Cannabis and Testicular Cancer, Another badly worded article on the evils of pot. Options

[trojan_libido]

Frequent use of cannabis may be linked to testicular cancer, according to a new report.

Cannabis use has been linked to testicular cancer The study showed marijuana use was a significant risk factor for the disease.

The US research discovered that being a marijuana smoker at the time of diagnosis was associated with a 70% increased risk.

It was particularly elevated (about twice that of those who never smoked marijuana) for those who used the drug at least once a week and/or who had long-term exposure to the substance beginning in adolescence.

The results also suggested the association with marijuana use might be limited to nonseminoma, a fast-growing testicular malignancy which tends to strike early, aged between 20 and 35, and accounts for about 40% of all cases.

Researchers were prompted to check an association between the drug and the disease when they realised that since the 1950s the incidence of the two main cellular subtypes of testicular cancer, nonseminoma and seminoma - the more common, slower growing kind which strikes men in their 30s and 40s - had increased by 3% to 6% in the US, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and marijuana use had risen accordingly.

Author Stephen Schwartz, an epidemiologist and member of the Public Health Sciences Division at the Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre, said: "Our study is not the first to suggest that some aspect of a man's lifestyle or environment is a risk factor for testicular cancer, but it is the first that has looked at marijuana use."

Established risk factors include a family history of the disease, undescended testes and abnormal testicular development. The male reproductive system naturally produces a cannabinoid-like chemical that is thought to have a protective effect against cancer.

The authors speculate that marijuana use may disrupt this anti-tumour effect, which could be an explanation for the possible link.

The researchers interviewed 369 men in the Seattle-Puget Sound area, aged 18 to 44, who had been diagnosed with testicular cancer, about their history of marijuana use. For comparison purposes they also assessed marijuana use among 979 randomly-selected age and geography matched people without the disease.

This study doesn't recognise the differences in use. I'll assume they all simply smoked the drug. So whats left is a study that says there may be a link between cannabis use and degradation of the anti-tumour effect present in the natural cannabinoids in the body, particularly the testes.

Cannabinoids have an anti-tumour effect... Theres something new from this article. They know that they do have an anti-psychotic effect, because they usually rant about skunk and cite the reason for it being a problem as it having a much greater THC>Cannibinoid ratio. Growers are only interested in the THC, and neglect the cannibinoids.

Its a little disheartening that they're obviously coming across a wide range of uses for cannabis, and yet here in the UK they've gone from a class B to a class C, then back to a class B despite their independant studies showing no real danger. This is making a mockery of intelligent people everywhere, and the UK's drug laws have never looked so stupid.

If a substance has been used for 1000's of years, and only now its showing possibilities in both anti-psychosis and anti-tumour uses, THATS NEWS! Not this bullshit about testicular cancer. You buy the ticket, you take the ride. End of.

[correlli]

I've been smoking pot for 25 years, and no ball cancer yet. Going to get a vapouriser soon, coughed a tiny bit flem the other day.

[Hey Hey]

I've been smoking pot for 25 years, and no ball cancer yet. Going to get a vapouriser soon, coughed a tiny bit flem the other day.

Glad you provided this enlightening ditty. My uncle smoked cigarettes all of his life and didn't get lung cancer. So we can all smoke safely again. Thank goodness for that. Where can I buy Capstain Full Strength these days?

[catseye]

This study doesn't recognise the differences in use. I'll assume they all simply smoked the drug. So whats left is a study that says there may be a link between cannabis use and degradation of the anti-tumour effect present in the natural cannabinoids in the body, particularly the testes.

Cannabinoids have an anti-tumour effect... Theres something new from this article. They know that they do have an anti-psychotic effect, because they usually rant about skunk and cite the reason for it being a problem as it having a much greater THC>Cannibinoid ratio. Growers are only interested in the THC, and neglect the cannibinoids.

Its a little disheartening that they're obviously coming across a wide range of uses for cannabis, and yet here in the UK they've gone from a class B to a class C, then back to a class B despite their independant studies showing no real danger. This is making a mockery of intelligent people everywhere, and the UK's drug laws have never looked so stupid.

If a substance has been used for 1000's of years, and only now its showing possibilities in both anti-psychosis and anti-tumour uses, THATS NEWS! Not this bullshit about testicular cancer. You buy the ticket, you take the ride. End of.

