36 votes

Cannabis smokers show greater lung capacity and lower cancer levels than non-smokers

(NaturalNews) For many years, the demonizing claims being made against cannabis have been crumbling as research slowly dispels them. Fifty years ago people earnestly believed that the consumption of cannabis was directly linked to the development of an array of mental illnesses, and violent and hypersexual behavior.

Medical opinion must be guided by research

But these prejudices are still hanging on. Today, an individual who responsibly informs their doctor of their marijuana use, because, as with any medicine, chemical interactions may change the resulting chemical behavior, are most frequently urged to cut back. Various reasons are given for a physicians concern. Some, who appear to have fallen behind on the research, still express concern about "brain cell damage" a remnant from the Reagan era's Just Say No campaign.

The main objection, that even the most well-informed physicians feel justified in making, is that even if cannabis itself is not particularly harmful, its most common method of ingestion, smoking, is bad for the lung tissue, regardless of the harmlessness of the substance being smoked.

Continue:
http://www.naturalnews.com/035980_cannabis_smokers_cancer.html



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Did you know?

Did you know that new research shows that marijuana actually kills cancer cells... rather than creating them? It actually causes them to eat themselves in a process called "autophage".

Also, instead of killing brain cells, studies show it actually promotes the growth of new brain cells?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8155-marijuana-might-c...

Cancer Studies:

THC (marijuana) helps cure cancer says Harvard study

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

Marijuana Chemical May Fight Brain Cancer
Active Component In Marijuana Targets Aggressive Brain Cancer Cells, Study Says

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/news/20090401/marij...

Did you know that the cannabinoid receptor is the most prevalent cellular receptor in our brains?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor

This mystery began to unravel in 1964, when tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the main psychoactive chemical in cannabis was isolated and synthesized by Raphael Mechoulam and colleagues in Israel. Subsequently, in 1988, Allyn Howlett and colleagues discovered the cannabinoid receptor in the brain. This receptor called CB1was a precise match for the unique chemicals called cannabinoids found in the cannabis plant (phytocannabinoids). This initial discovery led to scientists hypothesizing that humans are "wired" for cannabis. The CB1receptors have been found in the brain in areas that control the coordination of movement, emotions, memory, reduction of pain, reward systems, and reproduction, yet are almost absent in the brain stem (which affects our vital functions such as breathing). It appears that cannabinoid receptors, which modulate other neurotransmitter function in a retrograde “on demand” fashion are present in far higher concentrations in the brain than any other receptor. While the CB1 receptors are primarily found in the central nervous system, a second type, CB2, discovered in 1993, are found primarily in the immune system, GI tract, liver, spleen, kidney, bones, heart, and peripheral nervous system. In fact, the CB2 receptor appears to be up-regulated whenever there is tissue pathology.

Did you know that the government actually has the patent on medical marijuana... for use in fighting diseases such as cancer, Crohn's disease, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease and more?

And yet they repeatedly say that there is "no medical use" for marijuana.

Look it up. U.S. Patent #6630507

It's like a MIRACLE DRUG because the endocannabinoid system in your body controls so much chemically... by stimulating this system, many positive effects can occur in many different organs of the body.

If you don’t believe me, check out the studies at www.pubmed.gov … just type “cannabinoids” and “cancer” in the search bar and you’ll see the results of the HUNDREDS of studies that show that the THC in marijuana actually kills cancer cells, both in human tissue cultures and in animals. But… they won’t let us do studies on humans because mj has been labeled the “devil’s weed”. HA!

But there is plenty of anecdotal evidence. (People who didn't want to wait on the government to legalize medical marijuana to help with their illness. We've been waiting over 40 years, after all.) I have been in correspondence with the head of the biology dept at a major university in Colorado, and he's knows people personally who have used super-concentrated cannabis oil to CURE their cancer. His own girlfriend got rid of her skin cancer completely applying cannabis oil topically. You can also find video diaries on the internet of people who have gotten rid of skin cancer using cannabis oil. Also video diaries of people who have had miraculous healing of 3rd degree burns. One video diary I found had an AIDS patient who was ingesting the oil and cut his T-cell count from over 800 to around 400 in just a few weeks.

