Marijuana Not Linked to Lung Cancer

Marijuana habit not linked to lung cancer

By: MICHELE G. SULLIVAN, Internal Medicine News Digital Network

WASHINGTON – Regular cannabis smokers are no more likely to develop lung cancer than are people who indulge occasionally.

The finding of no significant increased risk held true whether the smokers imbibed once or twice – or more – each day, and regardless of how many years they had smoked, Dr. Li Rita Zhang reported at the annual meeting of the American Association of Cancer Research.


©Scott Harms/iStockphoto.com

According to a recent study, habitual cannabis smokers had no significant increase in cancer risk than those who only smoke once or twice per day.
The study included data from six case-control studies conducted from 1999 to 2012 in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, with a subject pool of 2,159 lung cancer cases and 2,985 controls. All of the studies were part of the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO), an international group of lung cancer researchers with the aim of sharing comparable data from ongoing and recently completed lung cancer studies from different geographical areas and ethnicities.

Dr. Zhang of the University of California, Los Angeles, performed two analyses. One compared all lung cancer cases and all controls, regardless of concurrent or past tobacco use. Then, to reduce confounding by tobacco, she restricted the analysis to those who had never smoked tobacco. That group comprised 370 cancer cases and 1,358 controls. The models were also adjusted for age, sex, sociodemographic factors, and tobacco pack-years. Habitual use was defined as one joint per day per year.

When compared with cannabis smokers who also used tobacco, habitual pot smokers had no significant increase in cancer risk.

In an analysis of marijuana smokers that excluded tobacco smokers, there were no significant differences in any of the comparisons, including habitual vs. nonhabitual use; number of joints smoked per day; duration of up to 20 years or duration of more than 20 years.

Other literature has shown a link between cannabis smoking and lung cancer, pulmonologist Michael Alberts said in an interview. However, he said, "The conventional wisdom is that cannabis smoking is not as dangerous as cigarette smoking."

The difference in risk is likely related to chemical additives in commercial cigarettes that aren’t present in most methods of inhaling marijuana smoke.

As a general recommendation, smoking anything isn’t good for the respiratory system, said Dr. Alberts, chief medical officer of the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa. But for patients using medical marijuana, the benefit could outweigh the risks.

"You can think of it as similar to a CT scan. Radiation isn’t good, but if the scan is something beneficial and the risk is low, you take it. If cannabis is indicated, and if it’s legal, and if there’s literature backing up the indication for use, then you weigh the risk of smoking and the benefit it could bring, and make the decision."

Dr. Zhang declined to comment on the study. In her poster presentation she noted that, "Our results cannot preclude the possibility that cannabis may exhibit an association with lung cancer risk at extremely high dosage over long periods of continued exposure."

Dr. Zhang did not disclosure any financial relationships. Dr. Alberts said he had no disclosures.

msullivan@frontlinemedlinecom

Bob, this is something that has been researched for years and several studies have concluded the same thing. Take off your stethoscope and join the movement. You're behind the times due to your brainwashing by the corporatacracy that is medical school/internships/fellowships/phamaceutical reps/research grants/DEA licenses and all the other bullshit obstacles and pressures in place that make it difficult for Doctors to fulfill the hypocratic oath.

How many doctors would recommend cannabis based treatment if they didnt risk losing their DEA license, federal grant money, or pharma money?

I wrote a 10 page paper in high school about marijuana myths, legalization and historical use. Guess what, I cited studies in there as a high school student, 10+ years ago, that stated the same thing. Cannabis smokers are at no higher risk for lung cancer than not smokers, and in fact cannabis may help prevent lung cancer by expanding bronchial passage ways and cleaning fatty plaques that build up. So thanks for the information doctor bob, but real supporters of cannabis as medicine have known this for years and most likely wish that money would stop being wasted on 13 year long studies that ultimately find the same results as studies done by other universities or governments around the world.

Glad you too are aware of it too. I just put up a recent study that came to me from an Internal Medicine list serve I am on. The take home message is not necessarily the study, which is just one more piece in the puzzle, but the fact that it is starting to make the mainstream medical literature. But thanks for your comments.

Dr. Bob

healing from cannabis as medicine never has been mythology, but now the majority can nolonger deny it.

