Comments on: Marijuana May Ward Off Lung Cancer

By: RussBlog

RussBlog — Sun, 28 May 2006 14:07:03 +0000

Post details: Marijuana Doesn't Cause Lung Cancer?...

...

By: Russell Newquist

Russell Newquist — Sun, 28 May 2006 02:04:52 +0000

Actually, I think this study is bogus precisely because I did read the article, and think their methodology was pure crap for the issue they're studying. But I don't particlarly feel like retyping the argument I left on my own blog, and I've had problems leaving trackbacks on OTB (and only OTB) for ages.

By: TJIT

TJIT — Sat, 27 May 2006 16:17:02 +0000

Reading some of the comments (Steve Plunk and G A Phillips) it is obvious some people rushed to comment without bothering to read the aricle.

regarding lung cancer and pot

"What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

And what the article said about this guys previous research.

"Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous."

By: G A Phillips

G A Phillips — Sat, 27 May 2006 14:26:06 +0000

Yes these Liberal studies are great, just like the one where they figured that murdering an unborn baby is not really murder cause its not really a human being yet just a slimy little tadpole, the excuses they make up and then call them studies are not but deceptive ways of turning destructive behavior into acceptable ways of living life, got to love donkey logic,(bullsh-ting yourself into becoming an example of bullsh-t that is so disciplined and well lied that you get other Dumb-ss people to think its the truth)got to love it.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Sat, 27 May 2006 14:07:41 +0000

non-addictive

Maybe. But I have seen so many pot smokers claim they have to keep doing it to stay alive, that I'm not so sure about this claim.

By: The Unabrewer

The Unabrewer — Sat, 27 May 2006 13:34:17 +0000

First beer had health benefits, and now pot. If they can just healthify bacon, the world will be wonderful.

By: Russell Newquist

Russell Newquist — Sat, 27 May 2006 03:20:23 +0000

I saw this the other day, and personally I think it's a pretty bogus study. I've already outlined why back on my own blog.

By: Jon Henke

Jon Henke — Sat, 27 May 2006 00:25:44 +0000

Since when was the issue the health effects of being a pothead? The fact it makes you a lazy, basement dwelling, doofus brain was always the problem.

Yeah, well so does blogging. But you don't see that being outlawed. Yet, anyway.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 26 May 2006 22:11:02 +0000

Steven: The article says, "marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous."

By: Steven Plunk

Steven Plunk — Fri, 26 May 2006 22:04:55 +0000

Dope smoking doesn't protect you against cancer. It may help alleviate side effects from chemo and some other problems but it will not be "protective against the killer ailment". That's an important difference.

Since when was the issue the health effects of being a pothead? The fact it makes you a lazy, basement dwelling, doofus brain was always the problem.

By: lily

lily — Fri, 26 May 2006 21:50:23 +0000

I wonder what effect potsmoking has on retinas? My eye doc told me not to smoke cigrettes (I don't anyway) because I had a detached retina. I didn't think to ask about pot--just assumed it was verboten, too.

By: floyd

floyd — Fri, 26 May 2006 21:44:09 +0000

i don't know but i think "my favorite martian" might have had a toke or two!