Rick Simpson has cured hundreds of people over the last few years and has plenty of written and videoed testimony. Google "Run from the Cure".

If you want to see the enormous number of medical conditions that marijuana is GOOD for, check this out…

http://forum.grasscity.com/medical-marijuana/436257-granny-s...

This is a video everyone should watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yxlCDtOlSM

Read the actual study before

Read the actual study before simply accepting Natural News' paranoid quackery at bald-face value.

Alternative ways to absorb what I believe is God's gift.....

Vaporize, edibles, and tinctures! Vaporizing heats up the plant matter just shy of combustion. All chemical compounds are preserved and zero carcinogens are released! Edibles are delicious and are said to treat pain more effectively than inhaling. Tinctures are a liquid delivered by a dropper and absorbed sublingually(under the tongue). From what I understand tinctures were one of the most common forms of medicine before prohibition. Maybe being a day and night user isn't for everyone but I think it's a good replacement/compliment to alcohol on a relaxing day. It's certainly safer. Instead of being a escape I see it as a enhancer.

Is there a good way to

Is there a good way to extract into propylene glycol(PG) or vegetable glycerine(VG)?

the lengths people will go

to justify their own stupidity is truly amazing, I do agree with DR. Paul that people should not be put in jail for harming themselves but I also don't want you pot smokers to end up in the emergency room because you normally don't pay your hospital bills and end up getting charity care. Loosers

ignorant...

since when can you go the emergency room for smoking too much bud? maybe a heart attack from eating too many cheese puffs? go drink some more alcohol...

ron paul 2012

I see it all the time

every year we have hippie fest in my town, our ER gets hammered with pot smokers. keep smoking and keep telling yourself this weed is really healthy and im going to live longer because I smoke it.

Maybe the greater...

Maybe the greater lung capacity comes from practicing the "TA" technique of Obamas early years (total absorption). I don't really know much about its cancer cure ability. But I do know from personal experience that smoking it made me stupid and lazy. That was many years ago and even if it is made legal I would not do it anymore. I don't like walking around in a partial fog. Too many things in life require my full attention, like driving, using power tools and making adult decisions.

RickStone

Smoking it causes the

Smoking it causes the psychedelic effects and negates 95%+ of the medicinal properties.
Eating it raw is how you get healing benefits.

Indica: Skunky, Couch lock foggy feeling effect. Makes superior essential oil.
Sativa: Sweet and fragrant, Creative and energetic effect. Great for depression.

Both cure cancer.

What If Cannibis Cured Cancer?

There is really good documentary called "What If Cannibis Cured Cancer?"

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/what-if-cannabis-cured-cancer/

"Could the chemicals found in marijuana prevent and even heal several deadly cancers? Discover the truth about this ancient medicine as world-renowned scientists in the field of cannabinoid research illustrate their truly mind-blowing discoveries.
What if Cannabis Cured Cancer explains how we are all born with a form of marijuana already in our bodies, and when pot is consumed, the endocannabinoids inside us, along with any cannabinoids we ingest, fit together like a key in a lock."

I Believe the prohibition

I Believe the prohibition should end, thats only if the tobacco, alcohol, oil companies, textile companies, end there monopoly's.

The Cleanest Green automobile in history was made by henry ford ; made from hemp and ran on hemp oil. Cleanest alternative fuel on earth still to this day.

Marijuana is amazing

Marijuana slows or even arrests the growth of terminal stage-4 brain cancer (glioblastoma multiforme).

http://www.medicinalgenomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/...

LOL

The is just more evidence that nutters will be believe what ever supports their world view despite the mountains of contrary evidence.

Smoking Pot is good for your lungs, smoking cocaine is good for your teeth, and shooting organic heroin is the cure for old age...

specifically...

