Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World: "MK considers bill to bar smoking in vehicles with kids
By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH
Exclusive: Study finds air in cars with cigarettes much more toxic than in restaurants allowing smoking."
I was disturbed at the number of kids at Hempfest in Seattle. MJ smoke has MORE carcinogens in it than tobacco smoke and certainly kids deserve to make their own choices about the risk when they are old enough.
6 comments:
http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=13739
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/hscout/2009/04/01/hscout625697.html
John,
Tx for the posts but I wold appreciate some comment.
I did look at these enough to see that you likley feel they support the attitude that MJ is safe. If that is your poi9nt, then I am happy to discuss them with you but need to know why points oyu think are important.
Fair enough. You seem to be a thoughtful educated person. I thought I would post some links to perhaps make you think about a statement that you made that is not based on science.
Tobacco causes more than 400,000 deaths annually. Very few of these are deaths by overdose although those do occur. The deaths listed are generally cancer and heart desease. While marijuana is consumed at a lesser rate than tobacco, deaths attributed to marijuana by the United States Centers for Disease Control are almost non-existant. This after 60 years of a government that has been spending enormous amounts of money trying to show the negative effects of marijuana. Interestingly tobacco is still subsidized by the US.
Marijuana is definitely not more carcinogenic than tobacco. I do understand your concern about children. Men of science should listen to data, not propaganda. We should help eachother to know the difference.
Thanks,
-John
John.
First, neiother tobacco nor mj kill people by "overdose" the problems are with the contaminating substances in the smoke. These molecules have been studied intensely and are all to real.
While it is possible that MJ is not carcinogenic, this is unlikely since the content of carcinogens in MJ smoke is higher than in Tob smoke.
There are, as you note, some studies that suggest some anti tumor effect but most of these are in culture dishes with THC not MJ so are not informative. These studies also often are of cell culture
phenomena we know do not correlate well with Ca. (E.g. mosyt cnacers actually grow slowly, they are harmful because they never stop growing and spread. The ability to slow growth in a culture dish may tell us nothing.
At least one clin study, that is in patients, failed to find the expected risk for MJ so .. This failure could be because of unknown variables, always an issue in clinical studies or it could be that there is some surprise protective effect in MJ smoke. OTOH, there are also studies that show an increasd ris, eg of testicular Ca. Bottom line, I can guarantee you that the drug companies would rapidly get on the train if there were convincing effort that soe magic ingredient in MJ smoke counteracted the carcinogens.
You need to be skpetical of clinical studies. They are hard to do. Cholesterol was only proven to be bad after a large number of different studies, some of which were contradictory.
A problem with clin studies comparing mj and tob is that most folks smoke both. Also, mj only smokers smoke less than do tob smokers. Unfortunately the effcts of tob on Ca are not simply additive. The data for tob show a threshold effect. As a result we might expect that all mj smokers are at risk but their total risk would be lower than tob only smokers because the latter smoke more.
On the other hand one needs to be worried about effects in addition to those on lung cancer .. as in the recent data showing testicular ca.
Part of my concern is with the hype over "medical mj." There is no evidence that any therapeutic effects of mj can not be replaced with THC, about as safe a drug as I know of. The legislation to legalize "medical" mj is an abuse of the laws we use to require drugs be given in their safest forms.
Finally, I would protest loudly, given what we do know about inhaled carcinoogens, that exposing kids to the stuff is abusive.
Happy to discuss specific papers if you want
Science should be based on fact not assumptions. I also assume that inhaling smoke of any kind is not good for you. I however have never seen any convincing evidence that marijuana smoke is carcinogenic let alone that marijuana is more carcinogenic than tobacco.
That being said let the science happen. Let the studies begin. 60 years of governmental suppression of the study of cannabis is criminal. Let’s go forward without assumptions and settle these debates. The public has not been well served by science by sound byte.
In the absence of the science, 60 years of a government that is dedicated to showing negative effects of a substance without being able to come up with anything of substance is as close to a clean bill of health as you can get. If marijuana causes cancer, where are the bodies?
Science is based on facts but rarely on certitude.
In this case you are confusing two very different issues. MJ is not a defined substance, nor is tobacco. We have a lot of certain knowledge about some aspects of the ingredients of both. We know that inhaled carcinogens are bad for you.
We do not know that anything in MJ smoke counteracts cancer but we also do not know that prayer, aspirin, or diet coke would not antagonize these chamicals.
The problem of inhalation of carcinogens is so well studied that it is a very bad idea to encourage anyone to inhale MJ smoke.
BTW, the argument you are making is also one the tobacco companies have tried to make for decades. One esp. worrisome variant is that we do nto know whether certain filters or other changes in how tobacco is smoked would make it safe.
The issue of legalization is actually different. I do not think we should illegalize tobacco. I certainly support legalization and regulation of MJ. I do think we need to give people the information they need to choose AND protect the uninformed from abuse (eg children).
That is why I oppose medical marijuana laws. Calling weed "medicine" is a s misleading as those old Kent filter ads.
Actually, the logical approach to legalization would be to legalize the sale of THC. Imagine Jones' Bros EmJayCola? Or how about Bud branded brownies?
The plant THC is grown in ought to be separate matter. BTW chocolate contains a very similar substance, Ironic? Or how about Bud branded brownies?
Post a Comment