Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 85

Thread: BBC - Health risks of cannabis 'underestimated'

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    9,029
    Thanks
    0
    Been Thanked: 10,882 Times

    Default

    Just a thought...

    People use words like scaremongering, and often blame the BBC for inaccuracies and bias, or that they're preparing the way for something else. But I don't think so. They report on all sorts of things, and this particular report focuses on a report from the British Lung Foundation. The BLF are not a government department, and I believe that they (the BLF) are genuine in their concern, and actually care about what they do. I certainly don't for a minute think that they are part of some plot to bring in new legislation, any more than Oxfam or Scope are (which isn't to say that said charities may not be campaigning for legislation, but I don't see the 'conspiracy' part).

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Anonymiss For This Useful Post:

    herb (10-06-12), needsmust (06-06-12), Stirruphead (11-01-13)

  3. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    9,029
    Thanks
    0
    Been Thanked: 10,882 Times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jinx91 View Post
    Good to see those determined to crush cannabis can accurately use modern scientific research on which to base their claims...
    Just because research is old, it doesn't make it invalid.

    I'm pretty sure we do the same for lots of things, medical or otherwise.

    I also don't think that the BLF are out to "crush cannabis" as such, any more than they are out to "crush cigarettes". They're more about lung health in general, and smoking (anything) is part of that.

  4. #13
    Jinx91 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymiss View Post
    Just because research is old, it doesn't make it invalid.

    I'm pretty sure we do the same for lots of things, medical or otherwise.

    I also don't think that the BLF are out to "crush cannabis" as such, any more than they are out to "crush cigarettes". They're more about lung health in general, and smoking (anything) is part of that.
    Previously I linked an article on THCT (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052501729.html), the same scientist, Taskin, elaborates:

    "Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar."

    In addition, the research carried out by Taskin's group concluded there is no link between cancer and cannabis, much to their surprise, as the hypotheses used included the study mentioned above.

    I'm well aware that dated research doesn't necessarily mean it is inaccurate or "invalid", however as science is at it's pinnacle today there has been far more accurate research conducted, as shown above. Why would an article from the BLF, assuming it is unbiased, not quote Taskin's latest research showing that there is no danger of cancer? Biased? Perhaps.
    Last edited by Jinx91; 06-06-12 at 02:30 PM.

  5. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    9,029
    Thanks
    0
    Been Thanked: 10,882 Times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jinx91 View Post
    Previously I linked an article on THCT
    That's a great example, because it's by the same person who was involved with one of the studies quoted by the BLF in their story, and I'm sure that the excerpt quoted is probably still true.

    "Cannabis tends to be smoked in a way which increases the puff volume by two-thirds and the depth of inhalation by one-third. There is an average fourfold longer breath-holding time with cannabis than with tobacco" -- Wu, TC., Tashkin, DP., Djahed, B. and Rose JE., (1988)...

    I'm well aware that dated research doesn't necessarily mean it is inaccurate or "invalid", however as science is at it's pinnacle today there has been far more accurate research conducted, as shown above.
    The new research is definitely new, but it may be a lone statistic, and it may or may not have been peer reviewed (the same goes for the initial citations though). Maybe Tashkin himself has a bias?

    Why would an article from the BLF, assuming it is unbiased, not quote Taskin's latest research showing that there is no danger of cancer? Biased? Perhaps.
    Of course the BLF are biased. They're a charity devoted to lung health and, just like everyone else, they have an agenda and will use quotes and statistics which support their position. But I think it unlikely that they are specifically "anti-cannabis" and that it's more likely that they are "anti-smoking-anything".

    After all, most cannabis smokers can hardly claim to be unbiased and objective in their views, can they?
    Last edited by Anonymiss; 06-06-12 at 02:45 PM.