Might cure cancer, might prevent cancer, might prevent alzheimers. I've been smoking it for years and have not developed cancer or alzheimers.
No doubt it has prevented countless diseases that I might have gotten. Better safe than sorry.

I can certainly agree that cannabis has medicinal properties useful in certain applications. I however cannot stand with so many of my fellow growers and users who pretend that frequent use of cannabis isn't harmful in any way. It is. But worse so is drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco. To a lesser or greater extent so are loads of other things people do for fun. Yet I see so many of us chocked full of bullshit and confirmation bias in our conversations and on social media, falsely touting marijuana as a cure-all , or confidently asserting it cures cancer, all while refusing to acknowledge that marijuana use can be harmful.
I can only imagine how many people will see this thread and use it to assert that marijuana doesn't cause lung cancer despite it clearly stating that it does no such thing, while ignoring other scientific studies that do. The doctor here only says that marijuana use may be beneficial if it's medical benefits outweigh the harm. As an example for my argument Kervork has just said that it has prevented him from getting countless diseases. Seeings most of us don't acquire countless diseases, nor do most of us get cancer or Alzheimer's in the first place I'm doubting that smoking weed is the major factor in his good health.
Beyond recognizing legitimate medical uses I understand the whole foot-in-the-door bit of the medical argument, it's certainly working and I guess it's a means to an end but I long for the day when I can be free to smoke weed just because I want to smoke weed. I'll jump through hoops to have my smoke, free from worry about being locked in a cage if I must, but I do not like it. Luckily for me I do genuinely have a qualifying condition. While I'm a strong advocate for legalization I'll be damned if I myself am going to turn into a snake-oil salesman to do so. If and when marijuana legalization comes I will start up a business and package my products with the honest and appropriate warnings. I will continue to smoke it despite the dangers, because I want to. Just like I enjoy my Marlboro's and my UV. My liberty comes before other people's misconceptions, bullshit, and hypocritical sanctimony.
The argument can start with medicine if it must but we shouldn't lie about it.

In case you misconstrued my post I'm in no way saying that you posted the article to show that cannabis use cannot cause lung cancer Bob.

since you're not a qualified doctor or scientist Pimper, wouldn't it also be somewhat hypothetical on your part to say that cannabis does not prevent or cure disease?

They have done a study ( In Lab ) and found that some of the chemicals in marijuana actually kills cancer cells!

abe supercro said:

since you're not a qualified doctor or scientist Pimper, wouldn't it also be somewhat hypothetical on your part to say that cannabis does not prevent or cure disease?

Click to expand...

For some reason most of my posts get misunderstood, I didn't say that Abe. Also, I don't have to be a doctor or scientist to read the scientific literature.

Drifter126 said:

They have done a study ( In Lab ) and found that some of the chemicals in marijuana actually kills cancer cells!

Click to expand...

Yes, I know. It's still not justifiable at this point to say weed cure or prevents cancer.

Pimpernickel said:

Yes, I know. It's still not justifiable at this point to say weed cure or prevents cancer.

Click to expand...

I say it all the time.

You might say it, but as I said you're unjustified in saying so. You have no conclusive evidence that it does. You have no cure.
That doesn't mean there will never be one, doesn't mean there will be either.

Amongst the Veterans of the movement you will find collectively that out all of the long term cannabis smokers , most tend to be free of upper respiratory problems & much less prone to throat and lung cancer and this has been known amongst us for some time.

My wife has seen a drastic improvement in her now questionable Asthma and it baffles her main Doctor as he does not know of her Cannabis smoking and can only look at her history on charts as it is not pretty . She is free of a life long issue with it due to nothing but smoking the highest potent cannabis we can provide to her .

Oh it is amusing when we stoner and highon potheads have known the truths all along

You can just Google 'marijuana respiratory effects' check the scholarly section and read studies that use blind tests, statistical analysis, and are subject to peer review. They do link cannabis use to respiratory problems, they also link it to an increase in incidence of lung cancer. For me the risks are acceptable.

When it comes to assessing whether all that goo I see covering my bong and my pipes can cause me health problems when it gets into my lungs, when it comes to assessing the health risks associated with my use I'll take the word of medical researchers following the scientific method over anecdotal evidence selected with confirmation bias.

