Linda McCartney Smoked Cigarrettes? (was: Re: Patti Boyd) and other interesting things
DepressdGrl
I'm amazed at a few things here. Sir Paul lusted for Pam Anderson?
Linda McCartney smoked cigs (hmm no wonder she had the big C - but
also evidence says that marijuana smoke ALSO gives you big c as well);
Paul and Linda slept on dirt floors and the horses came into the
kitchen, and they sound like they lived pretty skanky (not washing).
dg
"yeah, linda, besides....who's alive and who's dead.
paul and linda lived like pigs on their sussex farm. they slept on
dirt floors and
had horses come into the kitchen. during the beatle breakup, paul
didn't wash and
linda didn't shave her legs. linda hid drugs in the hood of her baby
to protect paul
from getting busted, once. linda was for the beatles getting
together, but she
didn't want paul to tour much (fear of other women around him?)
paul had wanted to be asked on baywatch once, 'cause he liked pam
anderson and asked
david hasselhoff if he could guest star. when his request became
public, (maybe
"ma" linda found out?) paul was embarrassed and told david he was just
kidding...david said on a talk show disgustingly that he didn't sound
like he was
kidding when paul asked him! so who's show did he guest on shortly
after linda's
death? pam anderson's v.i.p. ..now i know paul and pam were involved
with peta, but
i think he was infatuated with her, being the bridget bardot fan that
he was in his
youth...
imo, linda's inner seathing and pot and cig smoking led her to an
early grave... she
was not a great photographer or muscian, and was only thought of as
the woman who
"had to marry" paul mccartney..that'll bug ya once you get as old as
she, no matter
how much money she had.
paul's happy with heather mills now. he's already written a song for
her, and after
his "attack on America" concert, was seen dancing the night away with
his new, young,
fiance. she's showing him culture and class, as did pauls' first
girlfriend, jane
asher.
pattie boyd still gets asked to the hottest parties because she
doesn't gossip about
her ex-beaus. she also became a photographer. - kirstie"
jen
"DepressdGrl" <jewishpun...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:af234cb1.01120...@posting.google.com...
> According to kirstie match (suem...@execpc.com):
>
>
> I'm amazed at a few things here. Sir Paul lusted for Pam Anderson?
> Linda McCartney smoked cigs (hmm no wonder she had the big C - but
> also evidence says that marijuana smoke ALSO gives you big c as well);
> Paul and Linda slept on dirt floors and the horses came into the
> kitchen, and they sound like they lived pretty skanky (not washing).
>
> dg
>
sucmbag Geoffry Guiliano? Not sure if Linda Mc ever smoked ciggies, but she
did say in an interview once (around 1995 I think) that one of the ways she
stayed healthy was that she didn't smoke, avoided caffeine and alcohol. I
have a friend who's in her mid 30's and has breast cancer. She's never
smoked cigarettes or pot and was not a big drinker. I don't remember
hearing/reading about a cause for Linda Mc's cancer, or that it was/wasn't
caused by her lifestyle. As far as lusting after Pam Anderson....a year or
so ago the tabloids wrote that he and Bo Derek were an item, even though
they've both said they never met each other - she on ET, he on Howard Stern
(but I suppose they were both lying though their teeth).
JosieCat
>did say in an interview once (around 1995 I think) that one of the ways she
>stayed healthy was that she didn't smoke, avoided caffeine and alcohol. I
>have a friend who's in her mid 30's and has breast cancer. She's never
>smoked cigarettes or pot and was not a big drinker.
Don't bother comparing your friend to Linda McCartney. Linda, by all acounts,
was a heavy pot smoker...and so is/was Paul McCartney. The THC content in
marijuana is considerably higher than in nicotine. I remember reading somehwere
that smoking one joint gives the you THC equivalent of five or six cigarettes.
I wouldn't be surprised if Linda's chronic pot smoking contributed to her
cancer.
PattyC
news:20011208170822...@mb-md.aol.com...
I would be interested to know if anyone has info as to if/how pot smoking
relates to breast cancer.
PattyC
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."
JosieCat
>relates to breast cancer.
>
>PattyC
>
Why don't you reduce your ignorance and do some research on breast cancer,
because medical experts say that smoking (pot, nicotine, whatever) can put a
woman at higher risk of getting breast cancer. If you want to debate the
medical implications of smoking pot, go somewhere else. If marijuana was
harmless, then it wouldn't be outlawed. It's sad how Linda McCartney died, but
if she was heavy pot smoker for decades, then she wasn't in the best of health
anyway.
Patra
"JosieCat" <josi...@aol.com> wrote in message
. It's sad how Linda McCartney died, but
> if she was heavy pot smoker for decades, then she wasn't in the best of
health
> anyway.
Ironic that if this is true, how people think they're being "oh, so healthy"
simply because they are vegetarian. "Oh, yeah. I'm into drugs but I'm
soooo healthy because I don't eat meat". And yeah. I know, I know ...it's
just pot! But still...can't stand that holier than thou attitude some
vegetarians take. They even try to turn their dogs and cats into
vegetarians when you *know* they need meat in their diet in order for them
to be healthy. They are carnivores...!!!
Michele317
>>relates to breast cancer.
>>
>>PattyC
>>
>
>
>Why don't you reduce your ignorance and do some research on breast cancer,
>because medical experts say that smoking (pot, nicotine, whatever) can put
>a
>woman at higher risk of getting breast cancer.
i'd like to see that data! i tried some quick 'research' just now (google
search on 'breast cancer marijuana' and similar word combos) and came up with
nothing... except some possible links between THC and tumor shrinkage.
If you want to debate the
>medical implications of smoking pot, go somewhere else. If marijuana was
>harmless, then it wouldn't be outlawed.
by that logic, alcohol was safe, then dangerous during prohibition, then
suddenly safe again.
It's sad how Linda McCartney died,
>but
>if she was heavy pot smoker for decades, then she wasn't in the best of
>health
>anyway.
any evidence?
UsurperTom
>Not sure if Linda Mc ever smoked ciggies
Yes, she did. There's a scene in the "Silly Love Songs" video where Linda
smokes a cigarette.
>she did say in an interview once (around 1995 I think) that one of the ways
she stayed healthy was that she didn't smoke, avoided caffeine and alcohol.
In that same interview, Linda also said that she got her yearly checkups.
Sady, this wasn't true. As for the alcohol, it's well-known that Paul is no
prohibitionist.
>the tabloids wrote that he and Bo Derek were an item
I don't think Paul would ever date a conservative Republican;-)
Tom
UsurperTom
>google search on 'breast cancer marijuana' and similar word combos
Google (and search engines in general) isn't the best source for medical
information.
Tom
UsurperTom
>medical experts say that smoking (pot, nicotine, whatever) can put a
>woman at higher risk of getting breast cancer
That's right. All cancers in the upper part of the body are susceptible to
smoking-related cancer.
Tom
UsurperTom
>I remember reading somehwere
>that smoking one joint gives the you THC equivalent of five or six
>cigarettes.
I read it's equivalent to about 20 cigarettes.
Tom
SandraW9
>>she did say in an interview once (around 1995 I think) that one of the ways
>she stayed healthy was that she didn't smoke, avoided caffeine and alcohol.
>
I don't know about the cigarette smoking but she definitely was a heavy pot
smoker and drank alcohol. Wasn't it Linda who came up with the pseudonym for
the band - Suzy and the Red Stripes? (Which was actually Paul, Denny Laine,
and Linda --singing lead.) I know she commented in an interview how she wrote
the song while on holiday in Jamaica, obviously she tasted the local brew. :)
Also in an interview she had said her and Paul would sometimes head for the
local pub to have a pint or two. Maybe she wasn't a lush but it never sounded
like she avoided alcohol.
San
Smoot
(JosieCat) wrote:
Oh brother! Marijuana wasn't outlawed because of any potential cancer
risk, it was demonized during the prohibition years along with everything
else that gets one high. Deliberate lies were spread about the drug. Then
because blacks and bohemians were the main users during the years when
people loosened up the laws on alcohol, it remained banned even for
medical purposes.
I haven't read of any studies that show THC has been shown to be a cancer
factor despite what you mentioned in an earlier post on this thread, as if
pot being higher in THC (as you put it, I don't believe tobacco actually
has any) made it a greater cancer risk. Tobacco is physically addicting,
unlike pot which can be very psychologically addicting true, but tobacco
is that too. And alcohol is far more debilitating.
I've no doubt that the tar in pot is very harmful to a person's lungs, but
higher THC means less smoking and less tar to get high. And there isn't
any nicotine which also has been shown to be a cancer risk.
I don't think pot is healthy by any means, but there is so much
misinformation and deliberate lies that have been spread about it and many
people just repeat those lies without reading up on actually studies. What
bugs me is that there are medical benefits to marijuna in certain cases
and because marijuana has been culturally demonized (hippies and musicians
used it!) the government will allow the use of far more dangerous drugs
for medical purposes but not marijuana. It's so stupid.
Emma
Bird Lady
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, pat...@worldnet.att.net says...
I rejected 2 separate pet sitters because they forced their dogs
and cats to be vegetarian. They thought it would make me like
them better - WRONG.
bel - who has very good friends who are vegetarians but they know
better than to convert their animals.
>
>
>
DepressdGrl
> >relates to breast cancer.
> >
> >PattyC
> >
According to this one site I'm reading, marijuana can cause cancer and
lung problems equal to or worse than cigarrette smoke.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/teenpg9-10.html
dg
John Storer
addictive in much the same way as amphetamine is. Only heroin is physically
addictive of the major A list drugs
"Smoot" <ihat...@spamsucks.com> wrote in message
news:ihateads-081...@annex8-26.dynamic.access.net...
Jeannie
wrote:
I recently met this guy who is a vegan and he has two cats who are
vegan too. He claims that they wouldn't eat tuna fish even if you set
it down in front of them, which is total bullshit. These poor cats are
so skinny and runty looking that it borders on pet abuse. Then he lets
the cats outside, where they immediately kill as many birds as they
can get ahold of, because they are so starved for protein. But if you
dare to point this out to him, he gets very offended and says that his
cats hate meat as much as he does. What an idiot.
Jeannie
Michele317
>
>Google (and search engines in general) isn't the best source for medical
>information.
??? someone here said there's lots of medical evidence linking marijuana smoke
to breast cancer. i'm not about to go to a medical library to prove their point
for them! they should post any evidence or studies showing this link. a similar
google search on lung cancer and cigarettes will immediately result in lots of
research links. and google is a much better source of medical info than
anything else available to a non-medical practitioner in the middle of the
night!
