<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform &#187; Tashkin</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.norml.org/tag/tashkin/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.norml.org</link>
	<description>Working to reform marijuana laws</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:26:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Marijuana Use Associated With a &#8220;Significantly Reduced Risk&#8221; of Head and Neck Cancers &#8212; Will The Mainstream Media Care?</title>
		<link>http://blog.norml.org/2009/07/30/marijuana-use-associated-with-a-significantly-reduced-risk-of-head-and-neck-cancers-will-the-mainstream-media-care/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.norml.org/2009/07/30/marijuana-use-associated-with-a-significantly-reduced-risk-of-head-and-neck-cancers-will-the-mainstream-media-care/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:59:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ACTIVISM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cancer Prevention Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cannabinoids]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[head and neck squamous cell carcinoma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protective]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tashkin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.norml.org/?p=1287</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For some 35 years the United States federal government has been well aware that cannabis possesses potent anti-cancer and anti-tumor properties. And for the past three years, government-funded researchers have speculated that these qualities may offer &#8220;protective&#8221; effects against the onset of various types of cancer in humans, including lung cancer. Yet to date, virtually no investigators have taken the time to assess marijuana&#8217;s potential anti-cancer effects in humans &#8212; until now. In a clinical abstract just published online on the Cancer Prevention Research website, a team of U.S. investigators [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignright" src="http://norml.org/images/blog/cannabis_flower.jpg" alt="" width="198" height="260" />For some 35 years the United States federal government has been <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-armentano/what-your-government-know_b_108712.html">well aware</a> that cannabis possesses potent <a href="http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6814">anti-cancer</a> and <a href="http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7008">anti-tumor properties</a>. And for the past three years, government-funded researchers have speculated that these qualities may offer &#8220;<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html">protective</a>&#8221; effects against the onset of various types of cancer in humans, including <a href="http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6912">lung cancer</a>.</p>
<p>Yet to date, virtually no investigators have taken the time to assess marijuana&#8217;s potential anti-cancer effects in humans &#8212; <strong>until now</strong>.</p>
<p>In a clinical abstract just published online on the <em>Cancer Prevention Researc</em>h website, a team of U.S. investigators report that <strong>marijuana use, even long-term, is associated with a &#8220;significantly reduced risk&#8221; of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma</strong>.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19638490">A Population-Based Case-Control Study of Marijuana Use and Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma</a></strong><br />
via nih.gov</p>
<p><strong>Cannabinoids, constituents of marijuana smoke, have been recognized to have potential anti-tumor properties.</strong> However, the epidemiologic evidence addressing the relationship between marijuana use and the induction of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is inconsistent and conflicting. Cases (n = 434) were patients with incident HNSCC disease from nine medical facilities in the Greater Boston, MA area between December 1999 and December 2003. Controls (n = 547) were frequency matched to cases on age (+/-3 years), gender, and town of residence, randomly selected from Massachusetts town books.</p>
<p>&#8230; After adjusting for potential confounders (including smoking and alcohol drinking), <strong>10 to 20 years of marijuana use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of HNSCC</strong> [odds ratio (OR)(10-&lt;20 years versus never users), 0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.22-0.67]. <strong>Among marijuana users moderate weekly use was associated with reduced risk</strong> (OR(0.5-&lt;1.5 times versus &lt;0.5 time), 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.85). The magnitude of reduced risk was more pronounced for those who started use at an older age (OR(15-&lt;20 years versus never users), 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.95; OR(&gt;/=20 years versus never users), 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.90; P(trend) &lt; 0.001).</p>
<p><strong>Our study suggests that moderate marijuana use is associated with reduced risk of HNSCC.</strong></p></blockquote>
<p>I&#8217;ve said this <a href="http://blog.norml.org/2008/05/20/is-senator-kennedy-a-victim-of-pot-prohibition/">before</a> but it bears repeating. What possible advancements in the treatment of cancer could have been achieved over the past 35 years had U.S. government officials, <strong>or for that matter members of the mainstream media</strong>, chosen to advance &#8212; rather than to <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/9257/">suppress</a> &#8212; clinical research into the anti-cancer effects of cannabis? It&#8217;s a shame we have to speculate; it&#8217;s even more tragic that tens of thousands of families must needlessly suffer while we do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.norml.org/2009/07/30/marijuana-use-associated-with-a-significantly-reduced-risk-of-head-and-neck-cancers-will-the-mainstream-media-care/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>77</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fox News Infected With &#8220;Reefer Madness&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://blog.norml.org/2009/06/17/fox-news-infected-with-reefer-madness/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.norml.org/2009/06/17/fox-news-infected-with-reefer-madness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:21:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ACTIVISM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[calf thymus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DNA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Singh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tashkin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vaporization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[we report you decide]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.norml.org/?p=930</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fox News is running an alarmist story today under the outrageous headline, &#8220;Marijuana Not Only Gets You High, It Damages Your DNA.