1997 NIH Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana. The transcripts from the workshop show that the panel of experts agreed marijuana has medical value [31]. It was even found that "the evidence is perfectly clear that smoking is an outstanding route of administration....it's a very safe drug and therefore it would be perfectly safe medically to let the patient determine their own dose through the smoking route" (ibid p.28-29). The Executive Summary that was issued to the public by NIH was far less enthusiastic than the group of experts. It recommended further research and no smoking [32]

[31]- National Institutes of Health. Transcript of the NIH Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana. Tab B, Deliberations of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts; February 19&20, 1997. (Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc., Cr66002.0) Ref Type: Transcript, p.21-33
[32]- Executive Summary of the Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana; National Institutes of Health; February 19&20, 1997.

Specifically

Cannabis is a very safe drug, and inhalation is an extremely efficient mechanism for administration. The problem is Cannabis is not the only drug inhaled or absorbed. Nicotine is relatively safe also. It is the not the lung cancer causer is cigarettes either.

Here are some sources. In anticipation of the some nutter challenging the validity of the sources, it is important that they claim what government or recognize source they accept. My original claim is that nutters claim as proof just about any study that supports their view, while rejecting all those that oppose it.

Any idiot with a brain larger than a peanut, that did nothing more than examine the end a roach, or cleaned a bong can conclude that smoking in all forms is dangerous the the lungs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18312888
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18238947
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18238947.1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19057263.1

The same study the OP sourced concluded it was only the moderate or slight uses that received the benefit, those who smoked more than 20 times a month saw a substantial decrease in the lung capacity.

I could rely on common sense, and claim that occasional pot smokers have an increased lung capacity because, aghast, they inhale deeper more frequently than non pot smokers... But if I do that, I run the risk of being called an agent of the state...

Alright, you almost fooled me.

Did you actually read the studies you listed?

Article 1) "Cannabis use did not increase the risk of head and neck cancer; however, because of the limited power and duration of use studied, a small or longer-term effect cannot be excluded."

Articles 2 & 3) (note these are the exact same study) Says they drew a link "after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking". Which leads me to believe its the same as article four, which is inconclusive results due to the influence of cigarette smoke.

Article 4) Inconclusive because 95% of the people they tested smoked cigarettes

"Our results suggest that cannabis smoking may be a risk factor for lung cancer. However, residual confounding by tobacco smoking or other potential confounders may explain part of the increased risk."

If you're going to cite studies, at least be aware of the parameters, instead of blindly trusting that all date is precise data.

Cherry pick much

My whole claim, is that people cherry pick to support their own religious views.
Study 2 "the risk of lung cancer increased 8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2-15) for each joint-yr of cannabis smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking, and 7% (95% CI 5-9) for each pack-yr of cigarette smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cannabis smoking. The highest tertile of cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (relative risk 5.7 (95% CI 1.5-21.6)), after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking. In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that long-term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults."

Note the use of the word smoking used in the 2nd study, that is lacking in the first study.. It is not the cannabis that causes cancer just like it is not the nicotine. There are studies that also show the reduced rate of breast cancer in women who smoke...

I am always confounded on how easily common sense gets abandoned for religious dogma.

Agreed

I would love to see the evidence that has C_E so convinced...

see above post

see above post.

deacon's picture

i have to wonder

if C_E would change their mind if finding
that the fed gov has a patent on this plant
and specifically states its benefits?
and the fed gov used rich powerful friends
to stigmatize this same plant,so as to bury it
and generate funds by the laws created around it

deacon

Leave an indelible mark on all of those that you meet.
OH... have fun day :)
d

Now you longer have to wonder

This has nothing to do with federal government in any way shape or form. The government having a patent on hemp has nothing to do with that fact that smoking just about anything increases your change of cancer.

I will fight for the right of a person to put anything they want in their body, but I also reserve the right to call then an idiot when they do harmful things to themselves.