Michele317
first, that second statement makes no sense, grammatically or medically.
second, there are 'lower body' cancers (and when the hell did THAT medical
distinction come about???) that have a strong link to cigarette smoke.
Michele317
that site, an anti-drug site and not a medical site btw, does not mention, cite
or provide footnotes leading to any research on the effect of pot smoke on
breast cancer.
Patra
"John Storer" <john....@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3c131...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> Tobacco is not physically addictive! Nicotine, however, is psychologically
> addictive in much the same way as amphetamine is. Only heroin is
physically
> addictive of the major A list drugs
How is one only psychologically addicted? You mean the withdrawal symptoms
& the high are all in one's head so to speak? And I'm not being sarcastic.
I really want to know. This concept of being only psychologically addicted
has puzzled me. I think it's a combo of both.
Doctor Wu
wrote:
Marijuana is not physically addictive. It is psychologically
addictive. When you stop using marijuana, you don'ty break out in a
sweat and shake and vomit as you do with heroin. Cocaine i'm not sure
about, but I believe that is also more psychologically addictive than
physically. I think, though, that nicotine is physically addictive.
I used to smoke and i had headaches if i didn't have a cigarette for a
while.
--
Lisa
Patra
"Doctor Wu" <la...@home.com> wrote in message
. I think, though, that nicotine is physically addictive.
> I used to smoke and i had headaches if i didn't have a cigarette for a
> while.
>
So, do I. Whenever I stop, I get those headaches and a general feeling of
depression and "blah-ness". But somehow I managed to be smoke free for
about a month! Woo hoo.
JosieCat
>
>>>google search on 'breast cancer marijuana' and similar word combos
>>
>>Google (and search engines in general) isn't the best source for medical
>>information.
>
wrote:
>??? someone here said there's lots of medical evidence linking marijuana
>smoke
>to breast cancer. i'm not about to go to a medical library to prove their
>point
>for them! they should post any evidence or studies showing this link. a
>similar
>google search on lung cancer and cigarettes will immediately result in lots
>of
>research links. and google is a much better source of medical info than
>anything else available to a non-medical practitioner in the middle of the
>night!
>
Why don't you just shut up and go to any medical site that shows that medical
experts say that heavy smoking (nicotine, pot, crack, WHATEVER) puts a woman at
higher risk for getting breask cancer. Surely your lazy ass can do that in a
google search if you're compelled to find all the research on this...research
which DOES exist even if you're too stupid to find it. Also, I never said
smoking CAUSES breast cancer, but it puts a woman at higher risk of getting it,
according to medical studies. And since lungs and breasts are so close together
and we know that cancer can spread to other parts of the body, it doesn't take
a genius to figure out there could be a correlation. This topic is about Linda
McCartney. We've already established that she was a heavy smoker. She DID smoke
pot regularly and DID smoke cigarettes occasionally. End of story!
If you want to talk about lung cancer research or debate the health hazards of
pot smoking, there are other sites for that. Please don't insult our
intelligence by saying that being a heavy pot smoker for decades can have no
serious health affects. That's almost as dumb as saying marijuana isn't a drug.
JosieCat
>search on 'breast cancer marijuana' and similar word combos) and came up with
The key word here is "quick" research. If this bothers you so much and you
don't believe that these studies exist, go to a fucking library where there are
tons of books on the subject. If you're too stupid or lazy to find it on the
Internet, then shut the hell up because you obviously don't know what you're
talking about.
JosieCat
THANK YOU! There's a lot of medical misinformation on the Internet, and doing a
quick google search is not REAL research. Anyone who wants to educate
themselves about smoking, breast cancer, etc. is better served reading medical
books about it, or at least finding a reputable website about it, preferably
one endorsed by national health organizaiton. There are so many quack/crackpot
health websites on the Internet that you have to take a lot of those websites
with a grain of salt.
Somewhere in all of this we were talking about Linda McCartney. It's very
ignorant for people to think her heavy pot smoking had no affect on her health.
DepressdGrl
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9808/18/marijuana.cancer/
In the first study of its kind, researchers found that smokers of
marijuana and crack cocaine show the same kinds of precancerous
conditions caused by smoking tobacco.
The findings were released Tuesday in the Journal of the National
Cancer Institute.
*snip*
miche...@aol.combover (Michele317) wrote in message news:<20011209100321...@mb-fo.aol.com>...
Kewl Kat
Cats are pure carnivores.
In the wild, they are designed to get their plant nutrients from eating
the contents of the bellies of their prey.
they can't digest vegetation in any other way - why do you think cats
eat grass when their stomach is upset? because it will cause them to
barf and get rid of the offending contents.
Errgh, people who do this to their animals makes me crazy.
Kewl - those of us who own dogs will attest that dogs will eat anything,
anywhere, no matter where it came from - eat first, ask questions later!
;)
Kewl Kat
Withdrawal from a drug that is physically addictive (i.e. Heroin) can
cause major health problems and can potentially kill you - because your
body becomes dependent on the drug to function. This is why there are
substitute treatments like methadone, and weaning off rather than going
cold turkey. Withdrawal from a drug that is psychologically addictive
like Cocaine or Nicotaine - while it will be physically uncomfortable
because you think you need it, but going cold turkey won't kill you. It
doesn't make it any easier to quit, whether it's your body that needs
the drug or your mind that needs it.
Although I'm not sure if Heroin is the only physically addictive drug, I
think all the opiates family, and some steriods, like prednisone (only
because it's recommended to wean off it) and I think alcohol is also
physically addicting, at least when the addiction is severe and causes
dt's and seizures...It's been a while since I worked in addictions.
Kewl
Michele317
>http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9808/18/marijuana.cancer/
>
>In the first study of its kind, researchers found that smokers of
>marijuana and crack cocaine show the same kinds of precancerous
>conditions caused by smoking tobacco.
>
>The findings were released Tuesday in the Journal of the National
>Cancer Institute.
too bad they didn't isolate drugs in this study, because as it's set up, you
have no way of knowing whether the cancer was caused by the cigarettes or the
pot or the crack, or a combo. unless you eliminate cigarettes from the
equation, and isolate the effects of ONLY marijuana, you don't have a study of
marijuana. and i see no one has yet presented evidence linking marijuana and
breast cancer.
maryanne kehoe
Then why is it so hard for people to quit?
Michele317
>>smoke
>>to breast cancer. i'm not about to go to a medical library to prove their
>>point
>>for them! they should post any evidence or studies showing this link. a
>>similar
>>google search on lung cancer and cigarettes will immediately result in
>lots
>>of
>>research links. and google is a much better source of medical info than
>>anything else available to a non-medical practitioner in the middle of
>the
>>night!
>>
>
>Why don't you just shut up and go to any medical site that shows that medical
>experts say that heavy smoking (nicotine, pot, crack, WHATEVER) puts a woman
>at
>higher risk for getting breask cancer.
because that wasn't the contention. someone here claimed a link between breast
cancer and marijuana. i maintain that such a link has not been determined by
medical science. i'm certainly not going to go to medical sites to check out
faulty contentions made by people on a gossip newsgroup.
Surely your lazy ass can do that
my 'lazy ass'? you seem to have a bug up your 'lazy ass' about linda mccartney
and patti boyd, and i think i'll just stand back and watch you get ruder and
more irrational rather than calling you names. even if you're a big stoooopid.
>in a
>google search if you're compelled to find all the research on this...research
>which DOES exist even if you're too stupid to find it.
nope, it doesn't. even if you're so stooooopid you'd pretend it did exist.
Also, I never said
>smoking CAUSES breast cancer, but it puts a woman at higher risk of getting
>it,
>according to medical studies.
so since you say it and can't post proof, i should go look for proof for your
inanity.
>And since lungs and breasts are so close together
>and we know that cancer can spread to other parts of the body, it doesn't
>take
>a genius to figure out there could be a correlation.
you've confused cancer in situ and metastatic cancer. and you're clearly no
genius if you think cancer wanders from body part to body part in the way you
describe. but that's cute... lungs and breasts are close so that's how it
spreads. heh. tell me about all the folks with eye and ear cancer that spread
from their brains, will ya? that'll be a good story. i won't get off my 'lazy
ass' to research it for you, though. sorry!
This topic is about
>Linda
>McCartney. We've already established that she was a heavy smoker.
no, we haven't. i know there are pictures of her with a cigarette, but i don't
know if she smoked regularly or occasionally, or if she stopped years before
she died. i don't remember reading anything about her being a 'heavy smoker'.
She DID
>smoke
>pot regularly and DID smoke cigarettes occasionally. End of story!
that doesn't constitute a 'heavy smoker'. studies on potsmokers use folks who
smoke at least 8-10 joints a week, and i have no idea if she smoked that much.
you don't have any idea either.
>If you want to talk about lung cancer research or debate the health hazards
>of
>pot smoking, there are other sites for that. Please don't insult our
>intelligence by saying that being a heavy pot smoker for decades can have
>no
>serious health affects. That's almost as dumb as saying marijuana isn't
>a drug.
i didn't make any contention as to the health effects of smoking marijuana. you
did. then you insulted me because i didn't believe some non-existent scientific
study you pulled out of your 'lazy ass'.
UsurperTom
>i have no idea if she smoked that much. you don't have any idea either.
Paul and/or Linda were arrested in five different countries for marijuana
possession. The last arrest occurred in 1984 when they were 42 years old.
Anybody who gets caught that many times has a serious problem.
Tom
UsurperTom
>there are 'lower body' cancers (and when the hell did THAT medical
>distinction come about???)
True (depends on what you consider to be the "lower part"), but a doctor at
Memorial Sloan Kettering said in a recent interview that smoking is more likely
to cause cancer on the upper part of the body.
Tom
Smoot
"Patra" <pat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Congratulations, Patra! That's really a hard thing to do. My sister quit
before becoming pregnant and she said it was the hardest thing she ever
has done.
Emma
Doctor Wu
Or bad luck.
--
Lisa
Smoot
<la...@home.com> wrote:
LOL! That's true. They may have had no more of a problem with pot than
people who drink a glass of wine with dinner have with alcohol. But do we
really know that Linda was using it as much as Paul? She may have just
used it on the rare occasion (say for cramps one day a month) for all we
know.
They crossed a lot of borders, so if they carried pot with them while they
travelled it might just mean that they were unwise in that regard, not
that they smoked it all the time. Lots of people smoke pot and don't feel
the need to be stoned all time. It's not like smoking cigarettes where you
have to have regular fixes.
