|
Home > Archive > Drugs pot > March 2006 > Re: Cannabis lifts emphysema risk - er um *cough*, *cough* *cough*,
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 |
Re: Cannabis lifts emphysema risk - er um *cough*, *cough* *cough*,
|
|
| Derek Potter 2006-03-31, 12:10 am |
| On 30 Mar 2006 14:55:39 -0800, pxhxz@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel)
wrote:
>In article <vpfk221llsvvpddkghumfap7hpfsfbiph1@4ax.com> Derek Potter <me@privacy.net> writes:
>
>
>
>The major substances in tobacco that are known to cause cancer, radioactive
>ions
I assume you are referring to the speculation that polonium is a major
player. Polonium is a radioactive element, ions do not come into it. I
agree the theory is intriguing and, if established *would* overturn
the received wisdom that the cause of cancers is organic chemicals
produced by incomplete combustion. However, exposure to polonium only
matters if the substance stays in the lungs - this is most unlikely as
it is highly soluble.
>and nicotine,
Nicotine is not carcinogenic.
>are not found in cannabis,
The NORML article here is pretty clear, saying that the collection of
chemicals in cannabis smoke and tobacco smoke are similar apart from
the psychoactives.
http://www.norml.org.nz/Marijuana/F..._pipe_study.htm
The article, of course, predates Tashkin's latest paper.
> and the substances in cannabis
>that are known to inhibit cancers, cannabidiol, cannabinols and cannabinoids,
>are not found in tobacco.
From
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6814
“Cannabinoids possess … anticancer activity [and may] possibly
represent a new class of anti-cancer drugs that retard cancer growth,
inhibit angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels) and the
metastatic spreading of cancer cells." So concludes a comprehensive
review published in the October 2005 issue of the scientific journal
Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry.
Note that this does not imply that it stops the 8formation* of
cancers. All it means is that some cannabinoids (notably THC itself!)
are effective at fighting established cancers. Whoopee-doo!
>Note that science is a methodology, and decades of studies have so far shown
>that cannabis does not cause cancer even when smoked.
>
>It is a misuse of science to say that because tobacco smoke causes cancer,
>then *any* smoke must cause cancer. That is a logical fallacy that is
>frequently spouted by charlatans.
However, it is not a logical fallacy to say that the same damage will
almost certainly accrue. Unless, indeed, tobacco smoke contains
something unique, making most smoke harmless except tobacco smoke, or
else cannabis contains something that inhibits the action of mutagens
on DNA.
>-Pete Zakel
> (phz@seeheader.nospam)
>
>"A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition,
> and art into pedantry. Hence university education."
> -G. B. Shaw
|
| |
|
|