Pimpernickel said:

You can just Google 'marijuana respiratory effects' check the scholarly section and read studies that use blind tests, statistical analysis, and are subject to peer review. They do link cannabis use to respiratory problems, they also link it to an increase in incidence of lung cancer. For me the risks are acceptable.

When it comes to assessing whether all that goo I see covering my bong and my pipes can cause me health problems when it gets into my lungs, when it comes to assessing the health risks associated with my use I'll take the word of medical researchers following the scientific method over anecdotal evidence selected with confirmation bias.

Click to expand...

No offense but these so called blind tests are biased nine times out of ten and outdated . Statistical Analysis is not always correct as it too has flaws and variables that can not be argued . I do not advocate being a fool and believing that the sky is falling either .

In a sense the truths are yet to be found as we have only begun to see the light at the other end of the tunnel , I think in due time we will all be astonished at what Cannabis and Technology can do hand in hand ..

It would be most interesting to really see a study done on the tar and oils of strains and there true chemistry as we all might just be surprised with the diversity found

How about, "cannabis -CAN-, or -may- cure some cancers"? Or, injested hemp oil has had healing properties in relation to cancers. perhaps it's the absolutes of cannabis being the ultimate cure-all that's moving 'pimper' to the darkside, jk jk -only trying to understand diff personalities. most advocates advocate, not negate best attributes. yeah I prolly misunderstood you P., no offense intended. peace yo...

Kervork said:

Might cure cancer, might prevent cancer, might prevent alzheimers. I've been smoking it for years and have not developed cancer or alzheimers.
No doubt it has prevented countless diseases that I might have gotten. Better safe than sorry.

Click to expand...

think I'm w Kervork, even if not so scientific, at least the guy has kept his sense of humor while enjoying the herb.

Since you said you want to understand different personalities I'll try and give a better explanation of my views, maybe they'll make more sense in greater detail.

Sure, may works for me. Cannabis may be able to be used to create a cure for some cancers, though it may not. Can is different, it hasn't been proven that it can, not in humans anyway. The study that gives me the most optimism as far as cancer is the one Drifter126 mentioned where they used THC to kill brain cancer cells in mice.

I'm an MJ advocate but I don't hide information from people about cannabis's negative health effects, I don't lie for marijuana, I don't tell people that it's not been proven to be harmful to one's health, I don't tell them that it can cure or be used to treat things that it's not been proven to, and I express my dissent when I see any of those claims being made or implied so people reading them don't automatically accept and propagate myths or false information.

I think I have two good reasons for this: One, when people use those false arguments MJ opponents can easily knock them down with solid counter-evidence or by showing the MJ proponent has no evidence for their claims. Those defeated claims weaken our position in the eyes of the undecided who see and hear the arguments. Two, while I'm a member of the MMJ community, acknowledge and advocate the medicinal use of marijuana for proven treatments, I'm also an advocate for real legalization. My argument loses nothing by acknowledging that recreational marijuana use poses health risks. I advocate for legalization because I want my liberty and I demand the right to make decisions about which recreational drugs I use. I can demonstrate that most of the MJ legalization opponent's arguments, unlike mine, are bullshit. Then I point to the 67% of people who choose to use alcohol recreationally, demonstrate it's more harmful than their drug of choice, and demand they recognize my right to equal liberty.
I think that if people who agree with me advocate in this manner press these arguments to the people, we'll get our vote soon enough and we'll win it. Then hopefully the bullshit I can't stand thrown about by dishonest/honestly misinformed MMJ advocates will stop. Real medical researchers will then have the ability to do unhampered research and uncover additional, demonstrable, medicinal uses.

Pimpernickel said:

You might say it, but as I said you're unjustified in saying so. You have no conclusive evidence that it does. You have no cure.
That doesn't mean there will never be one, doesn't mean there will be either.

Click to expand...

You apparently don't think I'm justified in saying it, but I'm good with saying it. No problems here.

If you have a cure for cancer then why are cancer wards still in business? Why are you letting people die of cancer?
We can go to a cancer ward tomorrow and pull the next four chemo patients out of line. They certainly won't miss the radiation therapy treatment because it's unnecessary. We'll give them all your cure and see what happens, if you can actually cure them I'll devote my life and my savings to helping you save lives. If they die because they believed smoking your pot would make the tumors in their pancreas disappear I'll let you decide what we should do.

Ever hear of the pharmaceutical lobby buddy?