&#8221; The &#8216;news&#8217; story, which several other mainstream media outlets are also promoting, is based on a new British study assessing the effects of, ahem, &#8220;calf thymus DNA treated in vitro (in a Petri dish) &#8230; with the smoke generated from 1, 5, and 10 cannabis cigarettes.&#8221; Yes, really. So how did Fox &#8220;We report, you decide&#8221; News summarize this non-story? Let&#8217;s take a look. What Fox News reported: [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignright" src="http://norml.org/images/blog/cannabis_flower.jpg" alt="" width="198" height="260" />Fox News is running an alarmist story today under the outrageous headline, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526842,00.html">&#8220;Marijuana Not Only Gets You High, It Damages Your DNA.&#8221;</a></p>
<p>The &#8216;news&#8217; story, which several other mainstream media outlets are also promoting, is based on a new British <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19449825">study</a> assessing the effects of, ahem, &#8220;calf thymus DNA treated <em>in vitro</em> (in a Petri dish)  &#8230; with the smoke generated from 1, 5, and 10 cannabis cigarettes.&#8221;</p>
<p>Yes, really.</p>
<p>So how did Fox &#8220;We report, you decide&#8221; News summarize this non-story? Let&#8217;s take a look.</p>
<blockquote><p>
<strong>What Fox News reported:</strong> &#8220;Smoking marijuana not only gets you high, but it also alters your DNA.&#8221;
</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>What the study actually said: </strong>&#8220;[T]hese results provide evidence for the DNA damaging <strong>potential</strong> of cannabis smoke, <strong>implying</strong> that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes <strong>may be detrimental</strong> to human health <strong>with the possibility</strong> to initiate cancer development.&#8221;</p>
<blockquote><p>
<strong>What Fox News reported:</strong> &#8220;There have been many studies on the toxicity of tobacco smoke,” researcher Rajinder Singh said in a news release. “Cannabis in contrast has not been so well studied.&#8221;
</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>What Fox News <em>didn&#8217;t</em> report:</strong> From the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18777572">March 2009 issue</a> of the scientific journal <em>Medicinal Research Reviews</em>, &#8220;Research on the chemistry and pharmacology of cannabinoids and endocannabinoids <strong>has reached enormous proportions</strong>. &#8230; [A]pproximately <strong>15,000 articles</strong> on Cannabis sativa L. and cannabinoids and over <strong>2,000 articles</strong> on endocannabinoids (are available in the scientific literature).&#8221;</p>
<blockquote><p>
<strong>What Fox News reported:</strong> &#8220;Singh said cannabis smoke contains 400 compounds including 60 cannabinoids. It also contains 50 percent more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke, Singh added.&#8221;
</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>What Fox News <em>didn&#8217;t</em> report: </strong>From the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17429350">November 2007 issue</a> of the scientific journal <em>Clinical Pharmacology &amp; Therapeutics</em>, &#8220;<strong>Vaporization of marijuana does not result in exposure to combustion gases</strong>, &#8230; and [was] preferred by most subjects compared to marijuana cigarettes. &#8230; The Volcano [vaporizer] device is an effective and apparently <strong>safe vehicle for THC delivery</strong>, and warrants further investigation in clinical trials of cannabis for medical purposes.&#8221;</p>
<blockquote><p>
<strong>What Fox News reported:</strong> &#8220;&#8216;The smoking of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day,&#8217; the team wrote in the journal.&#8221;
</p></blockquote>
<p><em><strong>Except for the fact that it isn&#8217;t.</strong> </em>In fact, here&#8217;s what Donald Tashkin of the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, <a href="http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=957583&amp;lang=eng_news&amp;cate_img=316.jpg&amp;cate_rss=news_Health">had to say</a> about the subject earlier this month in an interview with the McClatchy newspaper chain. (**Note: Dr. Tashkin has performed US-government sponsored studies of marijuana and lung function for over 30 years and is considered to be the United States&#8217; &#8212; if not the world&#8217;s &#8212; foremost expert on the subject.)</p>
<p>&#8220;What we found instead was <strong>no association</strong> (between marijuana smoking and cancer) and even <strong>a suggestion of some protective (anti-cancer) effect</strong>. &#8230; 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. But at this point, <strong>I&#8217;d be in favor of legalization (of marijuana).</strong> I wouldn&#8217;t encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don&#8217;t think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And <strong>in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm</strong>.&#8221;</p>
<p>Just for the record, in 2006, Tashkin led the <a href="http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6912">largest population case-control study</a> (yes, Dr. Tashkin actually performed research on humans, not &#8216;calf thymus DNA&#8217;) ever to assess the use of marijuana and lung cancer risk. The study, which included more than 2,200 subjects (1,212 cases and 1,040 controls), reported that <strong>marijuana smoking was not positively associated with cancers of the lung or upper aerodigestive tract</strong> – <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html">even among individuals who reported smoking more than 22,000 joints during their lifetime</a>.</p>
<p>Let the folks at Fox put that in their pipe and smoke it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.norml.org/2009/06/17/fox-news-infected-with-reefer-madness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>171</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

