Marijuana May Cause Cancer and DNA Damage

[GOD]

"Marijuana May Cause Cancer and DNA Damage

The conclusion belongs to a new study

Marijauna may be responsible for damaging the DNA, which could lead to the development of cancer, according to a new study

Studies covering the effects of marijuana and cannabis on the human body number in the hundreds. Because the use of the recreational drug is so widespread among today's youths, in the developed and developing world alike, researchers have long since tried to find out if the benefits of using it outweigh the downsides, or if the opposite is true. In the latest study of the “series,

 

[HeartCore]

implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development.

'May be' is kind of a weak argument.

Even more so : 'may cause dna damage wich could induce cancer'.

Gee I may slip over my doormat this afternoon and then I could swing over the balcony edge and end up dead...


What kind of cancer?

Certainly not lung cancer since research showed that people who smoke pure cannabis have as little chance of getting lungcancer as non smokers.

It says a lot that most negative studies are vague like this one you mention here and the positive studies are so much clearer and to the point. Like 'kills cancer cells (not anectotal, scientifically proved a number of times in a number of studies), 'cures some form of glaucoma', 'reliefes pain', 'enhances appetite'.

Go figure..

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Here is a link:

http://www.livescience.com/health/090613-marijuana-dna-cancer.html

"Using a highly sensitive new method called modified mass spectrometry, Rajinder Singh at the University of Leicester and colleagues found the data they sought, they report in the June 15 issue of Chemical Research in Toxicology, a journal of the American Chemical Society."

Data they sought? Isn't that biased research?

"The study was funded by the European Union Network of Excellence, the Medical Research Council and other groups."

Ah. Which other groups?

"These results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis [marijuana] smoke..."

Yeah, just like LSD-25. Which makes me wonder: did they study the effects of cannabis in vitro or in vivo? Did they also compare other commonly used substances with their "highly sensitive modified mass spectrometry", like for example aspartame, paracetamol, aspirine and cafeine?

And what about acetaldehyde, is it also present in cannabis vapor or spacecake? All news items report in their headlines that it's marijuana that causes cancer. Only in the article itself does it suggest they're talking about smoke, i.e. particles produced by combustion.

I'm looking for answers to these questions, but can't find them.

 

[st.bot.32]

Until they actually find a link in the real world between cannabis smokers and cancer (which no serious study has ever done).. it's all conjecture.

This reminds me of that weak correlation found between some people with testicular cancer.. who happened to smoke pot. The media turned that into a link between cancer and pot, which it wasn't. Yellow journalism for the scientifically illiterate..

 

[restin]

how does it damage DNA? What type of cancer? How many people were tested? What component in cannabis caused the damage?

Data they sought? Isn't that biased research?

Depends. In scientific reports, there is always a research question/hypothesis that is made and if their hypothesis was "Cannabis causes cancer", they indeed sought this info. But one could read it your way, too.

 

[Meduzz]

ALL cancer is a form of DNA damage/mutation. Mutations often being the result of damage.

 

[restin]

ok sounds reasonable. But still there is no explanation, how a substance can affect it...

 

[Meduzz]

Yes there is. Lots of aromatic planar molecules intercalate between the nucleotide base pairs and cause deletions/insertions resulting in a codon frame shift so whole genes get turned of in stead of an amino acid shift.

 

[Meduzz]

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagen for other classes of mutagens if you're interested

 

[Synith]

Yea, but that doesn't make any sense as a different new study states that THC slows and even destroys the progression of cancer cells.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... pe=science and http://www.healthrelatedinfos.com/marij ... cancer-30/

Plus, how often do you see a Cannabis Hippy with cancer? Unless they smoke more tobacco than pot.

 

[Meduzz]

The article isn't about THC, it's about smoking cannabis.

 

[Synith]

You obviously didn't read the entire article.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

The article isn't about THC, it's about smoking cannabis.

Exactly, it's specifically about the smoke, which means all articles reporting on the research results (including the one posted here) have a misleading title.

 

[Meduzz]

You obviously didn't read the entire article.

LOL

 

[spice]

Mutations occur naturally.

That study is pretty weak.


Aspirin will do the same things or worse......

I wouldn't care if they said it made a horn grow out of your head.


Use your own judgment.

 

[Meduzz]

Carcinogens/mutagens increase the rate of mutation. The natural mutation frequency has been finetuned throughout evolution to get a good balance between variation and organism integrity.

Testing a compound for mutagenicity can be done cheaply and fast with the Ames Test on bacteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_test

Still, 10% of mutagens for bacteria aren't mutagenic for eukaryotes and vice versa. So further testing is required.

But indeed, the study is pretty weak. It's all old news with focus on the aspects that sound scary.

 

[Meduzz]

My point being, I'm pretty sure there are lots of carcinogens in cannabis smoke. All of them more harmful than aspirine (which is water soluble and has fast metabolisation).

But that's not bad news. It means cannabis must have anti-cancer properties. Which is old news as well.

 

[GOD]

"It means cannabis must have anti-cancer properties."

No it doesnt . It could also mean that the carcinogens need a trigger / help to start working . For example cannabis is suposed to contain more carcinogens than tabaco but it doesnt contain as much radio activity and no nikotine . One must also remember that some carcinogenes are more dangerous than others .

 

[Meduzz]

Disabling the trigger is an anti cancer property.

As for once carcinogen being more active than another is why I refered to the Ames test.

 

[Meduzz]

+ most carcinogens that require a trigger don't show as carcinogen in the test for carcinogenicity because it's a controlled experiment with relatively pure samples of the substance.

The ones that showed in cannabis smoke are well known carcinogens. Mostly aromatic apolar electrophiles that get attacked by the nucleophilic phosphates of the DNA backbone. Most of them originating from the burning.

EDIT: To include searching for triggers the extended version of the Ames test uses rat liver extract (enzymes) to test for carcinogenic metabolites of non-carcinogens. But it's not the point here. The point is that known carcinogens (to humans) with known mechanisms from cannabis smoke seem less effective if you look at the statistics. Hence anti-cancer.

There is some interesting literature about the role of (endo)cannabinoids in cell apoptosis (programmed cell death: a cell dies when it's too old. Mutations in this mechanism cause most cancers).