator/interviewer:
"So, what kind of cannabis do you use?"
POG in posh old gal voice:
"Buds, jest pure buds."
I LMFAO!
I meant to post here the day after asking who'd seen it, but for some reason
unknown to me (because I forgot), I, well, forgot.
Was it just a one off, or are they doing a run of them, do you know?
Cheers,
Shaun aRe
|
| |
|
|