Top Anti-Drug Researcher Changes His Mind, Says Legalize Marijuana

[Guest niall]

From StopTheDrugWar.org

 

For 30 years, Donald Tashkin has studied the effects of marijuana on lung function. His work has been funded by the vehemently anti-marijuana National Institute on Drug Abuse, which has long sought to demonstrate that marijuana causes lung cancer. After 3 decades of anti-drug research, here's what Tashkin has to say about marijuana laws:

"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," Tashkin says. "But at this point, I'd be in favor of legalization. I wouldn't encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don't think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm." [McClatchy]

We've been told a thousand times that marijuana destroys your lungs, that it's 5 times worse than cigarettes, and on and on. Yet here is Donald Tashkin, literally the top expert in the world when it comes to marijuana and lung health, telling us it's time to legalize marijuana. His views are shaped not by ideology, but rather by the 30 years he spent studying the issue. He didn't expect the science to come out in favor of marijuana, but that's what happened and he's willing to admit it.

 

Here's the study that really turned things around:

UCLA's Tashkin studied heavy marijuana smokers to determine whether the use led to increased risk of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD. He hypothesized that there would be a definitive link between cancer and marijuana smoking, but the results proved otherwise.

"What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect," says Tashkin, whose research was the largest case-control study ever conducted.

 

Prejudice against marijuana and smoking in general runs so deep for many people that it just seems inconceivable that marijuana could actually reduce the risk of lung cancer. But that's what the data shows and it not only demolishes a major tenet of popular anti-pot propaganda, but also points towards a potentially groundbreaking opportunity to develop cancer cures through marijuana research.

 

Over and over again, all the bad things we've been told about marijuana are revealed to be not only false, but often the precise opposite of the truth. So the next time someone tells you that marijuana is worse for your lungs than cigarettes, you might want to mention that the world's leading expert on that subject happens to be a supporter of legalization.

[luciddreaming]

Well well well.

 

I might just have to write this guy and thank him for being scientific and honest.

 

EDIT: Here's his e-mail if you want to thank him dtashkin@mednet.ucla.edu

Edited June 5, 2009 by luciddreaming

[luciddreaming]

Ok, I just e-mailed this to the lady who posted that survey thread. Because on the site it says that Cannabis may cause lung cancer or something.

She said this.

Thank you so much for your interest in our site and thoughtful response to our Factsheet. We are aware that the epidemiological and other evidence of a causal relationship between cannabis use and lung cancer is currently at an early stage, limited and conflicting. That is why we cautiously stated that there is "growing evidence" and a "risk" which I am quite satisfied I can defend.

 

The evidence you cite from WebMD is reporting on a conference presentation some 3 years ago not a peer reviewed paper. Donald Tashkin is a highly respected researcher and a 2006 paper of which he is an author (Hashibe et al., 2006 Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers: results of a population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 15(10) 1829-34) has similar findings of a positive association between cannabis and a range of such cancers but that it does not reach significance when tobacco smoking is controlled for. This paper. however, has a much more considered discussions of the methodological flaws of the study and concludes the relationship is not strong rather than non-existent. More recent studies with heavier cannabis using populations such as Aldington et al., (2008). Cannabis use and risk of lung cancer: a case-control study Eur Respir J; 31, 280-286 conclude that long-term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults; as does a similar study (Voirin et al 2006) in Tunisia. The putative "anti-tumour" properties of THC as cited by Tashkin in reference to a review by Robert Melamede (published in Harm Reduction Journal in 2005) is speculative at best. As research into cannabinoids is becoming more sophisticated the terms cannabis, THC and cannabinoids are less likely to be conflated and the evidence, therefore, more cogent.

 

While heavy, regular cannabis users are only now moving into the age groups at significant risk of lung cancer (60+) it is far too early to say there is clear evidence of a causal association between lung cancer and cannabis use but it is definitely wrong to conclude that "it has been proven false".

[Budman2012]

Woah , she did well heheh

or did she ...