  6. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Button Moon
    Posts
    5,689
    Thanks
    2,793
    Been Thanked: 3,662 Times

    Default

    Ive just been reading some "readers comments" from sky news web site.
    Heres a couple
    I honestly find it distressing the way the human race are such a bunch of druggies. Our brain consists of billions of cells that communicate using tens of thousands of chemicals. It is an incredibly finely balanced biochemical machine that makes a computer or a clock look positively simple. Even given the technology we have today we have absolutely no idea how it works. Yet placing drugs in there is akin to whacking the most complex computer in the world with a hammer. We have absolutely no idea what he long term consequences are of most of the things we do, but the consequences of mind altering drugs, well its just plain scary. And yet this is something so many people want to do without a care in the world. Honestly, if you do this, you are crazy. Really, really crazy.
    It is absolutely alarming to read the comments here. Almost all pro-cannabis posts exhibit the typical cannabis-linked features of infantilism, paranoia, amotivation, magical thinking: "The governments are literally holding back a cure for some cancers", "Use the internet to find out some real facts about cannabis", "(cannabis) protecting brain cells", etc.
    It is your addiction that speaks, not your brains. I see that in my 17-old son and I am heartbroken
    You know if someone said "I like getting high, I know there are risks but I accept them" then fair enough but what really irritates me is the way the pot-brigade try to justify what they do with unsubstantiated science and myth.
    On and on they go, saying how wonderful it is, that they use it only as a medication ( if you believe that you believe anything ).
    The truth is that pot it is a mildly dangerous, highly anti-social mood changing drug. If you have ever spent a night sober with someone who smokes it, you will know exactly what I mean by anti-social. It's like trying to have a decent conversation with Mr Blobby. And you can not use other drugs as justification for this one. I am sure that if the government could ban alcohol and tobacco they would, but there would be uproar. The very last thing we need in this world is MORE drugs. We already have two killers that are legal, we don't need any more, whether it is more or less dangerous is irrelevant
    Theres 64 comments in total
    LINK HERE

  7. #16
    Master Poet Guest

    Default

    I tried to place 2 comments on the sky article but neither have been put up. I also called the BLF and spoke to a guy there, all their evidence is based on peer reviewed papers not their own research. I mentioned the Tashkin study of 2006 and was told that they could not find it in a peer reviewed paper so did not include it in their papers for review.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Master Poet For This Useful Post:

    Stirruphead (12-01-13), TIKTOK (06-06-12)

  9. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    9,029
    Thanks
    0
    Been Thanked: 10,882 Times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pugz View Post
    You know if someone said "I like getting high, I know there are risks but I accept them" then fair enough...
    I'm in complete agreement with this one. Lots of people seem to have the opinion that cannabis is some magical medicine which cures all ills, which it almost certainly isn't.

    Pro-cannabis zealots are often just as guilty of bias as the anti-cannabis lobby.


    ETA:
    Quote Originally Posted by Poet
    I also called the BLF and spoke to a guy there
    Good man!

    all their evidence is based on peer reviewed papers not their own research. I mentioned the Tashkin study of 2006 and was told that they could not find it in a peer reviewed paper so did not include it in their papers for review.
    Which is kind of fair, I guess. If the study really hasn't received peer review in six years then there may very well be something wrong with it.
    Last edited by Anonymiss; 06-06-12 at 03:01 PM.

  10. #18
    Jinx91 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymiss View Post
    The new research is definitely new, but it may be a lone statistic, and it may or may not have been peer reviewed (the same goes for the initial citations though). Maybe Tashkin himself has a bias?
    Perhaps, the study could be an anomalous one but with a team at UCLA, one of the most prestigious medical schools in the world, I'm confident they have the required investment and resources to perform the most accurate study possible. As with Tashkin, his own bias (and that of his team) could hinder the survey but my confidence (perhaps naively from your perspective) lies with his medical record, his qualifications and his pedigree. A quote to show Tashkin is bias towards cannabis:

    "Early on, when our research appeared as if there would be a negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects,” Tashkin says. “But at this point, I’d be in favor of legalization. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm." ( http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wor...ideos/tashkin/ )

    "Over and over again, all the bad things we’ve been told about marijuana are revealed to be not only false, but often the precise opposite of the truth."

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymiss
    Of course the BLF are biased. They're a charity devoted to lung health and, just like everyone else, they have an agenda and will use quotes and statistics which support their position. But I think it unlikely that they are specifically "anti-cannabis" and that it's more likely that they are "anti-smoking-anything".
    Agreed, cannabis may not be their primary target in the battle for healthy lungs yet their is no mention of the professionally sound research performed at UCLA, it seems unreasonable to focus on the negatives opposed to informing the public that modern research has shown X. [/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymiss
    After all, most cannabis smokers can hardly claim to be unbiased and objective in their views, can they?
    Believe it or not, I'm unbiased. I wouldn't smoke cannabis if I deemed it harmful. I have never smoked a cigarette, I have studied the science (not only having top A levels in all of the sciences but through my own research and through school friends of mine who are at UCL and Imperial) nor do I drink alcohol regularly. If cannabis was as dangerous as some perceive, I guarantee you I wouldn't touch it, in the same way I have never touched cigarettes yet your point is valid, opinion often hinders relevant data.
    Last edited by Jinx91; 06-06-12 at 03:09 PM.

