PDA

View Full Version : Heavy marijuana use linked to bladder cancer



Binky
02-03-2006, 05:13 PM
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Pot smokers could be putting themselves at risk for developing bladder cancer, according to the results of a study of middle-aged men who were seen at two Veterans Administration facilities.

Marijuana smoking "might be an even more potent stimulant" of malignancy than cigarette smoking, Dr. Martha K. Terris of the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta and her colleagues write in the medical journal Urology.

Terris and her team point out that head and neck and lung cancers have been tied to marijuana use, and there is evidence that these marijuana-associated malignancies may strike at an earlier age.

To determine if marijuana use might also be associated with bladder cancer, she and her colleagues evaluated 52 men with the disease who were all younger than 60 years, along with 104 age-matched controls.

Among the men with bladder cancer, 88.5 percent were habitual marijuana smokers, compared with 69.2 percent the controls.

The average quantity of marijuana use also was higher in the men with bladder cancer, the investigators found. The cancer group clocked up an average of 48 joint-years per patient -- i.e., the individuals smoked the equivalent of 1 joints a day for 48 years, or 2 joints a day for 24 years, etc. -- while the comparison group reported an average of 28.5 joint-years.

Tobacco use was also heavy among the study subjects, with more than 90 percent of the men in either group using tobacco, making it impossible to identify any link between cigarettes and cancer risk.

Marijuana could be more cancer-promoting than tobacco, the investigators note, given its longer half-life (up to 60 hours versus 12 hours) and the fact that marijuana is smoked without a filter and held longer in the lungs.

The drug also reduces bladder contractility, the researchers add, which could increase urine retention and thus greater exposure of the bladder to marijuana compounds.

They advise that younger patients with symptoms that might suggest bladder cancer, who aren‘t usually considered at high risk, "should be questioned about a history of marijuana use." If they answer positively, the researchers conclude, it might be advisable to conduct further tests.

SOURCE: Urology, January 2006.
http://www.localnewsleader.com/brocktown/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=136252

Storm Crow
02-03-2006, 07:00 PM
First off, Dr. Tashkin (who the DEA quotes frequently based on his EARLY work in which he thought cannabis might be a cause for lung cancer) did a study with over 1,200 patients and found, much to his surprise, that there was actually a slight negative correlation between cancers of the lungs and throat. In other words, those who smoked marijuana had a slightly lower risk of cancer than nonsmokers! A second study involving 64,000 Kaiser cancer patients ended up with the same results. ( for more info on this see www.counterpunch.org/gardner07022005 ) I guess that Dr. Terris ought to do a bit more reading! I also am a bit upset with her lack of following proper scientific method. A good controlled experiment looks at one factor only with all other factors being the same in both groups. Not concidering the tobacco usage as a possible cause of the bladder cancer, fouls the whole study up. We know tobacco is a carcinogen (cancer causer). In addition, I find it VERY strange that cannabis has been shown to destroy glioma ( a nasty brain cancer) cells, yet her findings say it causes a cancer. Is cannabis both a cause and cure for cancer? This seems to defy logic. I think this rather unscientific study belongs right up there with the "pot makes you sterile , pot makes you violent, etc." myths. And who funded this study, anyway?

hollowpoint
02-03-2006, 09:56 PM
we all know how this works, right? ok for those who don't, these research labs, university labs and others live on the grants, for conducting thier research. so say I want to test a theory but it doesn't fall under one of the current grant provisions, what do I do? I start a study where I know the outcome, and that outcome will favour the current administrations war on weed, where do you think I will go with the next grant application? so as long as I can drum up some "stats" to support the goals of the feds I will continue to receive grants. as we all know stats can be manipulated in many ways to achieve our goals.
I have to admit to experiencing urine retention after smoking some strains. I thought it would never end, once I started to release the urine. however I could spell my complete name in the snow so see how I found the postive lol.

In The Wind
02-04-2006, 09:27 AM
Thier buying commercial mex and doing testing with that shit. Worse than pal-malls

pindulinka
02-04-2006, 09:30 AM
A very simple search result came up with this link:

http://www.mcg.edu/som/surgery/Urology/mterris.htm

check the category "licensure" notice the connection to the U.S. DEA, I think we can can the whole theory

illin
02-04-2006, 09:44 AM
Tobacco use was also heavy among the study subjects, with more than 90 percent of the men in either group using tobacco, making it impossible to identify any link between cigarettes and cancer risk.