Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/10/2006 9:23:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 9:23:33 AM EDT by AssaultRifler]
Marijuana Use Linked To Early Bladder Cancer
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=36695

Smoking marijuana appears to be a risk factor for bladder cancer and may even contribute to younger people getting the disease, researchers say.

Smoking cigarettes is the major risk factor for bladder cancer, which is most common among people age 60 and older, says Dr. Martha Terris, urologist at the Medical College of Georgia and Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Augusta.

But a study of younger patients - 52 men age 44 to 60 - with transitional cell bladder cancer at VA hospitals in Augusta and Palo Alto, Calif., showed that 88.5 percent had a history of smoking marijuana, says Dr. Terris, senior author on the study published in the January issue of Urology.

Nearly 31 percent of the cancer patients still smoked marijuana, compared to 20 percent of those in an age-matched control group. "We noticed several younger patients who had developed transitional cell carcinoma were similar in that they all shared a history of marijuana smoking," Dr. Terris says. "The literature has suggesed that marijuana-smoking increases the risk of head and neck cancer and lung malignancies, and that these tumors tend to develop earlier and behave more aggressively in marijuana smokers."

That prompted physicians at the VA hospitals affiliated with Stanford University Medical Center and MCG to look at marijuana use as well as exposure to other carcinogens, including tobacco, radiation, Agent Orange, smoked or processed meats and synthetic dyes used in the textile industry, in their patients. Serving as controls were 104 patients seeking urology care at the VA hospitals for reasons other than bladder cancer.

Bladder cancer patients and controls had similar rates of exposure to all the risk factors except marijuana. In fact, the study indicates smoking marijuana may be as bad or worse than cigarette smoking as a risk factor for bladder cancer.

"Marijuana-smoking might be an even more potent stimulant of malignant transformation in transitional epithelium than tobacco smoking," they write, noting that marijuana metabolites have a half-life in the urine about five times greater than nicotine metabolites. Studies of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the main psychoactive substance in marijuana, have demonstrated both anti-tumor and tumor-promoting properties. Either way, THC hangs around a long time in the bladder and urine.

Marijuana smoke also has many of the same carcinogen-containing tars as cigarettes and may get even more into the body because marijuana cigarettes are unfiltered and users tend to hold the smoke in their lungs for prolonged periods, researchers say.

The combination of smoking cigarettes and marijuana may have an unfortunate synergy. "The differences and interactions between marijuana and tobacco use also merit further scrutiny," they write. Also, larger-scale epidemiologic and basic science studies are needed to confirm the role of marijuana use in development of bladder cancer. For now, when doctors find blood in a young patient's urine sample, they may want to include questions about marijuana use in their follow-up and more strongly consider bladder cancer as a cause, says Dr. Terris.

And, bladder cancer patients considering marijuana to treat chemotherapy side effects, may want to reconsider. "If they are getting chemotherapy for their bladder cancer and smoking marijuana to increase their appetite, they may be undoing the benefits of chemotherapy," she says.

She noted it is likely that, as with cigarettes, risks of marijuana-smoking diminish after patients stop but never go away. "The safest move is to never start smoking anything," she says.


Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:26:30 AM EDT
Where's the part about it making you really stooopid?
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:31:39 AM EDT
Wait....

What?
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:35:31 AM EDT
I bet this doesn't make it to whatshisname's "research" website...
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:38:21 AM EDT
Someone will be along shortly(I can't imagine who?) to explain how this information is without merit and since smoking dope makes you thirsty and you drink alot thereby flushing the bladder and thusly contributing to improved bladder health. Makes perfectly good sense and if you smoke some dope it will make even more sense.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:43:34 AM EDT
Why don't they just come out and say it?

EVERYTHING we put into our bodies causes cancer!

I call
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:49:20 AM EDT
IBW97
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:52:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gunner1X:
Where's the part about it making you really stooopid?



Don’t worry someone will show up shortly that will illustrate that fact.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:53:38 AM EDT
Here Wolfy… here boy.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:54:59 AM EDT
smoking causes cancer? say it isn't so!


Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:55:02 AM EDT
So how is this different from smoking causing how many different types of cancer, Chewing causing lip and gum cancer, Excessive Drinking leading to liver failure, Eating only shitty foods leading to being a fat ass, etc?

