Cannabis link to Maori cancer

STUFF National News ^ | 10/10/2005 | By DAVID MCLOUGHLIN

[A CA Guy]

Heavy cannabis use could be a cause of Maori having the world's highest lung cancer rate, groundbreaking research suggests.

Many Maori from children to kaumatua use cannabis in "epidemic proportions", says a study by Richard Beasley of the Medical Research Institute in Wellington.

But cannabis might not be as safe as the proponents of its legalisation say. A paper by Professor Beasley on the health effects of cannabis was among the research that prompted Wellington coroner Garry Evans to urge last week that government policy on illicit drugs be changed from "harm minimisation" to campaigning against drug use.

The paper reviews the literature on cannabis and suggests it is more cancer-causing than tobacco, and, like tobacco, causes bronchitis.

Smoking three cannabis cigarettes a day is equal to smoking more than 20 tobacco cigarettes, it says.

Professor Beasley said last night that his institute was close to finishing what he believed was the world's first study on links between cannabis and lung cancer.

In his paper for the coroner, Professor Beasley said information was urgently needed on the potential role of marijuana in New Zealand's high lung cancer rate, particularly among Maori, who had the world's highest rate and were heavy cannabis users.

Research showed cannabis use had reached epidemic proportions and was generally accepted and tolerated among Maori. "Users range from children through to kaumatua."

Cannabis use was rising. The proportion of the population to have tried it rose from 43 per cent in 1990 to 52 per cent by 1998 and the proportion of regular users from 18 per cent to 21 per cent.

Studies showed regular smokers of three to four cannabis joints a day had chronic bronchitis and other symptoms similar to those of smokers of 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.

[A CA Guy]

The reason drugs (like cancer) has been tougher than it should have been to remove has been the hippie generation.

They have been horrible parents, some actually using in front of their kids or talking about drugs like they were an achievement.

Here in America, when the soldiers went to Nam, many came back with drug habits and that also has been a big problem.

In a recent LA Times article, it documented how all these hippies and Vietnam vets who got into drugs mostly never stopped and are now all dropping dead early from their drug use.
So, don't worry, law enforcement of drugs will continue and now that the drugged generation is dying early, less kids will be influenced and others will realize they don't want to die young and may be willing give the drugs up more often. :-)

[A CA Guy]

Well the people in this case were pot smokers only and they have been popping up with lung cancers compared to others in high levels.
Maybe this suggests that in the UCLA area they were too embarrassed to fess up to the real level of usage. In our culture as you know with the polls, they are lied to all the time. I don't think major pot smokers want to hear that their marijuana caused them cancer, plus they may worry about what their families would think about them as druggies.
In Maori, it's a different culture and their use of pot in society and the acceptability would be a libertarian wet dream. You are more than likely going to get candor in that society that has approval of the use rather than one that sees shame in the use.

I did go read the study, and the questions asked and the responses were strange to say the least in the UCLA study, did you ever look at it yourself.
Looks to me like many avoided the issue. Most seemed to answer "Pot, what is pot?"

In Maori, there were people who didn't smoke Cannabis and those that did a lot. You had a more straight forward look into causation in Maori where they are up front regarding the use.

This will not go away and will now be pursued more. In a search of causation in a complicated culture like America is much more difficult compared to more simple cultures.

[A CA Guy]

But self medication in a recreational fashion is dangerous, seems to require a low level of common sense or IQ and harms others as well.

Seems to not be worth it.

[A CA Guy]

Well, go read the Bible, alcohol was used to avoid food poisoning. It was a food purifier as it is today and is a blood thinner. In moderation without the drunkenness or alcoholism of abusers it is good for you.

Pot often is mixed with lots of other drugs in the performance of lots of crime. It is usually just enough of a drug to have you want to mix it for higher highs with other things.

It totally harms others and if you read the LA TIMES article of the other day, the hippies, old Nam soldiers and others who got addicted are now dropping dead from the use.

This dying off of users will help reduce the problem IMO, and their children that they affected with their indoctrination may see the early death of some of these parents as a good reason to straighten out. At least we hope so.

[itzmygun]

alcohol was a food purifier in Biblical times that prevented lots of food poisoning.

LOL! I see a Monty Python's scene here:

"Um...a bunch of us were wondering, since you're good at miracles and everything, if you could um...you could...turn this barrel of water into...into...wine? We just need to preserve a little food here. No drinking or anything. Nope, nooo drinking, just preserving food...so...um...if you could just go ahead and turn that into, you know, wine, then we could get on with preserving that food, without drinking or getting drunk or anything, you know, just preserving."

Well, I guess that's much more original than the other alcohol-hating Christian argument that 'wine' actually meant grape juice.

Sorry, but God actually proclaims that he created wine (in Psalms 104:15), and that's not referring to a food preservative. Once again, it appears you're wishing to ascribe the evil to the object instead of the abuse of that object.