 

"Donald Tashkin is a highly respected researcher and a 2006 paper of which he is an author (Hashibe et al., 2006 Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers: results of a population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 15(10) 1829-34) has similar findings of a positive association between cannabis and a range of such cancers but that it does not reach significance when tobacco smoking is controlled for. This paper. however, ...)"

 

Nope , cogent as man , fully , all proper cogent there

I may be mistaken , But does the last half of that sentence make any sense? the whole thing seems purposefully distorted to me. And what has the tobacco to do with it? ... Shit punctuation anyway (yep , I be pot) ... , " & # ...

 

Conclusion , Yes I think she did well ... to make it a confusing reply ... But i see holes

And is she trying to say that "her" paper (ner ner) concludes that "his" paper has flaws so then that is evidence against his evidence provided somehow? because that's stretching it. Hell I don't know , the more I read it the more I can't tell what the hell she's on about ... I've got about 2 cones of bud left , what a bitch.

If anyone can translate it into something more cogent for me , that would be mighty cogent of you gents n co

 

Bye 4 Now ... and Cheerz

 

Budman

[HashMakerOilProducts]

I'm sober, I can't figure out for the life of me what the hell she is saying. It seems to me that she say's she has evidence to conratdict his evidence. This is Like the world is flat theory. Sombody say's the world is round, and a whole bunch of people say his evidence is flawed but instead of giving actual proof they just try to confuse people into beliving it.

[dalex]

She made a pretty good reply - it's just a little confusing because she uses techical language that people not familiar with conducting these studies might not understand. Good effort that she put together a reply though.

 

"Donald Tashkin is a highly respected researcher and a 2006 paper of which he is an author (Hashibe et al., 2006 Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers: results of a population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 15(10) 1829-34) has similar findings of a positive association between cannabis and a range of such cancers but that it does not reach significance when tobacco smoking is controlled for. This paper. however, ...)"

 

Nope , cogent as man , fully , all proper cogent there wacko.gif

I may be mistaken , But does the last half of that sentence make any sense? the whole thing seems purposefully distorted to me. And what has the tobacco to do with it? ...

 

What she's saying is that studies consistently show a link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer. However, as many pot smokers used in these studies also smoke cigarettes, they have to try and seperate the cancer-causing effects of cigarettes with any left-over cancer-causing/preventin effects of cannabis. Therefore, when econometricians "control" for the tobacco smokers by using only pot smokers, comparing against known tobacco effects etc, then most studies show that there is no "significant" link between pot smoking and lung cancer. She then clears up this technical term "not significant" in the next few sentences, saying:

 

the relationship is not strong rather than non-existent. (My italics)

 

So what she is trying to argue is that current scientific research, even though it is failing to prove any strong relationship between pot smoking and lung cancer, it doesn't disprove it.

 

What is really in order is for more cannabis-related studies to be conducted, but as most of these studies are either conducted by organisations funded by governments who consistently refuse to fund research into illicit drugs or by pharmaceutical corporations which wish to supress cannabis as a potential future competitor, we are being forced to live in ignorance.

 

If the Government really had a serious stance on cannabis, it would legalise and focus on harm reduction. Imagine the innovations which the private sector would produce if given the chance; cannabis-specific filters which wouldn't filter THC but would reduce tar entering the lungs, genetically-modified plants which would posess higher THC conentrations so people could smoke less to get high, a new bong liquid to replace water which would clean the smoke at a more efficient rate, cheaper and more effective vaporizers, and a whole array of THC edibles...

 

Legalise, tax, and regulate.

[Guest niall]

So.... why are we not studying legal cannabis users in the USA and Canada? Or following up on the Caribbean studies that showed cannabis smokers lived longer and were more healthier than their non-smoking counterparts?

 

If they truly wanted to answer this question, rather than spout some pseudo-scientific excuse, then they would study the people the US Government has been supplying cannabis to for decades, and Canadian patients who have been supplied by Health Canada and growing their own for close to a decade now.

 

But no we can't do that! *sigh*