I don't give a shit what someone does to their own body, just don't do something that ends up fucking up other people like driving drunk/stoned
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:57:16 AM EDT
I'd like to see more than 52 people examined (what a paltry sample to form any conclusions with). At a minimum, I'd like to see the results of patients who are not veterans. I'd like to see how frequent marijuana use must have been, before the patient can declare a history of use. The article states that bladder cancer patients and controls had similar rates of exposure to all risk factors except for marijuana. I'd like to know how exposure to tobacco, radiation, Agent Orange, smoked or processed meats and synthetic dyes were measured and quantified. Surely they know, because they stated that exposure was "similar", which implies that some metric was used to identify exposure levels. I'd like to know what that metric was.

Basically - as with the results of ANY study (even pro gun ones) discussed in a news article - I need to read the actual study before forming an opinion.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:00:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BangStick1:
<Snip> EVERYTHING we put into our bodies causes cancer!<Snip>


Personally, I believe that about sums it up right there.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:08:13 AM EDT
Sure is a lot of "might have", "maybe", "suggests that" type statements in there.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Smoking cigarettes is the major risk factor for bladder cancer. I'd venture to guess that a large percentage of men between the age of 44 and 60 who smoked marijuana regularly in their youth also smoked cigarettes.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:10:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Stealth:
Sure is a lot of "might have", "maybe", "suggests that" type statements in there.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Smoking cigarettes is the major risk factor for bladder cancer. I'd venture to guess that a large percentage of men between the age of 44 and 60 who smoked marijuana regularly in their youth also smoked cigarettes.



I'll bet 88.5% of them drank. I'll bet 88.5% of them ate red meat. I'll bet...

...like I said. As with this and any other reporting on a study, I'd like to read the actual study.

Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:12:49 AM EDT

exposure to tobacco, radiation, Agent Orange, smoked or processed meats and synthetic dyes were measured and quantified.

And # of sex partners. I bet the marijuana users are a lot more promiscuous than the non-users, and are more likely to have had more bladder infections and other urinary and sexual problems.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:20:05 AM EDT
I don't really care one way or the other on the weed issue, but...

52 people is a tiny sample size. What's more, when you wind up with walloping numbers like an 89% positive correlation you REALLY (YA RLY!) need to go back and check your data because that can indicate something fishy going on. Now, you may say, "But those yonder medical folks know all about numbers and statistics and all that 'Big Smartness' stuff!" And you would be partially correct. I say "partially" because I've seen some ghastly statistical idiocy emanating from the AMA and the so-called "medical" community. Doctors, unfortunately, sometimes have an agenda to push just like every other human on the planet and it's also very, very easy to screw up statistical sampling.

The don't say what a "history" of smoking pot is. Does that mean smoking four times per day for twenty years or smoking one joint every five years? Seemingly little things like that can make a big difference.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:25:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Echo_Hotel:
I don't really care one way or the other on the weed issue, but...

52 people is a tiny sample size. What's more, when you wind up with walloping numbers like an 89% positive correlation you REALLY (YA RLY!) need to go back and check your data because that can indicate something fishy going on. Now, you may say, "But those yonder medical folks know all about numbers and statistics and all that 'Big Smartness' stuff!" And you would be partially correct. I say "partially" because I've seen some ghastly statistical idiocy emanating from the AMA and the so-called "medical" community. Doctors, unfortunately, sometimes have an agenda to push just like every other human on the planet and it's also very, very easy to screw up statistical sampling.

The don't say what a "history" of smoking pot is. Does that mean smoking four times per day for twenty years or smoking one joint every five years? Seemingly little things like that can make a big difference.



Well said. As a general rule, we should all consider evaluating every study critically - even ones that support our positions - before using them to form or strengthen opinion. Critical thinking is healthy, in my not-so-humble opinion.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:36:01 AM EDT
I thought it just gave people the munchies.

Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:46:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 10:47:33 AM EDT by Admiral_Crunch]
Woah! Woah! Woah! Smoked meat is a carcinogen?!



Get your cancer off my barbeque!!!
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 2:29:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:
Originally Posted By Stealth:

I'll bet 88.5% of them drank. I'll bet 88.5% of them ate red meat. I'll bet...

...like I said. As with this and any other reporting on a study, I'd like to read the actual study.




You can bet that 88.5% of non bladder cancer victims drank, 88.5% non bladder cacner victims ate red meat. Then your point would be?
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 2:56:38 PM EDT
Fords cause cancer.
Top Top