Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: New study of 83,000 men shows, not smoking cannabis can be as dangerous to your health as smoking cigarettes.

Posted 1 year ago on May 13, 2013, 7:22 a.m. EST by factsrfun (6450) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This is the headline USA should have ran instead we get Kathleen Doheny who represents the worst that American journalism has to offer.

Here is the opening paragraph from her article cited below:

“New research says smoking pot may be less likely to cause bladder cancer than smoking cigarettes.”

What the study showed is that not smoking marijuana is as dangerous to your health as smoking cigarettes, as anyone can see in this quote from the doctor who ran the study.

“”Cannabis use only was associated with a 45 percent reduction in bladder cancer incidence, and tobacco use only was associated with a 52 percent increase in bladder cancer," said study author Dr. Anil A. Thomas, a fellow in urology at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in Los Angeles.”


Kathleen Doheny deliberately misleads her readers by failing to highlight the big news that there was a 42% reduction in one type of cancer with cannabis use, if the the study had been about a 10% reduction with say red wine use that would have been the clear headline no matter how flawed the study was. It is because of reporters like Kathleen Doheny that American has one of the least effective yet most expensive health care systems in the world.

Here’s a much better and less bias report of the same information from the Raw Story:




Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by ronaldportish (0) 1 year ago

I love how this article points the finger at Kathleen Doheny for deliberately misleading readers, but then does exactly that itself! The title - "New study of 83,000 men shows, not smoking cannabis can be as dangerous to your health as smoking cigarettes." Doesn't take into account the combination of all effects of cannabis smoking, but only its effects on bladder cancer. Cannabis is super dangerous for lung cancer, and many other diseases. In fact, in terms of lung cancer, smoking cannabis is far more dangerous than smoking. Love the ironic propaganda!

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6450) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

ah so you too are either a spreader of fucking lies or perhaps you are just far behind on the science here let me give you a link so you too can know that smoking cannabis alone without tobacco shows no increase in lung cancer and if you mix cannabis with your tobacco you reduce your chance of lung cancer:


and may even be helpful in fighting lung cancer:


[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

everyone knows marijuana and psychedelics are medicine.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

According to Doc Leary? Vitamin A?cid Vitamin C annabis?

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

well there is a good bit of science to back it up at this point.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6450) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Cannabis policy is at the heart of the struggle with the 1%, the people know without doubt that cannabis is better than alcohol but the 1% fear that it will make people less useful in their factories and less willing to spend money on crap. It is in this federal cannabis policy that the most stark conflict between reality and policy exist. It is at the core of the debate about the role of government, does it exist to ensure the will of the Royals, in other words the Monarchy that the GOP work for, or is it to provide a way for the people at large to benefit from collective effort and to preserve freedom from enemies both foreign and domestic.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Make a delineation between naturally grown varieties, and chemically forced hydro varieties. The latter are mind-destroying people benders.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6287) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

What exactly do you mean by "chemically forced?"

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

When you grow hydroponically, the chemical growing medium is specifically designed to alter the outcome of growth. Likewise with the lighting setups stimulating production of the "sunscreen" the plant produces to combat UV exposure.

That's where the concentrated THC resides; within the sunscreen.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6287) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I must be a bit behind in my hydroponics knowledge. From what I recall, the medium is inert, with a neutral pH. The growing solution should be nothing but pH-balanced filtered (preferably) water in which you mix your nutrients. It's my understanding the whole idea behind hydroponics is so the plant doesn't have to expend a lot of time and energy growing an extensive root system. Other than that, there's little difference between hydro and soil growing except you have to keep a VERY close eye on the pH of the nutrient solution. And it's a lot easier to overfeed with hydro, since soil acts as a buffer, giving you a lot more leeway.

But it's been easily five or six years since I've read a grow book, so maybe there are new techniques that chemically induce THC production. Clue me in, B. I'm curious.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

The medium (usually an aerated pumice, or volcanic rock) is inert.

The chemicals are where the manipulation happens most, and the better growers have done their own research, and are guarded with sharing that info.

The largest impact a grower can have on the outcome is with manipulating the strength and duration of the light source.

I'm probably less literate on the topic than yourself, GM, but I try to keep up with trivial knowledge of many topics. Probably explains why I'm not rich. LOL

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6287) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I'd like to know more about that chemical manipulation. I'm not a grower but, like you, I like to keep up on new trivia about subjects that interest me.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6450) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I doubt very much that you could tell the difference if presented two examples, very few people can, and as far as I am aware there are no studies showing alcohol to be safer than hydro grown cannabis.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

It's easy to tell the difference by smell, taste, and effect.

Alcohol is a socially accepted poison. Just like tobacco used to be.

The times, they are a-changin'.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6450) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

How exactly does social acceptance enter into the safety question?

Then the hydro was grown by an amateur, unless like I said you're one of the handful who actually can tell the difference, then hats off to you Sir.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

I don't partake of either these days, but it wasn't a strectch to identify "skunk" varieties over standard bush weed. It still isn't. The smell is most definitely different.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I like the stuff that you can stick your hand in the bag and pull it out and its still all stuck to it :)

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

I once scored some natural weed that was like that. I had to travel on a bus, so I wrapped it in another bag, put it in a small container, and but that in the bottom of my sleeping bag, at the bottom of my rucksack. When we got to the destination terminal, and the driver opened the cargo door down below, all you could smell was my weed. Potent stuff.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

haha thats freakin excellent