Emma
SandraW9
>>>Michele317 wrote:
>>>
>>>>i have no idea if she smoked that much. you don't have any idea either.
>>>
>>>Paul and/or Linda were arrested in five different countries for marijuana
>>>possession. The last arrest occurred in 1984 when they were 42 years old.
>>>Anybody who gets caught that many times has a serious problem.
>>>Tom
>>
>>Or bad luck.
>
>LOL! That's true. They may have had no more of a problem with pot than
>people who drink a glass of wine with dinner have with alcohol. But do we
>really know that Linda was using it as much as Paul? She may have just
>used it on the rare occasion (say for cramps one day a month) for all we
>know.
>
>They crossed a lot of borders, so if they carried pot with them while they
>travelled it might just mean that they were unwise in that regard, not
>that they smoked it all the time. Lots of people smoke pot and don't feel
>the need to be stoned all time. It's not like smoking cigarettes where you
>have to have regular fixes.
>
>Emma
>
>
>
Linda's big vice.
Patra
What kind of "high" does it bring that alcohol or cigarettes or other drugs
don't? And I'm asking because I know people who smoke pot occasionally but
are not addicted and otherwise a responsible member of society. Don't get
me wrong. I have no desire to be into pot. I'm trying to quit smoking so I
don't need another vice.
"SandraW9" <sand...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011209225710...@mb-cs.aol.com...
Femalestrom
it causes cancer more then anything else. There are tons of
chemicals in cigarettes. Should be interesting since most countries
prohibit the use even to the extent of doing studies. Also most
pot smokers are not lifetime smokers like cigarette smokers. I'd
also like to know how all the other 1 in 8 women in a lifetime
get breast cancer when most are diagnosed at age 40 and older.
I bet a lot of other people would too.
Crystal
JosieCat <josi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011208170822...@mb-md.aol.com...
> > Not sure if Linda Mc ever smoked ciggies, but she
> >did say in an interview once (around 1995 I think) that one of the ways
she
> >stayed healthy was that she didn't smoke, avoided caffeine and alcohol.
I
> >have a friend who's in her mid 30's and has breast cancer. She's never
> >smoked cigarettes or pot and was not a big drinker.
>
> Don't bother comparing your friend to Linda McCartney. Linda, by all
acounts,
> was a heavy pot smoker...and so is/was Paul McCartney. The THC content in
> marijuana is considerably higher than in nicotine. I remember reading
somehwere
> that smoking one joint gives the you THC equivalent of five or six
cigarettes.
> I wouldn't be surprised if Linda's chronic pot smoking contributed to her
> cancer.
Femalestrom
Give us some links about marijuana increasing chances of breast
cancer. You don't even know if she was a chronic pot smoker....
your just guessing. Perhaps she died of breast cancer because she
chose to not treat it with western medicine. There are several
possibilities of why she contracted it... but pot is hardly on the
radar blip as a precursor.
Crystal
JosieCat <josi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011208180229...@mb-md.aol.com...
> >I would be interested to know if anyone has info as to if/how pot smoking
> >relates to breast cancer.
> >
> >PattyC
> >
>
>
> Why don't you reduce your ignorance and do some research on breast cancer,
> because medical experts say that smoking (pot, nicotine, whatever) can put
a
> woman at higher risk of getting breast cancer. If you want to debate the
> medical implications of smoking pot, go somewhere else. If marijuana was
> harmless, then it wouldn't be outlawed. It's sad how Linda McCartney died,
Femalestrom
you are not female. Someone who is should have much more
information about the topic. And yes.... I am very educated
about the subject. My mother is a breast cancer survivor. Its
been a while but I used to hang out in one of the breast cancer
groups. I've had a scare myself, and continue to have to stay
up to date on information due to the genetic link.
Crystal
JosieCat <josi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011209145621...@mb-cg.aol.com...
Femalestrom
easily accessed via the net. There is an insane amount of medical
information for pretty much *every* illness from JAMA, and
many other highly accredited medical institutions. Including every
university known to man. Just because you can not back up
your assertion don't think we are as stupid as you are.
Crystal
JosieCat <josi...@aol.com> wrote in message >
Femalestrom
the body. You have a tumor in your uterus... it can move to
your brain. Cancers can metastasize into any lymph-node, anywhere
in your body. There are a huge amount of people getting lung
cancer that have not smoked one day in their lives.
Crystal
UsurperTom <usurp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011208222648...@mb-fs.aol.com...
> JosieCat wrote:
>
> >medical experts say that smoking (pot, nicotine, whatever) can put a
> >woman at higher risk of getting breast cancer
>
> That's right. All cancers in the upper part of the body are susceptible
to
> smoking-related cancer.
> Tom
Femalestrom
That is in no way definitive. Give us some medical sources.
Crystal
DepressdGrl <jewishpun...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:af234cb1.01120...@posting.google.com...
> > >I would be interested to know if anyone has info as to if/how pot
smoking
> > >relates to breast cancer.
> > >
> > >PattyC
> > >
>
> According to this one site I'm reading, marijuana can cause cancer and
> lung problems equal to or worse than cigarrette smoke.
>
> http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/teenpg9-10.html
>
>
> dg
UsurperTom
>What kind of "high" does it bring that alcohol or cigarettes or other drugs
don't?
Almost everybody who smokes pot also smokes cigarettes and drinks alcohol.
Tom
UsurperTom
>You don't even know if she was a chronic pot smoker
She was arrested many times. Normal people would learn from their first
mistake not to possess, transport and smoke pot again. Also, Linda's last
arrest occurred when she was 42 years old. Most people outgrow the lifestyle
by that age. You think Paul's ordeal in Japan in 1980 would have taugh them a
lesson.
Tom
SandraW9
>Okay. Really dumb question. What does pot do?
>What kind of "high" does it bring that alcohol or cigarettes or other drugs
>don't? And I'm asking because I know people who smoke pot occasionally but
>are not addicted and otherwise a responsible member of society. Don't get
>me wrong. I have no desire to be into pot. I'm trying to quit smoking so I
>don't need another vice.
Pot just relaxes you, it takes the edge off without being sidled with a
hangover. The one drawback is getting the munchies. :)
Sara
UsurperTom wrote:
> Almost everybody who smokes pot also smokes cigarettes and drinks alcohol.
> Tom
That is truly one of the most idiotic statements I've ever read on Usenet.
Sara
Michele317 wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to respond to this. There was so much nonsense and so
many ignorant, unfounded statements about Linda McCartney and medical science
posted to this thread, that I didn't have the energy to respond, no matter how
offensive I found it.
Kewl Kat
>
> >Tobacco is not physically addictive.
>
> Then why is it so hard for people to quit?
Because you *think* you need it. And you *think* you'd feel better if
you just had a cigarette.
Michele317
and it's easy to buy as much as you want. and quitting anything pleasurable is
difficult.
michele, 1 year, 8 months and counting....
Michele317
>it causes cancer more then anything else. There are tons of
>chemicals in cigarettes. Should be interesting since most countries
>prohibit the use even to the extent of doing studies. Also most
>pot smokers are not lifetime smokers like cigarette smokers. I'd
>also like to know how all the other 1 in 8 women in a lifetime
>get breast cancer when most are diagnosed at age 40 and older.
>I bet a lot of other people would too.
especially having spent part of my childhood on wrong island, where the rate is
particularly high. btw, i did find a study showing THC reduced tumor size in
laboratory tests....
Michele317
i imagine every time these two went through an airport the drug squad was
chomping at the bit to snag them! also, i can only find records of a few
arrests for linda: in los angeles and in barbados. but, linda's a demon who
caused her own death by being a raging dope fiend... whatever...
Michele317
throw me a frickin' bone here. more likely than what?? name the doctor, give me
a website... anything! go to www.oncology.com or any of a dozen other cancer
sites and you'll see the cancers commonly associated with CIGARETTE smoking:
lung, mouth, throat, kidney, cervix, pancreas, bladder. i'm not seeing any
upper body pattern here and i'm noticing a conspicuous absence of reference to
breast cancer.
Susan Petry
active ingredient in marijuana, and is NOT present in tobacco. "tar" is the
cigarette industries' name for the carcinogenic material in their product,
some of which is ADDED during the manufacturing process (to make the things
burn more evenly!)
there are NO credible reports in the scientific literature to suggest that
pot smoke causes lung cancer-except for the suggestion that the use of
paraquat-an herbicide sprayed on California pot fields during the 80s by
the US govt-could. that said, there is not enough data, in years or number
of people for any reliable conclusions to be drawn.
In article <20011208170822...@mb-md.aol.com>, josi...@aol.com
(JosieCat) wrote:
>
> Don't bother comparing your friend to Linda McCartney. Linda, by all acounts,
> was a heavy pot smoker...and so is/was Paul McCartney. The THC content in
> marijuana is considerably higher than in nicotine. I remember reading
somehwere
> that smoking one joint gives the you THC equivalent of five or six cigarettes.
> I wouldn't be surprised if Linda's chronic pot smoking contributed to her
> cancer.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity
is that genius has limits.
(Einstein)
maryanne kehoe
>and it's easy to buy as much as you want. and >quitting anything
pleasurable is difficult.
>michele, 1 year, 8 months and counting....
Congrats Michele-keep up the good work! You can do it!
I worry about a friend of mine overseas that is a "social" smoker. She
can smoke one cigarette at the end of the day, and for the next week or
month, not smoke any. And the stuff that is sold overseas is a hell of a
lot stronger that what is here in the US.
Last New Year's Eve, I was with some friends in a club and we saw a
woman smoking a CIGAR----how gross can that get?!?
JosieCat
about chronic marijuana use: The point ALL ALONG was that being a chronic pot
smoker can put your health at risk. Why do you think marijuana is ILLEGAL, you
morons! Alcohol and cigarettes are LEGAL, and an addiction to these drugs can
cause death too! Anyone you thinks being addicted to pot is harmless sounds
like someone who smokes pot and is in denial about the health risks of heavy
pot smoking.
Secondly, I NEVER said that marijuana smoking caused breast cancer. I did say
that cancer can spread to other parts of the body. You don't need to be a
doctor to know this and I'm not going list places on the Internet or books
where you can find this information. If you want to find out more about cancer
so badly, LOOK IT UP YOURSELF.