  11. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    9,029
    Thanks
    0
    Been Thanked: 10,882 Times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jinx91 View Post
    Perhaps, the study could be an anomalous one but with a team at UCLA, one of the most prestigious medical schools in the world, I'm confident they have the required investment and resources to perform the most accurate study possible.
    And yet...

    Quote Originally Posted by Poet
    I also called the BLF and spoke to a guy there all their evidence is based on peer reviewed papers not their own research. I mentioned the Tashkin study of 2006 and was told that they could not find it in a peer reviewed paper so did not include it in their papers for review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jinx91
    As with Tashkin, his own bias (and that of his team) could hinder the survey but my confidence (perhaps naively from your perspective) lies with his medical record, his qualifications and his pedigree. A quote to show Tashkin is bias towards cannabis:

    "Early on, when our research appeared as if there would be a negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects,” Tashkin says. “But at this point, I’d be in favor of legalization. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm." ( http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wor...ideos/tashkin/ )

    "Over and over again, all the bad things we’ve been told about marijuana are revealed to be not only false, but often the precise opposite of the truth."
    In comparison to tobacco and alcohol, it may be that cannabis is less harmful. But that's not the same as being safe.

    I'd also be inetested to explore what he means by "Tobacco smoking causes far more harm". Is he referring to the overall harm caused to habitual tobacco smokers? Or on a one-for-one (joint-for-cigarette) basis? Maybe it's on a pure-cannabis vs. tobacco statement. We may never know, but there's a big difference.

    Personally, I think cannabis should be legalised (and regulated). But then, I think that of all drugs.

    Agreed, cannabis may not be their primary target in the battle for healthy lungs yet their is no mention of the professionally sound research performed at UCLA, it seems unreasonable to focus on the negatives opposed to informing the public that modern research has shown X.
    Or maybe not so sound. See above.

    Believe it or not, I'm unbiased.
    I believe it. I try to be the same.

    I wouldn't smoke cannabis if I deemed it harmful
    I'm pretty sure that inhaling any kind of smoke (including cannabis smoke) is likely to be harmful, but I still smoke cannabis.

    opinion often hinders relevant data.
    This is one of the biggest problems that any truly objective study faces. Prejudice is incredibly hard to eradicate or correct for.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Anonymiss For This Useful Post:

    Stirruphead (12-01-13)

  13. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,869
    Thanks
    3,388
    Been Thanked: 3,916 Times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poet View Post
    I tried to place 2 comments on the sky article but neither have been put up. I also called the BLF and spoke to a guy there, all their evidence is based on peer reviewed papers not their own research. I mentioned the Tashkin study of 2006 and was told that they could not find it in a peer reviewed paper so did not include it in their papers for review.
    Nice one Poet.

    I packed in smoking tobacco seven years ago and have smoked pure weed nearly every day since. Three years after packing in I was sent along with two others for a medical (work related). The other two failed the lung test because they both smoked tobacco and coughed their guts up; I passed easily even tho' I was still smoking pure weed every day and have done since without any ill effects. I don't even have a wheezy chest, my lungs feel great and I've never had a cough since I packed in smoking tobacco.

    A quick bit of research shows that the BLF is a profitable trading company (Company no. 1863614) as well a charity lol.

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TIKTOK For This Useful Post:

    Bitterfly (10-06-12), Heya123 (06-06-12), needsmust (11-06-12)

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


THCtalk.com Disclaimer - You must be over 18 years old to view/use this site .THCtalk.com does not encourage growing Cannabis or possessing Cannabis. Learning how to grow Cannabis instructions should be for educational purposes only. All Information contained in this web site is for: Historical reference, Scientific reference and Educational purposes only. Visitors to this website are advised against breaking the law as It is illegal to smoke, grow, or possess cannabis in the UK and some US States