Not only did they not recognize the differences in use, where's the real analysis? there's an increase in testicular cancer - there's a rise in cancer...ok how bout.... there's a rise in cancer, which gives a rise to chemo therapy which gives a rise in those patients smoking weed in the effect they might swallow down a few crackers !
Not to mention the fact that with all the real tests done, marijuana is not physically addictive and has no detrimental side effects. No matter how it is used, smoke it, eat it, shove it - no side effect such as many pharmaceuticals used today or any possibility that will cause an overdose- one would have to smoke about 5lbs in five minutes for fatality and that would still only be the result of carbon monoxide.
Gateway drug - bullshit ! Most of the people I have met, past and present that smoke this stuff have no interest in doing any drug that is detrimental to their overall health. If someone gets addicted to heroine, crack or meth, it is because they already have a problem with addition and escapism, not because they smoked weed !
Is smoking it everyday bad? sure. Too much of anything isn't healthy. Is it for everyone? no. If someone has control issues or is overly concerned with blocking unpleasant feelings than those folks generally get "paranoid" and are in need of facing their issues professionally.
On a average guess :
cost to taxpayers for alcohol abuse - 10%
cost to taxpayers for pharmaceuticals - 15%
cost to taxpayers for eating disorders - 5%
cost to keep marijuana illegal - 25%
average profit for black market and political payoffs related to marijuana - 400%

[correlli]

My uncle

You've been watch too much South Park, or...

[Hey Hey]

My uncle

You've been watch too much South Park, or...

Haven't sunk that low yet. Did you not get what I said? I'll search for some South Park speak to illuminate it ...

[Hey Hey]

Here it is:

Glad you provided this enlightening ditty. My uncle smoked cigarettes all of his life and didn't get lung cancer. So we can all smoke safely again. Thank goodness for that. Where can I buy Capstain Full Strength these days?

[Hey Hey]

You buy the ticket, you take the ride. End of.

Take off the blinkers. Cannabis (and other drugs) is being peddled to schoolchildren. When did we expect them to understand the possible dangers of todays pleasure wrt a future health issue? And one can get hooked on 'pleasure'. It's not the same thing as a chemical addiction. These kids are in danger. Although I don't have an issue with consenting adults, it is important to look at all possible health implications, if only to help protect the innocents. If anyone has real scientific criticisms of the research let's hear them and relate them to the actual findings, not to the journalistic summary provided.

[LifeMirage]

You buy the ticket, you take the ride. End of.

Take off the blinkers. Cannabis (and other drugs) is being peddled to schoolchildren. When did we expect them to understand the possible dangers of todays pleasure wrt a future health issue? And one can get hooked on 'pleasure'. It's not the same thing as a chemical addiction. These kids are in danger. Although I don't have an issue with consenting adults, it is important to look at all possible health implications, if only to help protect the innocents. If anyone has real scientific criticisms of the research let's hear them and relate them to the actual findings, not to the journalistic summary provided.

Parents not properly informing their children (or themselves for that manner) of the pros and cons of certain plants or drugs is the main issue (or danger) in my opinion.

Smoking anything can cause damage and may induce cancer at some point, however it's unlikely unless done consistently and/or in large amounts.

Anyone who wishes to consume cannabis should use a vaporizer or an extract if they wish to maximize it's benefits and reduce possible side effects.

[catseye]

You buy the ticket, you take the ride. End of.

Take off the blinkers. Cannabis (and other drugs) is being peddled to schoolchildren. When did we expect them to understand the possible dangers of todays pleasure wrt a future health issue? And one can get hooked on 'pleasure'. It's not the same thing as a chemical addiction. These kids are in danger. Although I don't have an issue with consenting adults, it is important to look at all possible health implications, if only to help protect the innocents. If anyone has real scientific criticisms of the research let's hear them and relate them to the actual findings, not to the journalistic summary provided.

I agree that the problem with introducing drugs to elementary children is an issue to be engaged. I just saw a documentary on how heroine is being introduced to the young by way of sucker candy.
Agree with Life mirage, the parents need to be apprised and involved. children always copy a parents actions and with our pill popping society it is difficult to teach outside the inner frame work of homelife. If a child sees a mother taking antidepressants than the result will always be of the same psychological tendencies.

[Hey Hey]

children always copy a parents actions

always ~ sometimes?

If a child sees a mother taking antidepressants than the result will always be of the same psychological tendencies.

always ~ sometimes?

Always implies 100%. Evidence needed for this. Danger in assumptions. For example, will the progeny of smokers always become smokers? If yes, then my wife must be a rarity. (I knew that ... )

[Hey Hey]

Don't tell her I said that!

[catseye]

children always copy a parents actions

always ~ sometimes?

If a child sees a mother taking antidepressants than the result will always be of the same psychological tendencies.

always ~ sometimes?

Always implies 100%. Evidence needed for this. Danger in assumptions. For example, will the progeny of smokers always become smokers? If yes, then my wife must be a rarity. (I knew that ... )

I stand corrected. However it is known that the majority do stand on the statistics of what we know in the psychology of human behavior. What creates a shift in some people ( the rare) are usually situations that create a reversal for reasons of unpleasant experiences. Only a small percent will go outside their upbringing and environment.