Finally, Linda adn Paul McCartney, according to close confidantes of theirs,
smoked pot almost every day for DECADES, and this has been backed up in books
about Paul McCartney/The Beatles. You can argue all you want about whether she
was addicted (sure sounds like she was addicted to me) but people close to Paul
and Linda have said the McCartneys were potheads. Unlike alcohol, which can
leave the body within 24 hours, marijuana stays in the body for DAYS and
there's a buildup the more you smoke it.
You idiots who are implying that Linda was in perfect health are a waste of
time to argue with. Being a heavy pot smoker doesn't mean you're in perfect
health. And *something* caused Linda's cancer. We may never know what it was
but she certainly wasn't in perfect health if she a heavy pot smoker.
JosieCat
>>Well not according to CNN
>>http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9808/18/marijuana.cancer/
>>
>>In the first study of its kind, researchers found that smokers of
>>marijuana and crack cocaine show the same kinds of precancerous
>>conditions caused by smoking tobacco.
>>
>>The findings were released Tuesday in the Journal of the National
>>Cancer Institute.
>
>Miche...@aol.comboverherbrain (Michele317) said:
>Date: 12/9/01 5:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20011209173049...@mb-fo.aol.com>
>
>too bad they didn't isolate drugs in this study, because as it's set up, you
>have no way of knowing whether the cancer was caused by the cigarettes or the
>pot or the crack, or a combo. unless you eliminate cigarettes from the
>equation, and isolate the effects of ONLY marijuana, you don't have a study
>of
>marijuana. and i see no one has yet presented evidence linking marijuana and
>breast cancer.
>
Wow, you really are slow. It still hasn't sunk in through your thick skull. No
one said marijuana causes breast cancer. No one said that marijuana killed
Linda McCartney.
Someone could present all the studies in the world to you about the health
risks of using marijuana, and you'd still be in denial about it. You just have
a problem with people saying that heavy marijuana use/abuse can put your health
at risk. I suggest you look into the MEDICAL FATCS and reasons why marijuana is
illegal, and then try come back to us and tell us that marijuana is harmless.
Marijuana used heavily over the long-term by an otherwise "healthy" person who
uses it just to get high can do damage to a person's health. Even people who
love pot admit that smoking marijuana damages brain cells. And please don't
start saying crap that "marijuana isn't addictive." Marijuana is a DRUG and any
drug that's abused can damage someone's health. If you're too stupid to find
any medical facts on the health effects of marijuana abuse, that's your
problem. End of story.
Femalestrom
dumbass because you are making statements that are unsubstantiated.
Just because you are incapable of telling the difference doesn't
make us idiots. It makes you an asshole because you cant just admit
there is no proof that smoking pot causing any higher risk of cancer
then any other substance you put into your body. For all we know
she didn't wash her vegetables and residual pesticides caused her
cancer. Just because you are vehemently anti drug doesn't make
something so. And again... josiecat... if you are female.. I would
highly suggest you actually learn a little more about breast cancer.
Your ignorance about the subject is a little alarming.
Crystal
JosieCat <josi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011211215638...@mb-md.aol.com...
Femalestrom
propaganda movies? And by the way... many countries are
decriminalizing pot.... I guess that proves how bad for you it is.
Who are you.... your name doesn't happen to be Ashcroft does
it?
Crystal
JosieCat <josi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >
>
Femalestrom
Crystal
Susan Petry <pet...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:petrysl-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com...
Gailmail10253
>other interesting things
>From: josi...@aol.com (JosieCat)
>Date: 12/11/2001 9:56 PM Eastern
> The point ALL ALONG was that being a chronic pot
>smoker can put your health at risk. Why do you think marijuana is ILLEGAL,
>you
>morons! Alcohol and cigarettes are LEGAL, and an addiction to these drugs can
>cause death too! Anyone you thinks being addicted to pot is harmless sounds
>like someone who smokes pot and is in denial about the health risks of heavy
>pot smoking.
Now who is naive. Marijuana is not illegal because of the health risks it
may/may not present. And in line with your point, alcohol and cigarettes are
proven health hazards and yet are legal.
~Gail~
Sara
> This is to the idiots who are whining that they can't find basic medical facts
> about chronic marijuana use: The point ALL ALONG was that being a chronic pot
> smoker can put your health at risk.
Yes it can, along with many other things, such as riding in automobiles, breathing
city air, eating food with certain chemicals, taking certain prescription and
non-presciption drugs, etc.
> Why do you think marijuana is ILLEGAL, you
> morons! Alcohol and cigarettes are LEGAL, and an addiction to these drugs can
> cause death too!
Marijuana is not illegal because of health reasons. Where in all your very thorough
research did you get this factoid? If this were the case, there would be no
justification for the legality of alcohol, tobacco or gas fueled cars among other
things.
> Secondly, I NEVER said that marijuana smoking caused breast cancer. I did say
> that cancer can spread to other parts of the body.
But you definitely implied with all your medical wisdom that it played a major role
in Linda McCartney's breast cancer.
> Finally, Linda adn Paul McCartney, according to close confidantes of theirs,
> smoked pot almost every day for DECADES, and this has been backed up in books
> about Paul McCartney/The Beatles. You can argue all you want about whether she
> was addicted (sure sounds like she was addicted to me) but people close to Paul
> and Linda have said the McCartneys were potheads.
Sorry, but unless you were with her and know for a fact how much pot she smoked,
it's just gossip and rumors. Since doctors cannot agree on whether or not pot is
addictive, I don't think your qualifications count much for a diagnosis of Linda's
reasons for smoking pot.
> You idiots who are implying that Linda was in perfect health are a waste of
> time to argue with. Being a heavy pot smoker doesn't mean you're in perfect
> health. And *something* caused Linda's cancer. We may never know what it was
> but she certainly wasn't in perfect health if she a heavy pot smoker.
First of all, you have one hell of a nerve calling people idiots. How about your
brilliant statement that there is 5 to 6 times more THC in marijuana cigarettes
than regular ones, when there isn not any THC in tobacco cigarettes? Did you maybe
mean tar? THC (also found in sesame seed oil) is prescribed by physicians as
Marinol, so it seems to not be total poison as you infer.
Second of all--you haven't got a clue as to what caused Linda McCartney's cancer.
Cancer is caused by many things--genes, chemicals in food, prescribed medicine, air
pollution, and the list goes on.
Your rantings and ravings about pot use border on the hysterical. You might want to
check into why a substance that other people indulge in arouses so much rage in
yourself.
UsurperTom
>unless you were with her and know for a fact how much pot she smoked
One could figure out that she smoked pot more than the average person based on
the fact she was arrested a multitude of times and the last arrest occurred
when she was 42 years old.
Tom
Femalestrom
Crystal
UsurperTom <usurp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011212181439...@mb-cl.aol.com...
Doctor Wu
they were arrested because they are HIGH (no pun intended) PROFILE
ROCK STARS, who were probably being scrutinized and had enough money
not to care if they got busted. How much pot does the average person
smoke anyway? As much as the average person who drinks? Besides, if
Paul smoked so much pot, and it's so bad for you, why doesn't he have
cancer? I sincerely believe Linda's pot smoking had very little, if
anything at all, to do with her cancer.
--
Lisa
Susan Petry
health, I just think that most of the posters felt that a cause and effect
relationship between LMCs cancer and her pot smoking was not supported by
the available evidence.
and if you think that marijuana is illegal because it poses a health risk,
I have some nice swampland you might want to buy.
In article <20011211215638...@mb-md.aol.com>, josi...@aol.com
(JosieCat) wrote:
UsurperTom
>How much pot does the average person smoke anyway?
For the record, I have nothing against marijuana. I enjoy smoking both pot and
cigarettes on a recreational basis and support legalization. However, I'm not
going to be silly and claim that pot is 100% safe while vilifying alcohol and
tobacco as "evil." I believe that alcohol, tobacco and marijuana could all be
used in moderation. Even if you prefer not to believe all the tell all books
about Paul McCartney, it's well documented that Paul and Linda have been
arrested when they were in their 30's and 40's and had four children. Their
pot smoking was excessive as far as I'm concerned. There are people who abuse
marijuana just like there are people who abuse every other drug.
>why doesn't he have cancer?
Maybe because he's lucky (at least for now!). There are people like George
Burns who smoked cigarettes and cigars all his life and lived to be 100 without
ever getting cancer. Some people develop bad habits and get away with it. It
doesn't prove that they're lifestyles are healthy. BTW I don't think Paul has
been in great health ever since Linda died, but that's another thread and it
has less to do with pot.
Tom
UsurperTom
>can you provide a link?
I don't have any links handy, but you can find it in almost every biography of
Paul McCartney and the Beatles. If you check the Google archives under
rec.music.beatles, you'll find details of Paul and Linda's arrests.
Tom
JosieCat
>Date: 12/12/01 11:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <petrysl-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>
>
>I don't think anyone was arguing that the McCartneys were in "perfect"
>health, I just think that most of the posters felt that a cause and effect
>relationship between LMCs cancer and her pot smoking was not supported by
>the available evidence.
>and if you think that marijuana is illegal because it poses a health risk,
>I have some nice swampland you might want to buy.
>
WHATEVER. Yes you are an idiot, because I never said pot smoking caused breast
cancer. I DO think abuse of marijuana (and alcohol and nicotine) over long
periods of time can be hazardous to one's health. You may not agree, but there
are medical studies that have shown this but you're too stupid to find them.
JosieCat
>Date: 12/11/01 11:11 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <bOAR7.39052$Yy.423662@rwcrnsc53>
>
>Boy... Did you get all your information from 1950's anti drug
>propaganda movies? And by the way... many countries are
>decriminalizing pot.... I guess that proves how bad for you it is.
>Who are you.... your name doesn't happen to be Ashcroft does
>it?
>
>Crystal
>
Well you just proved yourself to be a moron. I've said all along that the abuse
of marijuana over long periods of time can be hazardous to one's health. I also
happen to believe that the abuse of alcohol and nicotine can also be hazardous
to one's health. You don't have to be a genius to know that. I don't care if
marijuana is illegal in other countries or not. If you've got a problem with
pot being illegal in any country, go an whine to the goverment about it because
it still won't change the facts that marijunana abuse can affect your health.
If you think marijuana has NO effect on the body...then you're too high to be
think intelligently. :-)
JosieCat
>Date: 12/12/01 8:13 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <1hTR7.40418$ER5.471408@rwcrnsc52>
This seems to be a symptom of people too dumb and lazy to find out facts on
their own. They ask people to give them an Internet link as "proof." When no
one cowtows to their lazy demands, they whine and say if no one can give them a
link it can't be true. It never occurs to these lazy idiots that people are
just ignoring their whiny requests.
