Thanks much for getting this out there - they will hear from me today.

You know what got this guy to stop smoking cigarettes? Cannabis. Seriously! I've been tobacco free for about two years now. Yet, I am completely functional in my day-to-day life and actually less stressed out than before I started smoking in the first place. Maybe the TURC should do a study on that. ;-)

@ Mendoza

But the smoke does NOT cause lung cancer, and if you're worried about the smoke anyways, vaporize it. Or make up some butter and pour it in an ice cube tray and freeze it.  Then add a cube when you make mashed potatoes, pasta, or use it on your pancakes in the morning.  As famous as cookies and brownies are, be careful to bake on a low heat, anything to much hotter than 220 degrees will zap the good stuff and you'll end up with duds.   (This is why food where you add the butter after you cook it is ideal).

So you see, there really is no excuse.

I guess I was less than clear. Tobacco smoke is irrefutably the largest cause of lung cancer.

But, my entire comment, directed at Mendoza, referred to Cannabis which has never been shown to cause lung cancer.  Later I may have time to find the studies, but a really large one commissioned by the White House to prove a marijuana / lung cancer link, embarrassed the Bush Administration when it showed no correlation at all (even in the heaviest marijuana smokers).  

In fact the group that used marijuana but not tobacco had lower rates of lung cancer than the group that didn't smoke anything at all. (But don't get too excited - the difference was within the margin of error).

Even so, its unlikely smoking plant matter of any species could be completely without ill health effects, which is why I suggested either vaporizing or ingesting.

Thanks for your response Sam.  But as a total layman on medical issues, I'm a little confused.

Since vaporizing cannabis delivers THC just as smoking it, and assuming THC does indeed prohibit cancer growth, wouldn't either method lower (or have no effect) on cancer?

I was not suggesting vaporizing tobacco doesn't cause cancer.

How can cannabis smoke have cancer promoting properties when it cannot be associated with increased risk of cancer?

Aren't there other (non-cancer related) negative health effects of smoking cannabis, such as lung tar, that would not apply to vaporizing?

My two pennies:
If you just smoke pot you are inhaling less smoke... aka not smoking as often. My experience at least.

Well, even if pot smokers don't get lung cancer, every pot-smoking, still smoking, friend/acquaintance I know from the 60s seems to barely have a brain cell to remember where they parked their car.  No cure for that.

Funny, Jude, but my anecdotal evidence is far different than yours. I know lots of folks who smoke daily for mental health, anxiety, pain management, asthma relief (ironic as that may sound), and other medical reasons beyond simply getting high. They are nearly all happy, positive, productive people who rarely ever lose track of their cars. And if you are worried about the smoke, doesn't just about any drug on the market today come with harmful side-effects, or has that four-hour erection stopped the blood flow to your brian? (I kid--an easy joke.)

Not everyone who smokes pot turns into Tommy Chong or Jeff Spicolli or even gets the munchies or is taken over by a sudden urge to go snowboarding. Shelve those ideas under "stereotypes." The arguments against legalizing pot mostly come from drug and liquor industries who would be hurt by the "competition" and from misinformed conservatives who seem to think alcohol is OK and marijuana is not simply because of current laws and their own sense of right and wrong, sometimes skewed by religious views.

You've heard the some of the arguments before: legalize it and it would create more farming and related jobs, increase tax revenues, put the drug lords out of business, reduce the prison population, allow police to handle "real" crimes, and even save lives: would all those Mexican drug lords and police be killing each other the illegal American market didn't exist?

But heck, screw all that because your college roommate still says "Dude."

Jude; Sorry if i jumped on you after a misinterpretation, but yours seemed like a pretty negative (and stereotypical) anti-marijuana response, so I jumped to the conclusion that you were completely against it. My brain obviously responded much too quickly.

Yes, back to the topic.

No worries, Tony D.  Good to see a quick brain respond in kind.

Donald P. Tashkin, MD, an author of the pot lung study, is hardly a pot-smoking hippie.  I mean, take a look at the man!  

Donald P. Tashkin, M.D.

He is a graduate of the Ivy League, and is Distinguished Professor of Medicine at UCLA (for those of you who aren't aware of Medical School professors, only one in a thousand of the best medical profs get a distinguished chair title; it's like getting into the rock star hall of fame).  

