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.
Brent
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.
m
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