If you don't believe what people are saying and want find out the facts,
research it yourself. The people in this newsgroup are not researchers at your
beck and call. And get off your lazy ass sometime and go to a library to read a
few books about the subject if it bothers you SO MUCH...Not everything is found
in an "Internet link."
JosieCat
>Date: 12/13/01 12:43 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20011213004346...@mb-fe.aol.com>
Tom, we've had our disagreements but have to say you're completely right about
this. There are PLENTY of books and articles that substantiate that Paul and
Linda McCartney were potheads. Some ignorant people in this newsgroup think if
they can't can't find an Internet link about it in a quick google search, they
think it must not be true.
JosieCat
>From: Doctor Wu la...@home.com
>Date: 12/12/01 8:42 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <q71g1u49e9kuajnpq...@4ax.com>
>
>On 12 Dec 2001 23:14:39 GMT, usurp...@aol.com (UsurperTom) wrote:
>
>>Sara wrote:
>>
>>>unless you were with her and know for a fact how much pot she smoked
>>
>>One could figure out that she smoked pot more than the average person based
>on
>>the fact she was arrested a multitude of times and the last arrest occurred
>>when she was 42 years old.
>
>they were arrested because they are HIGH (no pun intended) PROFILE
>ROCK STARS, who were probably being scrutinized and had enough money
>not to care if they got busted. How much pot does the average person
>smoke anyway? As much as the average person who drinks? Besides, if
>Paul smoked so much pot, and it's so bad for you, why doesn't he have
>cancer?
Not everyone's body works the same, you idiot. No one can really explain why
Keith Richards is still alive when what he's put in his body would've killed
many other people years ago. The negative effects of substance abuse don't
always happen at the same time, and to the same degree, for everyone.
Also, when Paul was arrested for marijuana possession in Japan in 1980, he had
the pot laying right on top when they opened his luggage. He didn't even try to
hide the pot in his luggage! Paul has said in many itnerviews that it was a
stupid thing to do and he didn't know why he did it. Could it be maybe he was
too high to think straight? Or maybe he was arrogant in thinking he would get
away with it? Either way, it's stupid for you to say he was "targeted" because
he was a celebrity. It was his own fault that he got busted. It's routine for
searches to be done at airports, especially when you're coming from another
country. You siound very sheltered and ignorant. It's worth mentioning that
most of the time when the McCartneys got busted, it was while they were in a
foreign country.
The fact of the matter is that most celebrities get preferential treatment when
they get in trouble with the law, compared to "common folk." You're *not* going
to hear about all the times celebrities DON'T get arrested because they got let
off easy by star-struck law enforcement. This happens a lot, based on what I
hear from people I know who work in the entertainment business. And no, there
probably isn't an Internet link where you can look up this info. If there is,
I'm not going to find it for you. ;-)
JosieCat
>Doctor Wu wrote:
>
>>How much pot does the average person smoke anyway?
>
>For the record, I have nothing against marijuana. I enjoy smoking both pot
>and
>cigarettes on a recreational basis and support legalization. However, I'm
>not
>going to be silly and claim that pot is 100% safe while vilifying alcohol and
>tobacco as "evil." I believe that alcohol, tobacco and marijuana could all
>be
>used in moderation. Even if you prefer not to believe all the tell all books
>about Paul McCartney, it's well documented that Paul and Linda have been
>arrested when they were in their 30's and 40's and had four children. Their
>pot smoking was excessive as far as I'm concerned. There are people who
>abuse
>marijuana just like there are people who abuse every other drug.
>
Absolutely. This has turned into a ridiculous discussion where some morons are
esentially saying that marijuana is totally safe and the abuse of it can't
affect your health. The abuse of any substance, legal or not, will affect one's
health eventually.....if someone can't find any of the multitude of facts about
this, that's their problem.
As for all the times Linda and Paul McCartney got arrested for possession of
marijuana, I also agree with you. We're not going to hear about all the times
Paul and Linda *didn't* get arrested because they were lucky. Here's an
example: Denny Laine (a former member of Wings) told a story about how once in
the '70s, when the band was traveling on the road, they got stopped by law
enforcement. The McCartneys, who had their children with them, hid their pot
inside their children's clothes because they knew the cops wouldn't search the
children. The pot wasn't found, so they avoided arrest. If you have to go to
those extremes, to use your children to hide your pot, you better believe you
have a problem.
I'm amused that there are so many people in this newsgroup who refuse to accept
that the Paul and Linda McCartney were potheads. Next thing you know, they're
going to say Robert Downey Jr. really isn't a cocaine addict. Those arrests of
his were just the cops "targeting" him because he's a celebrity. :-)
Sara
JosieCat wrote:
Of course there is no link, because you've simply made it up, along with a number
of your other *facts*. Gee, I've never heard that from any people I know who work
in the entertainment business--usually any infraction is plastered all over the
tabs. People love it when celebrities get caught at illegal activities.
This bears repeating since you seem to think you know enough to call others morons
and idiots.
You have one hell of a nerve calling people idiots. How about your brilliant
statement that there is 5 to 6 times more THC in marijuana cigarettes than regular
ones, when there is not *any* THC in tobacco cigarettes? Did you maybe
mean tar? THC (also found in sesame seed oil) is prescribed by physicians as
Marinol, so it seems to not be total poison as you infer.
Second of all--you haven't got a clue as to what caused Linda McCartney's cancer.
Cancer is caused by many things--genes, chemicals in food, prescribed medicine, air
pollution, and the list goes on.
You have made ridiculous statements and stupid assumptions based on nothing more
than your own conjecture, imagination and misinformation of medicine and science.
Maggie
Marijuana may be greater cancer risk than tobacco, research suggests
June 21, 2000
(CNN) -- Smoking marijuana may be a greater cancer danger than smoking tobacco,
a new study from the University of California at Los Angeles suggests.
The research, conducted on mice, was published in the July issue of the Journal
of Immunology. The UCLA researchers studied the effect of tetrahydrocannabinol,
or THC, the major euphoriant in marijuana.
They found that THC can promote tumor growth in mice by impairing the body's
anti-tumor immunity system. Mice with normal immune systems had significant
tumor growth when injected with both lung cancer cells and THC. However, the
compound appeared to have no effect on mice whose immune systems were already
compromised.
While previous research had shown that THC can lower resistance to both
bacterial and viral infections, this is the first time that THC’s possible
tumor-promoting activity has been reported, according to the National Institute
on Drug Abuse, a part of the National Institutes of Health.
The UCLA scientists also found that the tar in marijuana smoke contains higher
concentrations of substances called hydrocarbons than tar from tobacco smoke
does. These hydrocarbons are a key factor in promoting human lung cancer.
Because marijuana smoke deposits four times as much tar in the respiratory
tract as a comparable amount of tobacco, the exposure to carcinogens is
increased, the researchers wrote.
"What we already know about marijuana smoke, coupled with our new finding that
THC may encourage tumor growth, suggests that regular use of marijuana may
increase the risk of respiratory-tract cancer and further studies will be
needed to evaluate this possibility," Dr. Steven M. Dubinett, head of the
research team that conducted the study, said in a statement.
Smoking marijuana is illegal in the United States, though several states have
laws allowing its use for medicinal purposes. A federal advisory panel last
year acknowledged that marijuana can fight pain and nausea, and the drug is
thought to ease symptoms of the eye disease glaucoma.
Maggie
"No one said free speech means that you can say whatever you want and everybody
will still love you for it." -- Sacha Zimmerman
Sara
Maggie wrote:
> From CNN:
>
> Marijuana may be greater cancer risk than tobacco, research suggests
> June 21, 2000
>
> (CNN) -- Smoking marijuana may be a greater cancer danger than smoking tobacco,
> a new study from the University of California at Los Angeles suggests.
<snip article>
On the other hand, another study determined:
Mon, 28 Feb 2000
United Press International
Copyright: 2000 United Press International
High Maker In Marijuana Could Fight Brain Cancer
NEW YORK - The chemical in marijuana that produces a "high" has shown promise as a
weapon against deadly brain tumors, Spanish researchers have shown in early
research.
In the study on rats a research team from Complutense University and Autonoma
University in Madrid found that marijuana's active ingredient - -- called THC --
killed tumor cells in advanced cases of glioma, a quick-killing cancer for which
there is currently no effective treatment. But, the scientists stress, it is
unlikely that lighting up a joint will do anything to prevent or cure cancer.
Lead researcher Manuel Guzman says he hopes to start studies in humans in about a
year. Guzman says, "we observed a very remarkable growth inhibiting effect." Also,
about one third of the treated rats lived "significantly longer" than those given
no drug, some up to about three times as long. He injected the active compounds --
called cannabinoids -- directly into the brain cancers.
Guzman, who is with Complutense University, says that the current experiment,
published in the March issue of Nature Medicine, tested THC at very low doses and
at a late stage, when untreated mice were already starting to die. He predicts that
THC should work better if given earlier.
The scientists decided to test the marijuana drug in brain tumors after laboratory
studies showed that THC killed glioma cells while leaving normal brain cells
unharmed. Researchers are not sure why, but Guzman's team says the drug caused a
buildup of a fat molecule called ceramide, which provoked a death spiral in cancer
cells.
The scientists say, "These results may provide the basis for a new therapeutic
approach for the treatment of malignant gliomas."
Asked if this work suggests that smoking pot may be an effective way to fight or
prevent cancer, Guzman says no. "When one smokes, only a small part of the
cannanbinoids are expected to reach the tumor," he says. Pharmacologist Daniele
Piomelli, a marijuana researcher who was not involved with the Spanish study, was
more emphatic. His answer was, "No, with a capital letter."
"It is very important that the public does not get the impression that from smoking
pot cancer may be cured," says Piomelli, who is concerned that cancer patients may
learn about the study and decide to pass up proven therapies in place of a joint.
"Lives are at stake here," he says.
Piomelli wrote a commentary on the Spanish research for Nature Medicine. Piomelli
says that this is the first convincing study to show that a marijuana-based drug
treatment may combat cancer. If the drug works as well in humans, he says, "Then
this will be a paper of great importance."
But, he points out that it will take a lot of testing, both in animals and in
people, to prove it is effective. He says, "A lot of research in rats and mice
didn't pan out." Several laboratories are exploring the potential of compounds from
marijuana for
treatment of such conditions as multiple sclerosis, excessive weight loss related
to AIDS or cancer and pain, he says. Scientists are also trying to develop drugs
that deliver therapeutic benefits without unwanted side effects, such as the "high"
and amnesia, says Piomelli, who is with the University of California, Irvine.
