mar1juana less cancerous than tobacco

mar1juana less cancerous than tobacco

By STEVE MITCHELL
Senior Medical Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 (UPI) -- mar1juana is less carcinogenic than tobacco smoke and may even have some anti-cancer properties, new research suggests.

Robert Melamede, chair of biology at the University of Colorado in Boulder, reviewed studies of the illicit drug and published his findings in the Oct. 17 issue of Harm Reduction Journal.

Melamede's conclusion is certain to factor in the medical-mar1juana debate, because the cancer-causing potential of the drug is one of the reasons often cited by those who oppose legalizing it for medicinal uses. He said he was motivated to investigate the issue because the Drug Enforcement Administration has made the argument that mar1juana has four times the amount of tar contained in tobacco smoke, so it is potentially carcinogenic.

"I said, 'Let's see what's true because the government doesn't have a very good record on telling the truth about cannabis,'" Melamede, who classifies himself as a medical-mar1juana advocate, told United Press International.

He said the studies indicated although mar1juana smoke does contain carcinogens, it does not appear to induce cancer because of its unique pharmacological properties. Lung cancer, for example, is caused by a combination of carcinogens in conjunction with nicotine found in tobacco smoke.

"It's the nicotine that's really the cancer-promoting agent," he explained. "That's absent in mar1juana smoke so you don't have that enhancing factor."

Studies to date have not linked mar1juana smoking with the lung, colon, rectal and other cancers associated with tobacco smoking, Melamede said. In addition, other studies have indicated compounds found in cannabis might even kill certain cancers, including lung, breast, prostate and skin, as well as leukemia and lymphoma, and a type of brain cancer called glioma.

"That's not to say smoking mar1juana is good," Melamede noted. It is a lung irritant and can cause respiratory problems, such as coughing. Also, it is full of carcinogens, so "even if it's not causing cancer, it's having negative effects," he said.

One alternative would be to use a vaporizer, rather than smoking, to deliver the mar1juana.

"It should be noted that with the development of vaporizers, that use the respiratory route for the delivery of carcinogen-free cannabis vapors, the carcinogenic potential of smoked cannabis has been largely eliminated," Melamede wrote in the journal.

At least 10 states, including California and Colorado, have moved in the direction of allowing patients to use mar1juana with a doctor's approval. The DEA has attempted to enforce a federal ban on the drug, however, and has arrested patients using it. This policy has discouraged doctors from recommending it for medical use.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last June that the federal prohibition supersedes state laws and the DEA can arrest patients who use the drug.

Karen Tandy, the DEA's administrator, wrote in an article titled, "mar1juana: The Myths Are Killing Us," which appeared in the March issue of Police Chief magazine, that the drug is hazardous to health and does not help patients.

"The scientific and medical communities have determined that smoked mar1juana is a health danger, not a cure," Tandy wrote in the article, which also appears on the DEA Web site. "There is no medical evidence that smoking mar1juana helps patients."

Tandy did not claim mar1juana caused cancer, but she implied it by saying, "mar1juana smoke ... contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into malignant cells."

She also said mar1juana can cause anxiety and depression, particularly in teens. However, a study released last week from Canadian researchers found a synthesized version of a mar1juana compound actually promotes development of new brain cells in rats, and this in turn was accompanied by a reduction in anxiety and depression.

Other risks of mar1juana cited by Tandy included impaired cognitive function, such as short-term problems with perception and memory.

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of mar1juana Laws, told UPI that Tandy's assertions "run up against the known science," which indicate the toxicity of the drug is minimal.

"While not harmless, mar1juana comes very close to being benign when compared to other prescription drugs," St. Pierre said.

He noted that Dr. Tod Mikuriya, a psychiatrist in El Cerrito, Calif., had conducted a study with medical-mar1juana patients and did not find evidence they developed cognitive impairments, paranoia, anxiety or other mental problems after they began using the drug.

"The government has insisted there are no pros and there are only cons of mar1juana, but this is totally lacking in science and totally lacking in any realistic credibility," Melamede said.

He predicted medical mar1juana ultimately will be permitted in the United States.

"It's unavoidable that it will eventually triumph because it works," he said. "The government is lying and it will eventually win out in the end. It's just a matter of how many people have to suffer between now and then."


http://www.upi.com/HealthBusiness/view.php?StoryID=20051017-053500-7215r

 

Of course, using either to kill someone is illegal, which makes your "analogy" totally moot in this conversation given that the government apparently thinks that it is OK for tobacco to be regulated whereas mar1juana, a drug that is far less dangerous, is prohibited.

Nice try, rookie.

 

I can only take your rolleyes to indicate that you are on the pro-prohibition side of things. I would never go out and espouse anyone using drugs since they will limit your potential, distract you from the things that are truly important, and could very well kill you if you aren't careful.

However, none of that changes the fact that prohibition is a ham fisted, ineffective way of dealing with a problem that could be solved for the most part if we used an education and health care based approach.

I have never seen you post on this topic before, but just so that we can be on the same page when discussing this topic, here is a thread where I was pretty clear about what I want and why I want it.

 

Harmful, yes.

However, your examples also implied behavior in which one person harms another (murder by gun or poison dart) and your examples are both treated the same way in the eyes of the law. Murder by poison dart and murder by firearm are not treated differently in the criminal code, at least not as far as I am aware.

In the tobacco versus mar1juana argument, there is a clear difference in the legality of the substances in question despite the fact that the more dangerous substance is legal while the less toxic substance is prohibited.

In your world, was Burke's home run the other night a "swing and a miss?"

To quote Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

Drugs have the potential to do all of the things that I mentioned. It is not guaranteed that they will, but they all have that potential.

I will also not argue that drugs cannot have a net positive effect, but to deny that drugs can be very destructive is to ignore a significant reality.

 

Exactly.

True enough, but oral ingestion takes much longer to process in your body and as such, it makes dosing more difficult and causes the drug to take far longer (90 minutes versus 7 seconds) to take effect. If you care, see this interview for more details.