The government also controls patents on certain radio active devises, poppy plants, by your logic, radiation should then cure cancer, and heroin is the cure for old age...
Is asbestos good for you because the government regulates it?

deacon's picture

you have no idea

what you are talking bout
and this post proves it
first hemp and marijuana are different
you would know this seeing you are so smart
and your logic is failed in the thinking
the fed gov can patent a plant
and seeing you care not for any more
info that might change your mind
and your logic,i will neither attempt
to change it nor give you any more to help
good day
deacon

Leave an indelible mark on all of those that you meet.
OH... have fun day :)
d

PLANT patents

I wouldn't know about hemp, but... "The U.S. Patent Office ruled in 1982 that plants were able to be patented, clearing the way for Monsanto to create proprietary seeds that need to be purchased every growing season – in other words, altering thousands of years of farming practices, the seeds won’t propagate."
http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2012/02/14/22523/...

I hope you are as shocked and outraged as others are. Here's just a ten-minute clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtJDZmwh5Bc Also see full-length The World According to Monsanto http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml_k005tsU&feature=related

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

I have no idea what I am talking about?

I never claimed hemp and pot are not different.... This discussion is about smoking pot, not hemp. If some one confused the two, it is you...

My only claim thus far is that smoking just about anything is harmful to your longs...
You how ever have made the claim that because the government owns the patent I should think it is good for you... I extended your reasoning to include other areas, like government regulation of radiation, and opiates. Since the government owns patents and regulates them, does it mean they too are good for us?

deacon's picture

excuse me?

i never made the claim that the gov patented
so therefor it is good,you yourself compared
it to asbestos and other things known to be bad
my point is this,the gov cannot patent it,as they
didn't create it
and i also said i would give you no other info
and you,posted info from a .gov website

This has nothing to do with federal government in any way shape or form. The government having a patent on hemp has nothing to do with that fact that smoking just about anything increases your change of cancer.
here is you claim about hemp,i copy/pasted it
your own words,you compared the 2
deacon

Leave an indelible mark on all of those that you meet.
OH... have fun day :)
d

Then what was the purpose of trying to change my mind.

My claim, is nothing more than smoking stuff is bad your for your lungs. Your counter claim, was that "I have to wonder if C_E would change their mind if finding that the fed gov has a patent on this plant and specifically states its benefits?"

As we can see
1. It was you that brought up hemp. I was speaking of smoking pot. You wrongly accused me of not knowing the difference, when it was you that convoluted the two. This is a distraction irrelevant from the main topic

2. The basis of your claim is that government controls the substance and that should influence my view of it. Since my view is that smoking just about anything is damaging to your lungs your point is either irrelevant and/or stupid.
I chose to believe that your comment about me changing my mind about smoking a substance, because the government owns a patent on the plant on which it comes from stupid, not stupid and irrelevant.

Can you provide us with the patent number to support your claim?

deacon's picture

i sure can

but first,my first post was not an attack on you
you chose to take it that,and then got spiteful\when in fact my intent of the question about your changing your mind with more info
you took it and ran with it,like i had just peed in your oatmeal
or slammed your manhood(if indeed you are
now had you responded nicer you would have had that patent
number hours ago
thank you
deacon
patent number 6630507

Leave an indelible mark on all of those that you meet.
OH... have fun day :)
d

Glad you posted that

I am familiar with patent 6630507; it is about the uses and extraction of cannabinoids not, as you claim, the plants themselves. However if it applies to pot, it applies to hemp which also produces cannabinoids that can be used and extracted

I am sorry you thought irrelevant and incorrect information would change my mind.

Wrong..

"Submitted by Conspiracy_Elitist on Sun, 05/27/2012 - 15:15. Permalink

This has nothing to do with federal government in any way shape or form. The government having a patent on hemp"

You brought up hemp first.. He said "plant".. you then stated the above.. You must be high.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Assuming he is talking about Patent 6630507

Assuming he is talking about Patent 6630507 which includes all canabonoid producers, that would include hemp.