Dr. Tashkin has authored over 370 journal articles alone, as well as numerous book chapters on various topics including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, airway disease management, lung cancer, and the health effects of smoking pot and cocaine.

Dr. Robert Melamede, the other "pro-pot" author I quoted above, might activate some people's "hippy-dar," but he sure is smart.

mendoza, I agree.  There are a lot of things that are not too harmful in moderation, but can be addictive and harmful in excess.  It seems pot and alcohol are not harmful in moderation (given the medical research).  Eating, gambling, and shopping are not too harmful in moderation.  But these things can be really bad, according to research, if done excessively (which can lead to addiction).  So one or two alcoholic drinks a day can be fine, and maybe smoking pot on occasion (although, truth be told, I never do, but I have friends that do and they seem fine with occasional consumption).  But one or two cigarettes a week can significantly raise risks of a wide range of pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases (lung cancer, stroke, heart attack).  

That is why the UMD medical research on tobacco is so important.  Tobacco causes emphysema and lung cancer, while pot does not.  Above I cited medical research from Dr. Tashkin that shows that pot doesn't cause lung cancer but tobacco does.  Below is a technical, 30 minute presentation from Dr. Tashkin that details why the research shows that while tobacco smoke causes emphysema (which is a much more prevalent cause of death in tobacco smokers than lung cancer), pot smoke does not.  Apparently, though, pot smoke does cause the more mild bronchitis (coughing and phlegm), but this does not affect lung function in a serious way like COPD and emphysema, according to Tashkin.

Compared to more independent university researchers, the tobacco corporations have many, many times more money for marketing their own research.  The financial power behind tobacco marketing has made a lot of people question legitimate research.  The tobacco lobby takes advantage of ignorance about proper methodology in statistics and medical research, and thus can easily manipulate.  

Similarly, the corn lobby did this to ridiculous lengths here... 



Even though a lot of science shows corn syrup to cause various serious adverse health effects compared to regular sugar... 

A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain

Archie, I cited a lot of legitimate sources to back up my statements.  Do you have any citations to back up yours?  Name-calling without any legitimate evidence to back it up does not make a rational argument.

From time to time I make some silly/stupid spelling mistakes and word choices, so I feel I can say this with some confidence: When you fail to write well, or when you make readers actively struggle to understand what the hell you are saying you lose a lot of credibility. Archie, nothing you have written adds up to anything but out and out semi-incoherent ranting. I think I understand some of what you wrote, but not to the extent I'd want to address it as I could easily be wrong.

The academics charge incoherent ranting, spelling errors etc.(predictable from folks the make a living creating favorable scientific opinions.

 How many studies that you make book on has never had peer review from legitimate scientists? Too many of them. How many use meta anaylsis, cherry picking to create a desired finding? Because of the loud protest from professional researchers President Bush's OMB never got around to making it law that anyone doing research with public money must recieve legitimate peer review to insure the public is paying for sound science instead of the Manufactured in excess of tobacco studies that are in the thousands.
 How many times has Steven Hecth released the same study showing nicotine in non smokers by using the old worn out trick of using cotonine as a marker for nicotine that appears in anyone that consumes vegetables. Two times this same study was released with out question. even the other professional tobacco epideimologist Dorothy Hutsikuma at the UofM released the same study using cotinine finding the same SHS exposure as the causation.
 I have watched this Cartel of tobacco warriors for nearly 25 years lie and distort facts to promote a big money making anti tobacco scheme into a lifestyle, But You folks don't want to hear that do you?
 Do as you wish, there are no more laws of decency and credibility to guide your business, especially epideimology defined in the greek dictionary as finding in favor of the funding party.
 When I hear of another 10.7 million dollars of hard earned tax money going to scientific prostitution it is becoming harder to accept.
 I am hoping that in the next two elections that Americans will be elected that are willing to jail politically motivated researchers that abuse the stipulations of public grant money and the credibility of scientific standards, 
 Give this citizen all the insults you can come up with, But I have spent 2 1/2 decades collecting data bought with public funds that stinks to high heaven. Look up your Colleague Harry Landro at the UofM, C.E Koops science Editor turned researcher with a 2.1 million dollar cancer research grant (as usual) from the NCI, See what your fellow researcher contributed for ther 2.1 mil of the dumb publics money. Oh and I have a copy of that grant also along with the quarterly expenditures. Oh and the students are getting a 4.3% tuition increase at the U of M ?  OH and the Cabal you mentioned, Talk to doctor Mark manley BCBSMN's professional anti tobacco feather bedder, He was the grant administrator at the NCI when the Crabal was funded 100% in the early 90's with public funds intended for cancer research, thatby the way is still here with a vengence.

