On 8/29/2012 9:02 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Research on this is ambiguous and ideologically freighted, but you put your finger on the right spot with: "though maybe not as much". Because given all the toxic compounds from burning carbon based plant matter, the question is why the "smoking cannabis leads to lung cancer" evidence is much more of a mixed bag and less clear, than it ought to be, compared with tobacco smoking.

This gap in the figures between regular tobacco users and pure cannabis smokers, allows for the plausible conjecture that there is an anti-cancerous effect (of Cannabis in your bloodstream, irrespective of method of admin; of course smoking augments risk)..

I can think of no plausible mechanism whereby cannabis could selectively affect 
cancer cells.

Survey the studies, these harms are minute compared to risky legal behavior, such as tobacco, alcohol etc.

The great harm of marijuana and cocaine comes from enforcing laws against them - ruining people's lives by trials and prison, funding gangs and smuggling. I expect they are harmful to some people as is alcohol, but that's small relative to the social cost of law enforcement.


Prof. David Nutt's work on harm assessment is particularly interesting for anyone wanting a large scale and broad assessment of harms of different drugs in comparison.

I think even NIDA found an anti-cancerous effect in their 2006 report, while other studies note the opposite. This is less clear than people think.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to