Sara
Maggie wrote:
This study is not without criticisms--some of which are:
There is no way that the conclusion that "The carcinogens in marijuana are much
stronger than those in tobacco" can be drawn from an epidemiological review. There
is simply no data on that in this sort of study. It may help him get another NIDA
grant, however. NIDA funds 85% of the "research" on marijuana. The study did not
give them their money’s worth, but the media interviews are the payoff. This is a
common practice.
The abstract says that "the carcinogenic properties of marijuana smoke are similar
to those of tobacco." That is true except for the fact that tobacco contains
nicotine which is highly toxic and may indirectlycontribute to cancer because it is
a vasoconstrictor and consequently reduces blood flow to tissues. There is no
evidence that cannabinoids cause cancer.
"The results need to be interpreted with some caution in drawing causal inferences
because of certain methodological limitations, especially with regard to
interactions."
The "certain methodological limitations" may include the limitations of having a
control group that depends on self-reporting of an illegal activity. If members of
the control group underreported their marijuana use, this would skew the results.
Similarly, if the cancer patients underreported their smoking of tobacco or, say,
crack, that would be a methodological problem. Also there may be other risk factors
for cancer such as diet that may not have been properly controlled for.
Hell Toupee
> there are NO credible reports in the scientific literature to suggest that
> pot smoke causes lung cancer-except for the suggestion that the use of
> paraquat-an herbicide sprayed on California pot fields during the 80s by
> the US govt-could. that said, there is not enough data, in years or number
> of people for any reliable conclusions to be drawn.
From Medline, a handful of of abstracts from medical journals. I
could've done quite a few more, but figured this'd be enough to
establish that marijuana is not harmless and has indeed been linked
to cancer, and that it apparently has an effect on breast cancer
cells,
too - though that's to say it *causes* breast cancer, just that
research suggest it apparently may aggravate it.
Cannabis et cancer.
Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 2000 Oct;48(5):473-83
Carriot F; Sasco AJ
Unite d'Epidemiologie pour la Prevention du Cancer, Centre
International de
Recherche sur le Cancer, 150, cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon Cedex 8,
France.
Abstract:
Several publications have recently suggested a relationship between
cannabis use and certain types of cancer. We gathered information on
the
latest findings on the subject. A manual and computerized
bibliographic
search on cannabis and cancer was conducted. In users under 40 years
of
age, cannabis is suspected to increase the risk of squamous-cell
carcinoma
of the upper aerodigestive tract, particularly of the tongue and
larynx, and
possibly of lung. Other tumours being suspected are non-lymphoblastic
acute
leukaemia and astrocytoma. In head and neck cancer, carcinogenicity
was
observed for regular (i.e. more than once a day for years) cannabis
smokers. Moreover, cannabis increases the risk of head and neck cancer
in a dose-response manner for frequency and duration of use.
Interaction was
observed with cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Delta9-THC seems to
have a specific carcinogenic effect different from that of the
pyrolysis
products. Epidemiological studies are needed as soon as possible to
provide data on the European and French situation. Information on the
possible risks of a regular use of cannabis should be a priority.
***
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits antitumor immunity by a CB2
receptor-mediated, cytokine-dependent pathway.
Zhu LX. Sharma S. Stolina M. Gardner B. Roth MD. Tashkin DP. Dubinett
SM.
Journal of Immunology. 165(1):373-80, 2000 Jul 1.
Abstract:
In this study, we show that Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the
major
psychoactive component of marijuana, suppresses host immune reactivity
against lung cancer. In two different weakly immunogenic murine
lung cancer models, intermittent administration of THC (5 mg/kg, four
times/wk
i.p. for 4 wk) led to accelerated growth of tumor implants compared
with treatment
with diluent alone. In contrast to our findings in immunocompetent
mice, THC
did not affect tumor growth in tumor-bearing SCID mice. The immune
inhibitory
cytokines, IL-10 and TGF-beta, were augmented, while IFN-gamma was
down-regulated at both the tumor site and in the spleens of
THC-treated mice. Administration of either anti-IL-10- or
anti-TGF-beta-neutralizing Abs
prevented the THC-induced enhancement in tumor growth. Both APC and T
cells from THC-treated mice showed limited capacities to generate
alloreactivity. Furthermore, lymphocytes from THC-treated mice
transferred the effect to
normal mice, resulting in accelerated tumor growth similar to that
seen in the THC-treated mice. THC decreased tumor immunogenicity, as
indicated by the limited
capacity for tumor-immunized, THC-treated mice to withstand tumor
rechallenge. In vivo administration of a specific antagonist of the
CB2 cannabinoid receptor also
blocked the effects of THC. Our findings suggest the THC promotes
tumor growth
by inhibiting antitumor immunity by a CB2 receptor-mediated,
cytokine-dependent pathway.
***
Marijuana use and increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma
of the head and neck.
Zhang ZF. Morgenstern H. Spitz MR. Tashkin DP. Yu GP. Marshall JR. Hsu
TC. Schantz SP.
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 8(12):1071-8,
1999 Dec.
Abstract
Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United States.
In some subcultures, it is widely perceived to be harmless. Although
the carcinogenic
properties of marijuana smoke are similar to those of tobacco, no
epidemiological studies of the relationship between marijuana use and
head
and neck cancer have been published. The relationship between
marijuana use
and head and neck cancer was investigated by a case-control
study of 173 previously untreated cases with pathologically confirmed
diagnoses of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck and 176
cancer-free controls at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
between 1992 and 1994. Epidemiological data were collected by using
a structured questionnaire, which included history of tobacco
smoking, alcohol use, and marijuana use. The associations between
marijuana use and head and neck cancer were analyzed by
Mantel-Haenszel
methods and logistic regression models. Controlling for age, sex,
race,
education, alcohol consumption, pack-years of cigarette smoking, and
passive smoking, the risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and
neck
was increased with marijuana use [odds ratio (OR) comparing ever with
never
users, 2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-6.6]. Dose-response
relationships were observed for frequency of marijuana use/day (P for
trend <0.05) and years
of marijuana use (P for trend <0.05). These associations were
stronger for subjects who were 55 years of age and younger
(OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.0-9.7). Possible interaction
effects of marijuana use were observed with cigarette smoking,
mutagen sensitivity, and to a lesser extent, alcohol
use. Our results suggest that marijuana use may increase the risk of
head and neck cancer with a strong dose-response pattern. Our analysis
indicated that marijuana use may interact with mutagen sensitivity and
other
risk factors to increase the risk of head and neck cancer. The results
need to be interpreted with some caution in drawing causal inferences
because of certain methodological limitations, especially with regard
to interactions.
***
Oxidative stress produced by marijuana smoke. An adverse
effect enhanced by cannabinoids.
Sarafian TA. Magallanes JA. Shau H. Tashkin D. Roth MD.
American Journal of Respiratory Cell & Molecular Biology.
20(6):1286-93,
1999 Jun.
Abstract
Marijuana (MJ) smoking produces inflammation, edema, and cell injury
in the tracheobronchial mucosa of smokers and may be a risk factor for
lung cancer.
Because oxidative stress may mediate some of these effects,
this study was designed to test the hypothesis that cannabinoids in MJ
smoke
contribute to cellular oxidative stress.
Oxidative stress was evaluated in an endothelial cell line (ECV 304)
following exposure to smoke produced from MJ cigarettes containing
either 0, 1.77, or 3.95% Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta9-THC).
Brief exposure to smoke from 3.95% MJ cigarettes stimulated the
formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) by 80% over control
levels and lowered intracellular glutathione levels by 81%.
Smoke-induced
ROS generation increased in a dose-and time-dependent manner. In
contrast,
exposure to smoke from MJ containing 0% Delta9-THC produced no
increase in ROS despite a 70% decline in glutathione levels. Smoke
from MJ containing 1.77% Delta9-THC stimulated intermediate levels of
ROS.
A brief, 30-min exposure to MJ smoke, regardless of the Delta9-THC
content, also induced necrotic cell death that increased steadily up
to 48 h
of observation. MJ smoke passed through a Cambridge filter that
removed particulate matter was 3.4-fold more active in ROS production
compared with unfiltered smoke, suggesting that most of the oxidative
effects are produced by the gaseous phase. Alveolar macrophages
obtained
from habitual MJ smokers displayed low levels of glutathione compared
with macrophages from nonsmokers. We conclude that MJ smoke containing
Delta9-THC is a potent source of cellular oxidative stress that could
contribute significantly to cell injury and dysfunction in the lungs
of smokers.
***
Histopathologic and molecular alterations in bronchial epithelium in
habitual
smokers of marijuana, cocaine, and/or tobacco. [see
comments].
Barsky SH. Roth MD. Kleerup EC. Simmons M. Tashkin DP.
Comment in: J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998 Aug 19;90(16):1182-4
Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 90(16):1198-205,
1998 Aug 19.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking has been observed to cause
molecular alterations in bronchial epithelium that antedate the
development of lung carcinoma. The rising prevalence of marijuana
and cocaine use among young adults in the United States prompted
us to investigate whether similar molecular and histopathologic
alterations occur in habitual smokers of marijuana and/or cocaine
who may or may not also smoke tobacco.
METHODS: Bronchoscopy was performed in 104 healthy volunteer
subjects, including 28 nonsmokers and 76 smokers of one or more of
the following substances: marijuana, tobacco, and/or cocaine.
Bronchial mucosa biopsy specimens and brushings were analyzed for
histopathologic changes, for immunohistopathologic expression
of intermediate or surrogate end-point markers that are linked to an
increased risk of cancer (Ki-67 [a marker of cell proliferation],
epidermal
growth factor receptor, p53, Her-2/neu [also known as erbB-2 and
ERBB2],
globular actin, and abnormal DNA ploidy). Reported P values are
two-sided.
RESULTS: Smokers of any one substance or of two or more substances
exhibited more alterations than nonsmokers in five to nine of the 10
histopathologic parameters investigated (all P < .05), and they
exhibited
more molecular abnormalities than nonsmokers. Differences between
smokers and nonsmokers were statistically significant (all P < or =
.01) for Ki-67,
epidermal growth factor receptor, globular actin, and DNA ploidy.