Sam

 The hundreds of billions that influence this topic has dirtied it, Even the WHO and their antics on the alleged dangers of SHS to the 2006 SG Carmona's 750 page compemdium on smoking and SHS is the epitome of dirty science. Even posters here falsely state and pathologically believe that smoking is the causation of lung cancer. Where is the peer reviewed scientific proof ?  It does not exist, nor does the scientific proof that any single human being in the world has ever been declared dead form exposure to SHS.

 I think most dependable and consciencentious researchers that abide by science standards are embarresed by the twistiscticks being fronted by public funded scientists that have made a financial killing on the pre disposed research done by the un principled grantees.

 Just because these pro's get their work published in publications like JAMA gives it no more credibility than if it was published in the Onion. After spending over twenty years looking at the demise of legetimate science there is no other conclusion than to see science diminished by the un principled that should have spent the billions wasted on tobacco science on cancer cures,breast cancer,Als instead of a major social engineering project to control the social norms of free citizens. a dangerous position, "the good of the many at the expense of a few" Or tell a big lie that is more believable if told over and over.
 I am assuming that you are well educated in this history of scientific prostitution that has been in full sight of anyone with an I.Q as high as a pair of tennis shoes.
Do me a favor and take a closer look and don't forget to be objective, In every Oak tree of Bullshit there lies an acorn of truth.

Is it weird that I still haven't seen Soylent Green? I mean, I already know that Soylent Green is ... SPOILER ALERT ... people.

Ya know, you could just close the thread.

Only in Duluth

 How many of the highly public funded universities,Anti smoking non profits and conglomerates,anti smoking coalitions, Government special taxes divisions, trial lawyers,and states collecting 246 billion dollars from tobacco interests, where payments are regulated by how many people smoke instead of how many quit.
 Tell me in all honesty, How many of these benifactors of tobacco science and politics want people to quit smoking??

Organized crime asks a simple question to "Flush out benifactors" Ask, "Who benefits?"

I am delighted to post the word nincompoop here with this link to the definition. It just fits so well for the author of posts that defy understanding.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-nincompoop.htm

mendoza, The best option, imho, is neither 1 nor 2, but a 3rd option: don't smoke anything.  But, if one must smoke, research suggests that moderate pot smoking is arguably a better alternative if one is not operating any heavy machinery and does not mind the mental effects of THC.

I take the 3rd option, since I am already pretty mellow without THC and have no desire to smoke anything.

Fritz, you are a strong and independent person. Salute!

When the anti-smoking machine was operating with truth and without spin Twististicks and had the respect of the citizens by 1989, 40 million Americans stopped smoking without big pharmacy stop-smoking aids.
 
When the anti-smoking lost credibility with citizens, smoking simply leveled off at 25%.

The anti-machine use the big three tactics (1) Educate. If that fails (2) Desocialize using any non-linear tactic. If that fails (3) lobby for taxation and regulation well outside of equal representation with unlimited public funds.

Worked so well on tobacco, maybe free speech or private property rights can be curtailed.
 
The "sheeple" don't have an idea.

Sam is implying that I consider the "Tobacco war" a conspiracy world wide. Those are your implications, Sam. I speak locally and consider the billions that have changed hands in tobacco "related high financing."

As long as I am getting credit for the world conspiracy, why did the WHO hold back studies that showed no significant dangers from living with a smoker, and even a plus benefit for the children of smokers?

Doctors are known for their "observations" but yet not a single doctor had ever gone so far as to attribute smoking or exposure to SHS as the factor for an individual death.

And further, the anti-tobacco warriors continue to say that tobacco is the causation for lung cancer. Do you have that study Sam? Of course not. Tobacco is possibly one of hundreds of confounding factors for lung cancer, but not the single causation.

If this were so, tobacco would be considered radioactive to humans and the government would have to cease making 15 times more on a single pack than the manufacturer.

The truth is Sam, there's gold in them there tobacco plants. Who benefits most, Sam?