[A CA Guy]

Look at all the instruction on diet in the Old Testament. Things like don't eat pork and the rest...

Alcohol was part of the diet and drinking it in times when the food wasn't so pure had it act as a tool against food poisoning.

It is definitely good for you of you don't abuse it.

[pnome]

Alcohol often is mixed with lots of other drugs in the performance of lots of crime. It is usually just enough of a drug to have you want to mix it for higher highs with other things.

Is the above statement not also true?

Please provide a link to the LATIMES article. I'm interested in what these old folks are dying from. Is it the THC? or are we talking lung cancer? (BTW: last I checked, tobacco is still legal, and still a major cause of lung cancer)

No one is arguing that pot is good for you, just that it isn't nearly as bad for you as any number of other perfectly legal things.

[pnome]

Alcohol often is mixed with lots of other drugs in the performance of lots of crime. It is usually just enough of a drug to have you want to mix it for higher highs with other things.

Is the above statement not also true?

Please provide a link to the LATIMES article. I'm interested in what these old folks are dying from. Is it the THC? or are we talking lung cancer? (BTW: last I checked, tobacco is still legal, and still a major cause of lung cancer)

No one is arguing that pot is good for you, just that it isn't nearly as bad for you as any number of other perfectly legal things.

[itzmygun]

That's a wild theory you got there.

It's too bad people have to go and enjoy things God put here on this earth.

[A CA Guy]

People should use restraint and not ingest toxic stuff.

[A CA Guy]

You have no debate or opposition from me on the point that alcohol can be exploited and abused by ignorant people.

No doubt the people that do abuse it do deserve the troubles they get from the law for their stupidity as does recreational drug participants.

[tacticalogic]

Seems to not be worth it.

Then don't do it.

[A CA Guy]

I of course do not use, but there are druggies that do. They indoctrinate everyone they can, including their own young kids from some of the posts of FR I have read by the drug activists.

I think it is an unhealthy, stupid and dangerous habit a recreational drug user needs to stop doing.

[tonycavanagh]

re : So, don't worry, law enforcement of drugs will continue and now that the drugged generation is dying early, less kids will be influenced and others will realize they don't want to die young and may be willing give the drugs up more often.

I am sorry to rock the boat but all indications are that drug use is on the increase.

And with the drug increase is the increase of the gang culture in both our countries. Fueled by the huge amounts of money the street gangs can make in dealing.

Blaming drugs on the hippy generation just does not cut the ice.

You think the street gangs were influenced by a load of stoned unwashed hippies.

No its the money they can make that pays for the car the girl and the bling.

More money that you and I will ever make combined legally.

We need to open our eyes and realise all we are doing is enriching the criminals, giving the street gangs role modals. filling up our prisons and courts, using up valuable police and other resources. And for what , what is so important that we are are willing to have all this fallout.

Drugs are bad for you, take them and you will die.

Simple enough message, listen don't listen, I can not see why we have to use the law and cause all the above problems to stop someone committing self harm, I just don't see it.

[tonycavanagh]

re :People should use restraint and not ingest toxic stuff.,p>I have no argument with this, but you have also hit the nail on the head with the words "People should".

Yes its up to each individual to live there life the best they can and that means a healthy life style, and if they don't, well its there body and mind they are destroying.

So why does the government and the blunt axe of the law need to be involved.

[tacticalogic]

They indoctrinate everyone they can, including their own young kids from some of the posts of FR I have read by the drug activists.

Can you show me an example of one of these posts by drug activists on FR indoctrinating their own young children?

[Camel Joe]

Actually they are easy to spot, wandering about aimlessly. I finally quit a year and a half ago due to the excessive taxes. I never coughed in the morning or felt like I tired easily, I just did it for the money. Good thing too since I drive over 60 miles one way to work. Now my money goes into the gas tank, well that and the stupid treadmill we had to buy when we quit.

[A CA Guy]

I'll ping you to the infamous #519 elsewhere, and when I do you can read all through that thread for those who also boasted of their life long drug habits. (drug activists on FR...shhhhhhh!) :-o

[tacticalogic]

Indoctrination means the teaching of subject matter as dogma - absoulute or self-evident truth, along with conditioning to accept it without question or criticism. There is nothing in the post you've referred to that objectively qualifies as indoctrination. You difference with Nooseman seems less a matter of him indoctrinating his son in drug use and much more a matter of him not indoctrinating against it to your satisfaction.

[Nooseman]

because there are legions of people in certain mindsets,not many will admit to using weed.They use it and do so very carefully.In my circles,we have "work lives",and "private lives".I know a friend who worked for the f.b.i for over 15 years,failed a urine analysis. And was promtly fired ,only reason ,not job performance,just +analysis.Oh and for the "if you smoke pot you contribute to terrorism" people.The vast majority of pot users buy local,from local producers.Its like produce,freshness matters.