There
was general agreement between the presence of molecular abnormalities
and histopathologic alterations; however, when disagreement occurred,
the
molecular abnormalities (e.g., Ki-67 and epidermal growth factor
receptor)
were more frequently altered (all P < or = .01).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that smoking marijuana and/or
cocaine,
like tobacco smoking, exerts field cancerization effects on bronchial
epithelium,
which may place smokers of these substances
at increased risk for the subsequent development of lung cancer.
***
Delta9 tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol alter cytokine production
by
human immune cells.
Srivastava MD. Srivastava BI. Brouhard B.
Immunopharmacology. 40(3):179-85, 1998 Nov.
Abstract
Marijuana, a widely abused drug in the US, and its derivatives
(cannabinoids)
have been used in AIDS and cancer patients for treatment of
intractable nausea and cachexia. Yet, objective investigations of the
effect of cannabinoids on the human immune system are few. We
investigated the effect of delta9 tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) on cytokine production in vitro by human
leukemic T, B, eosinophilic and CD8+ NK cell lines as models. THC
decreased constitutive production of IL-8, MIP-1alpha, MIP-1beta, and
RANTES and phorbol ester stimulated production of TNF-alpha, GM-CSF
and IFN-gamma by NK cells. It inhibited MIP-1beta in HTLV-1 positive
B-cells but tripled IL-8, MIP-1alpha and MIP-1beta in B-cells and
MIP-1beta in
eosinophilic cells but doubled IL-8. Both cannabinoids strongly
inhibited IL-10 production by HUT-78 T-cells. Results indicate that
THC and nonpsychotropic CBD have complex lineage and derivative
specific effects on cytokines consistent with previous animal studies.
These effects while of potential benefits in some
inflammatory/autoimmune diseases may worsen HIV infection,
tumorigenesis and allergic inflammation in the lung.
***
Marijuana smoking--possible cause of head and neck carcinoma in young
patients.
Donald PJ.
Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery. 94(4):517-21, 1986 Apr.
Abstract
Six cases of advanced head and neck cancer in young patients, who were
regular marijuana users, are presented. Numerous carcinogens, as well
as respiratory
irritants, are found in marijuana smoke. The active euphoria-producing
agent,
delta-9 tetrahydrocanabinol, has been implicated in altered DNA, RNA,
and protein synthesis and consequent chromosomal aberrations.
***
The effects of naturally occurring metabolites (L-cysteine, vitamin C)
on cultured human cells exposed to smoke of tobacco or marijuana
cigarettes.
Leuchtenberger C; Leuchtenberger R
Cytometry 1984 Jul; 5 (4): 396-402
Abstract
The effects of vitamin C on the growth of human lung cultures and of
vitamin
C or L-cysteine on a human breast cancer culture (SK-Br-3) were
assessed with
and without exposure to fresh smoke from tobacco or marijuana
cigarettes. When grown in the presence of vitamin C, lung cultures
exposed
or not exposed to either type of smoke showed a stimulation of growth
and
a significant decrease in mitotic abnormalities. However,
abnormalities were
much more marked in marijuana-exposed cultures than in
tobacco-smoke-exposed
ones. Nonexposed or tobacco-smoke-exposed breast cancer cultures, when
grown in the presence of vitamin C, also showed acceleration of
growth of epithelial cells, significant reduction in mitotic
abnormalities,
and occurrence of pseudoglandular structures, indicating
differentiation.
These alterations not only disappeared, but the cultures also became
fibroblastic when they were returned to media without vitamin C.
In contrast, vitamin C did not reduce mitotic abnormalities in
marijuana-smoke-exposed breast cancer cultures, but stimulated
abnormal growth and dedifferentiation. In nonexposed, tobacco-,
or marijuana-smoke-exposed breast cancer cultures. L-cysteine evoked
an acceleration of fibroblastic growth, which was not altered when
the cultures were returned to media without L-cysteine.
DepressdGrl
Lung cancer causing carcinogen more prevalent in marijuana than in
tobacco.
Sandra Bennett, Northwest Centre for Health & Safety.
A breakthrough report published in the journal Science, October 18,
1996,provides the first true molecular evidence conclusively linking
components in tobacco smoking to lung cancer.
A chemical found in tobacco smoking, benzopyrene, causes genetic
damage in lung cells that is identical to the damage observed in the
DNA of most malignant tumors of the lungs. Although scientists have
been convinced in the past that smoking causes lung cancer, the strong
statistical associations did not provide absolute proof. This paper
absolutely pinpoints that mutations in lung cancer cells are caused by
benzopyrene.
An average marijuana cigarette contains 30 nanograms of this
carcinogen, compared to 21 nanograms in an average tobacco cigarette
(Marijuana and Health, National Academy of Sciences, Institute of
Medicine report,1982). This potent carcinogen suppresses a gene that
controls growth of cells. When this gene is damaged, the body becomes
more susceptible to cancer. This gene, P53, is related to half of all
human cancers and as many as 70% of lung cancers.
Clearly marijuana smoke contains more of the potent carcinogen
benzopyrene than tobacco smoke. Furthermore, the technique of\line
smoking marijuana by inhaling deeply and holding the smoke within the
lungs presents a chance of much greater exposure than a conventional
tobacco cigarette.
This material has been reviewed and commented on by William M.
Bennett, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Clinical
Pharmacology and Hypertension at Oregon Health Sciences University,
Portland, Oregon. Dr. Bennett, who is listed in "BEST DOCTORS IN
AMERICA," states, "The idea of using smoked marijuana containing these
carcinogens as medicine, particularly for patients who have suppressed
immune systems like those with AIDS, should be unthinkable. Thus,
prior to considering marijuana as medicine, one must abide by the old
edict, "first do no harm."}
DepressdGrl
> You keep saying this... can you provide a link?
>
DO YOU KNOW THIS ABOUT MARIJUANA?
* * * Babies born to mothers who use marijuana during pregnancy have
eleven times the risk of getting childhood leukemia. These children
are the innocent victims of their parents marijuana use. Based on
research by Dr. L. Robison in the publication Cancer and Dr. J.
Buckley in Cannabis: Physiopathology, Epidemiology, Detection.
* * * Marijuana smoke produces airway injury, acute and chronic
bronchitis, lung inflammation, and decreased pulmonary defences
against infection. Smoking one marijuana cigarette leads to airway
deposition of four times as much cancer-causing tar as does tobacco
smoke. Based on research by Dr. D. Tashkin as reported in the Western
Journal of Medicine.
* * * Cases of cancer, including cancer of the mouth, tongue, larynx,
jaw, head, neck, and lungs have been reported in young
marijuana smokers that would not occur in tobacco smokers until much
later in life. Based on research by reported in Otolaryngology, Head &
Neck Surgery, the Journal of the American Medical Association and
Southern Medical Journal.
* * * A 1995 study of blood samples taken from one thousand four
hundred and forty-one dead or impaired drivers across Canada found
marijuana present in 38% of these samples. Based on research by of Dr.
Wayne Hindmarsh, Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Manitoba and
Wayne Jeffery, R.C.M.P. Police Forensic Laboratory.
* * * Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental
illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and
schizophrenia. It has been shown that marijuana users are six times
more likely to develop schizophrenia than are non-users. Based on
research by of Dr. S. Andreasson published in Britain's The Lancet.
* * * The use of marijuana leads to the use of other drugs. Of those
who use marijuana 3 to 10 times, 20% go on to use cocaine. Of those
who use marijuana one hundred or more times, 75% go on to use cocaine.
Based on research by as reported in the Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry.
* * * Marijuana causes both dependence and addiction. Addictive use is
defined by compulsive repeated use in spite of adverse consequences.
Marijuana's effects include tolerance leading to dependence and
inability to cease use. Based on research by of Dr. Mark Gold
published in his book Marijuana.
* * * It's not just alcohol that caused impaired accidents. A roadside
study of reckless drivers who were not impaired by
alcohol, showed that 45% of these drivers tested positive for
marijuana. Based on research by of Dr. Dan Brookoff, published in the
New England Journal of Medicine.
* * * The effects of marijuana persist much longer than the effects of
alcohol. Using a computerised flight simulator, an experiment on
pilots showed that their ability to land a plane was still impaired 24
hours after smoking one marijuana cigarette. Based on research by of
Dr. V. Leirer in Aviation, Space & Environmental Medicine.
* * * Children exposed to marijuana prenatally have increased
behavioural problems, and they have decreased visual perception,
language comprehension, attention span and memory. These children are
the innocent victims of their parents marijuana use. Based on research
by of Dr. Peter Fried of the Ottawa Prenatal Prospective Study.
* * * In males marijuana use diminishes testosterone production and
lowers sperm count. In females, marijuana use disrupts
hormone cycles. Marijuana is mutagenic, fetotoxic (poisonous to the
foetus) and impairs RNA and DNA synthesis. Based on research by of Dr.
Mark Gold in his book Marijuana and Drs. Latour and Nahas in the
Medical Journal of Australia.
* * * Marijuana impairs the white blood cells which fight infection.
Marijuana also causes decreased resistance to diseases such as herpes.
Marijuana smokers have increased outpatient visits for respiratory
illnesses, accidents and other illnesses. Based on research by of Drs.
Spector, Djeu, Watzl and Cabral in Advances in Experimental Medicine &
Biology and the Western Journal of Medicine.
* * * Children prenatally exposed to marijuana experienced more than
two times the number of sleep arousals at night and
more awake time after each sleep arousal than children not prenatally
exposed to marijuana. Based on research by published in The Archives
of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine.
* * * Cases of cancer from marijuana use are now well documented. In
one California study 90% of young cancer patients are marijuana
smokers compared with 40% of young people in California as a whole.
Based on research by Dr. P. Donald in Otolaryngology, Head and Neck
Surgery .
* * * HIV positive marijuana smokers have increased incidence of
bacterial pneumonias in comparison to non-smokers. HIV positive
smokers develop full-blown AIDS twice as fast as non-smokers. Based on
research by in the journal, AIDS Weekly 1993, and Dr. Neiman, in the
journal, AIDS 1993.
* * * In a survey of one hundred and fifty marijuana using students,
59% surveyed report they sometimes forget what a
conversation is about before it has ended. 41% report that if they
read while stoned they remembered less of what they had read hours
later. Based on research by of Dr. Richard Schwartz, Vienna Pediatric
Associates in Psychiatric Annals.
* * * Long-term use of marijuana may cause irreversible memory
problems. Marijuana users find it more difficult to separate
irrelevant information from the relevant, their reaction times are
longer and electrical activity of the brain is slowed. Based on
research by from Macquarie University, Sydney in conjunction with
Australia's National Drug & Alcohol Research Centre.
