Marijuana Use Associated With a “Significantly Reduced Risk” of Head and Neck Cancers

Topspin

Verified User
Marijuana Use Associated With a “Significantly Reduced Risk” of Head and Neck Cancers — Will The Mainstream Media Care?
Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:59:01 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
Share This Article
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 “protective” 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’s potential anti-cancer effects in humans — until now.

In a clinical abstract just published online on the Cancer Prevention Research website, a team of U.S. investigators report that marijuana use, even long-term, is associated with a “significantly reduced risk” of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

A Population-Based Case-Control Study of Marijuana Use and Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
via nih.gov

Cannabinoids, constituents of marijuana smoke, have been recognized to have potential anti-tumor properties. 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.

… After adjusting for potential confounders (including smoking and alcohol drinking), 10 to 20 years of marijuana use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of HNSCC [odds ratio (OR)(10-<20 years versus never users), 0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.22-0.67]. Among marijuana users moderate weekly use was associated with reduced risk (OR(0.5-<1.5 times versus <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-<20 years versus never users), 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.95; OR(>/=20 years versus never users), 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.90; P(trend) < 0.001).

Our study suggests that moderate marijuana use is associated with reduced risk of HNSCC.

I’ve said this before 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, or for that matter members of the mainstream media, chosen to advance — rather than to suppress — clinical research into the anti-cancer effects of cannabis? It’s a shame we have to speculate; it’s even more tragic that tens of thousands of families must needlessly suffer while we do.
 
Ohh I am for legalizing MJ. Good tax revenue source.
My only issue is Driving under the influence and the other problems of intoxication that follow intoxicating substances.

I do not want the road flooded with stoners.

Damned drunks and cellers are bad enough.
 
Ohh I am for legalizing MJ. Good tax revenue source.
My only issue is Driving under the influence and the other problems of intoxication that follow intoxicating substances.

I do not want the road flooded with stoners.

Damned drunks and cellers are bad enough.

I would approve of medical marijuana only. Your last two sentences are the reasons why I wouldn't legalize it across the board. Now, when hemp is legalized, that when the tide turns.
 
Ohh I am for legalizing MJ. Good tax revenue source.
My only issue is Driving under the influence and the other problems of intoxication that follow intoxicating substances.

I do not want the road flooded with stoners.

Damned drunks and cellers are bad enough.

isn't driving under the influence already illegal?
 
ignorant people talking about pot smoking. Do you smoke weed USshitizen? If not, STFU, you idiot. Weed increases focus in frequent users. If you don't smoke weed, you can't possibly know or understand what i'm talking about, so do us all a favor and STFU. I've fucking raced downhill bikes while totally stoned and i assure you, there was no deterioration of skill. It's ignorant folks like you who hold back the medical benefits marijuana might have yielded. Go find something worthwhile to worry about. How about whether your elected officials read the bills they vote on? Or how about the open discrimination against white male contractors?

Fuck you liberal asshole. And fuck this lame site
 
Stoners can totally drive fine. But they may not arrive to their destination on time and under budget, or at all. They might get lost. Or find something more fun to do.
 
tin, you fucking rock
USGED read something in a tabloid.
Wait he was in the Nam, so either he has burned tree or is the nerdiest person on the board.
 
ignorant people talking about pot smoking. Do you smoke weed USshitizen? If not, STFU, you idiot. Weed increases focus in frequent users. If you don't smoke weed, you can't possibly know or understand what i'm talking about, so do us all a favor and STFU. I've fucking raced downhill bikes while totally stoned and i assure you, there was no deterioration of skill. It's ignorant folks like you who hold back the medical benefits marijuana might have yielded. Go find something worthwhile to worry about. How about whether your elected officials read the bills they vote on? Or how about the open discrimination against white male contractors?

Fuck you liberal asshole. And fuck this lame site

I have smoked weed for most of my life.
I cannot drive or operate machinery as well while stoned.
I may think I can but my reaction time is hosed.

I have not smoked in a while as it makes me stupid enough to watch fox news when taken with my pain pills and such.
 
isn't driving under the influence already illegal?

Yes but with pot in your system is not under the influence. Pot stays in your system for quite a while (weeks) after the high wears off. So tests must be determined to determine intoxication level not just presence of pot.
 
Yes but with pot in your system is not under the influence. Pot stays in your system for quite a while (weeks) after the high wears off. So tests must be determined to determine intoxication level not just presence of pot.

but aren't cops trained to determine whether someone is impaired or not? or are side of the road sobriety tests just for the dog and pony show?
 
Back
Top