* * * Marijuana impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory and
learning. Memory defects may persist for 6 weeks after last marijuana
use. Based on research by of Dr. Richard Schwartz, Vienna Pediatrics
Associates in the American Journal of Diseases of Children.
* * * There are significant negative effects of prenatal marijuana
exposure on the performance of children in standard
intelligence tests. On average children exposed prenatally to
marijuana will have a lower IQ compared to children who are not
exposed. Based on research by of Dr. Day et al, in Neurotoxicology and
Teratology.
* * * A cannabis (marijuana)-state-dependent effect in users includes
weaknesses in analytic and synthetic skills. This includes
having difficulty sorting out information, synthesising and
classifying information correctly and understanding subtle shades of
meaning. Based on research by of Dr. Lundqvist in Life Sciences.
* * * Fetal Marijuana Symptoms are similar to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
are two diseases children are born with that are totally preventable.
One of the leading specialists in cellular heredity, Dr. Akira
Morishima of Columbia University, has said that in his 20 years of
research on human cells he has never found any other drug, including
heroin, which comes close to the DNA damage caused by marijuana.
* * * Saying nobody ever died from smoking marijuana is like saying
nobody ever died from smoking tobacco. Marijuana contains the same
cancer causing chemicals as tobacco. Marijuana contains acetone,
hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, carbon monoxide, benzene, benzo pyrene,
nitrosamines and many other cancer causing pollutants. Based on
research by of G. Huber in Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behaviour.
* * * Who is really killing our rain forests? The United Nations
reports that in Jamaica growers of marijuana plant their crops on
isolated mountain slopes disturbing fragile forest soils. Growers
clear cut and destroy the forests exposing fertile soil to runoff and
erosion causing permanently damages forests.
* * * Marijuana causes many mental disorders, including acute toxic
psychosis, panic attacks, flashbacks, delusions,
depersonalisation, hallucinations, paranoia, depression and
"uncontrollable feelings of aggression". Based on research by of Dr.
Richard Schwartz, Vienna Pediatrics Associates in Pediatric Clinics of
North America.
Michele317
>>
>>For the record, I have nothing against marijuana. I enjoy smoking both
>pot
>>and
>>cigarettes on a recreational basis and support legalization. However,
>I'm
>>not
>>going to be silly and claim that pot is 100% safe while vilifying alcohol
>and
>>tobacco as "evil." I believe that alcohol, tobacco and marijuana could
>all
>>be
>>used in moderation. Even if you prefer not to believe all the tell all
>books
>>about Paul McCartney, it's well documented that Paul and Linda have been
>>arrested when they were in their 30's and 40's and had four children.
>Their
>>pot smoking was excessive as far as I'm concerned. There are people who
>>abuse
>>marijuana just like there are people who abuse every other drug.
>>
>
>Absolutely. This has turned into a ridiculous discussion where some morons
>are
>esentially saying that marijuana is totally safe and the abuse of it can't
>affect your health.
that's not at ALL what this discussion was about. you said there's proof that
marijuana is linked to breast cancer (actually you said it caused breast cancer
because the breasts are near the lungs so it spreads easily, but i'll give you
the benefit of the doubt and pretend no one would make such a moronic
statement). most everyone else here has said, simply, there is no proof. NOT
that pot is good or safe or recommended. just that there are no studies linking
marijuana smoke to breast cancer... and the few studies that mention both
marijuana and cancer do NOT isolate the effect of marijuana smoke v. cigarette
smoke.
The abuse of any substance, legal or not, will affect
>one's
>health eventually.....if someone can't find any of the multitude of facts
>about
>this, that's their problem.
and again, the general health effects were not the topic here. you made a
specific claim, failed to back it up, then began name calling.
>As for all the times Linda and Paul McCartney got arrested for possession
>of
>marijuana, I also agree with you. We're not going to hear about all the
>times
>Paul and Linda *didn't* get arrested because they were lucky. Here's an
>example: Denny Laine (a former member of Wings)
at this point, one might want to note the deterioration of the relationship
between laine and mccartney.
Michele317
>breast
>cancer. I DO think abuse of marijuana (and alcohol and nicotine) over long
>periods of time can be hazardous to one's health. You may not agree, but
>there
>are medical studies that have shown this but you're too stupid to find them.
behold, the power of google:
********Message 3 in threadFrom: JosieCat (josi...@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Linda McCartney Smoked Cigarrettes? (was: Re: Patti Boyd) and
other interesting things
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebritiesView this article onlyDate: 2001-12-08
14:09:28 PST
> Not sure if Linda Mc ever smoked ciggies, but she
>did say in an interview once (around 1995 I think) that one of the ways she
>stayed healthy was that she didn't smoke, avoided caffeine and alcohol. I
>have a friend who's in her mid 30's and has breast cancer. She's never
>smoked cigarettes or pot and was not a big drinker.
Don't bother comparing your friend to Linda McCartney. Linda, by all acounts,
was a heavy pot smoker...and so is/was Paul McCartney. The THC content in
marijuana is considerably higher than in nicotine. I remember reading somehwere
that smoking one joint gives the you THC equivalent of five or six cigarettes.
I wouldn't be surprised if Linda's chronic pot smoking contributed to her
cancer.**************
or....
********Message 5 in threadFrom: JosieCat (josi...@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Linda McCartney Smoked Cigarrettes? (was: Re: Patti Boyd) and
other interesting things
Newsgroups: alt.gossip.celebritiesView this article onlyDate: 2001-12-08
15:03:28 PST
>I would be interested to know if anyone has info as to if/how pot smoking
>relates to breast cancer.
>
>PattyC
>
Why don't you reduce your ignorance and do some research on breast cancer,
because medical experts say that smoking (pot, nicotine, whatever) can put a
woman at higher risk of getting breast cancer. If you want to debate the
medical implications of smoking pot, go somewhere else. If marijuana was
harmless, then it wouldn't be outlawed. It's sad how Linda McCartney died, but
if she was heavy pot smoker for decades, then she wasn't in the best of health
anyway.********
JosieCat
>more
>than your own conjecture, imagination and misinformation of medicine and
>science.
Look you idiot. I never said smoking marijuana caused Linda McCartney's death.
I said that her being a chronic pot smoker for decades probably had some kind
of detrimental effect on her health. I never said that was the reason why she
got cancer...DUMBASS.
You are truly brain-dead if you can't read what I wrote and keep arguing about
something I never said. You can talk all the bullshit you want, but you're
never going to convince me, medical professionals and scientific reseachers,
and people with common sense that being a chronic pot smoker is always safe. I
don't think marijuana is dangerous compared to other drugs...but it DOES have
an effect on people's health, namely it kills brain cells.
You are truly fucking INSANE if you're trying to argue that just because I
didn't provide a link that no medical studies exist that show chronic marijauna
use can cause negative effects on one's health. At the very least, chronic
marijuana usage causes memory loss. I don't have to spend a second of my time
looking things up for you when you're too lazy to do it yourself. So please
take your "marijuana can never do any harm" propaganada and fuck off.
JosieCat
>Date: 12/17/01 12:15 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20011217001522...@mb-md.aol.com>
>
>From CNN:
>
>Marijuana may be greater cancer risk than tobacco, research suggests
>June 21, 2000
>
>(CNN) -- Smoking marijuana may be a greater cancer danger than smoking
>tobacco,
>a new study from the University of California at Los Angeles suggests.
>
>The research, conducted on mice, was published in the July issue of the
>Journal
>of Immunology. The UCLA researchers studied the effect of
>tetrahydrocannabinol,
>or THC, the major euphoriant in marijuana.
Maggie, there's no point in posting things like these because even when you
present the medical studies that the idiots claim don't exist, these brain-dead
people will come up with any excuse to dismiss it. Apparently the morons want
everyone to believe that smoking marijuana can never be risky or never have a
negative effect on someone's health. The people who believe this are usually
potheads in denial. They get very upset if anyone ruins their delusional
mindset that using marijuana is always safe.
Sara
JosieCat wrote:
Oh dear. I think you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills, as
you've attributed all kinds of statements to me that I never made. Your hysterical
diatribe does nothing to bolster your arguments and is reminiscent of a chicken
with its head cut off running in circles. And while you're at it, you might try
picking up a little class--screaming names at people just makes you sound about
twelve years old and very insecure.
Grotus
to her resume.
"Hell Toupee" <my...@notmine.com> wrote in message
news:3C1E3947...@notmine.com...
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With NINE Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
DepressdGrl
> that's not at ALL what this discussion was about. you said there's proof that
> marijuana is linked to breast cancer (actually you said it caused breast cancer
> because the breasts are near the lungs so it spreads easily, but i'll give you
> the benefit of the doubt and pretend no one would make such a moronic
> statement). most everyone else here has said, simply, there is no proof. NOT
> that pot is good or safe or recommended. just that there are no studies linking
> marijuana smoke to breast cancer... and the few studies that mention both
> marijuana and cancer do NOT isolate the effect of marijuana smoke v. cigarette
> smoke.
>
>
But there are studies linking marijuana and cancer, which have been
posted. Maybe it's a general cancer and people with genetic
potential, etc for breast cancer can be triggered by marijuana.
I don't think they've done the studies for breast cancer directly, but
they have found that marijuana is a factor for some people for getting
cancer. What form it takes was not specified, but it does/can cause
cancer, and the studies showed that it has 20x the carcinogens of
regular cigarrettes.
Now whether Linda McC got it from smoking marijuana or cigarettes it
hasn't been established, however, the fact that she did both of those
thing didn't bode well for her health.
That aside, I'm personally glad she went to bat for vegetarianism, and
the veggie world misses her.
dg
come see my website! it's fun!!! www.geocities.com/ruthlilycat/
JosieCat
EXACTLY. It's good to see that you and some people here have common sense. NO
ONE here was saying that Linda's marijuana smoking killed her or caused her
breast cancer....so stop arguing about something that wasn't even said in the
first place. All I and other people said was that Linda McCartney's chronic pot
smoking for deacades probably had a detrimental effect on her health.
And to the idiots who are rambling on about how they don't think pot is harmful
just because no one gave them an Internet link with medical studies, if you
think pot smoking is so safe and harmless, would you let young children smoke
pot? Would you think it's okay for a pregnant woman to smoke pot? You don't
need a goddamn Internet link to know that there are health risks to smoking
pot. END OF STORY.