Besides - you don't inhale cigars or cigarillos - thus it's mouth and not lung cancer.

Heart disease, lung cancer, cirrhosis of liver and rotten teeth all in one hipster drink

TONS of things cure cancer. All day, every day. Doctors have no clue what cancer is. All they can do is cut, burn, or poison and cross their fingers.

I didn't say Cannabis was THE cure. It is A cure used by thousands with amazing efficacy. Everyone is different.

Here's 60+ studies for your perusal if you insist on the superiority of western scientific research:

"Cannabis, and the cannabinoid compounds found within it, has been shown through a large cannabisplantamount of scientific, peer-reviewed research to be effective at treating a wide variety of cancers, ranging from brain cancer to colon cancer. Below is a list of over 60 studies that demonstrate the vast anti-cancer properties of cannabis.
Studies showing cannabis may combat brain cancer:
Cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the proliferation and invasion in U87-MG and T98G glioma cells. Study published in the Public Library of Science journal in October 2013.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) can kill cancer cells by causing them to self-digest. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in September 2013.
CBD is a novel therapeutic target against glioblastoma. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2013.
Local delivery of cannabinoid-filled microparticles inhibits tumor growth in a model of glioblastoma multiforme. Study published in Public Library of Science in January 2013.
Cannabinoid action inhibits the growth of malignant human glioma U87MG cells. Study published in Oncology Reports in July 2012.
Cannabidiol enhances the inhibitory effects of THC on human glioblastoma cell proliferation and survival. Study published in the Molecular Cancer Therapeutics journal in January 2010.
Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death in human glioma cells. Study published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation in May 2009.
Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion by down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 expression. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2008.
Cannabinoids and gliomas. Study published in Molecular Neurobiology in June 2007.
Cannabinoids inhibit gliomagenesis. Study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry in March 2007.
A pilot clinical study of THC in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. The results were published in the British Journal of Cancer in June 2006.
Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through an independent cannabinoid receptor mechanism. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in April 2005.
Cannabinoids inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (VEGF) in gliomas. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2004.
Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacology in November 2003.
Inhibition of glioma growth in vivo by selective activation of the CB2 cannabinoid receptor. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2001.
Studies showing cannabis may combat colorectal cancer:
Cannabigerol (CBG) can inhibit colon cancer cells. Study published in the Oxford journal Carcinogenesis in October 2014.
Inhibition of colon carcinogenesis by a standardised Cannabis Sativa extract with high content of CBD. Study published in Phytomedecine in December 2013.
Chemopreventive effect of the non-psychotropic phytocannabinoid CBD on colon cancer. Study published in the Journal of Molecular Medecine in August 2012.
Cannabinoids against intestinal inflammation and cancer. Study published in Pharmacology Research in August 2009.
Action of cannabinoid receptors on colorectal tumor growth. Study published by the Cancer Center of the University of Texas in July 2008.
Studies showing cannabis may combat blood cancer:
The effects of cannabidiol and its synergism with bortezomib in multiple myeloma cell lines. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in December 2013.
Enhancing the activity of CBD and other cannabinoids against leukaemia. Study published in Anticancer Research in October 2013.
Cannabis extract treatment for terminal acute lymphoblastic leukemia of Philadelphia chromosome (Ph1). Study published in Case Reports in Oncology in September 2013.
Expression of type 1 and type 2 cannabinoid receptors in lymphoma. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in June 2008.
Cannabinoid action in mantle cell lymphoma. Study published in Molecular Pharmacology in November 2006.
THC-induced apoptosis in Jurkat leukemia. Study published in Molecular Cancer Research in August 2006.
Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease. Study published in Blood American Society of Hemmatology in July 2002.
Studies showing cannabis can combat lung cancer:
Cannabinoids increase lung cancer cell lysis by lymphokine-activated killer cells via upregulation of Icam-1. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in July 2014.
Cannabinoids inhibit angiogenic capacities of endothelial cells via release of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1 from lung cancer cells. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in June 2014.
COX-2 and PPAR-γ confer CBD-induced apoptosis of human lung cancer cells. Study published in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics in January 2013.
CBD inhibits lung cancer cell invasion and metastasis via intercellular adhesion molecule-1. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in April 2012.
Cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, as novel targets for inhibition of non–small cell lung cancer growth and metastasis. Study published in Cancer Prevention Research in January 2011.
THC inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced (EGF) lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo. Study published in the journal Oncogene in July 2007.
Studies showing cannabis may combat stomach cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor agonist as an alternative drug in 5-Fluorouracil-resistant gastric cancer cells. Study published in Anticancer Research in June 2013.
Antiproliferative mechanism of a cannabinoid agonist by cell cycle arrest in human gastric cancer cells. Study published in the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry in March 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat prostrate cancer:
Cannabinoids can treat prostate cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Non-THC cannabinoids inhibit prostate carcinoma growth in vitro and in vivo: pro-apoptotic effects and underlying mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in December 2012.
The role of cannabinoids in prostate cancer: Basic science perspective and potential clinical applications. Study published in the Indian Journal of Urology in January 2012.
Induction of apoptosis by cannabinoids in prostate and colon cancer cells is phosphatase dependent. Study published in Anticancer Research in November 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat liver cancer:
Involvement of PPARγ in the antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma (CHC). Study published in Cell Death and Disease in May 2013.
Evaluation of anti-invasion effect of cannabinoids on human hepatocarcinoma cells. Study published on the site Informa Healthcare in February 2013.
Antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma. Study published in Cell Death and Differentiation in April 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat pancreatic cancer:
Cannabinoids inhibit energetic metabolism and induce autophagy in pancreatic cancer cells. Study published in Cell Death and Disease in June 2013.
Cannabinoids Induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells. Study published in Cancer Research in July 2006.
Studies showing cannabis may combat skin cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor activiation can combat skin cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Cannabinoids were found to reduce skin cancer by 90% in just 2 weeks. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology in July 2013.
Cannabinoid receptors as novel targets for the treatment of melanoma. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in December 2006.
Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, in January 2003.
Studies showing cannabis may combat other types of cancer:
Bladder: Marijuana reduces the risk of bladder cancer. Study published in the Medscape site in May 2013.
Kaposi sarcoma: Cannabidiol inhibits growth and induces programmed cell death in Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus-infected endothelium. Study published in the journal Genes & Cancer in July 2012.
Nose, mouth, throat, ear: Cannabinoids like THC inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells. Study by the Department of Pediatrics at the State University of New York, published in June 2010.
Bile duct: The dual effects of THC on cholangiocarcinoma cells: anti-invasion activity at low concentration and apoptosis induction at high concentration. Study published in Cancer Investigation in May 2010.
Ovaries: Cannabinoid receptors as a target for therapy of ovarian cancer. Study published on the American Association for Cancer Research website in 2006.
Preparation and characterisation of biodegradable microparticles filled with THC and their antitumor efficacy on cancer cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Drug Targeting in September 2013.
CBD Cannabidiol as a potential anticancer drug. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in February 2013.
Cannabinoids as anticancer modulators. Study published in the Progress in Lipid Research journal in January 2013.
CBD inhibits angiogenesis by multiple mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in November 2012.
Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents. Study published in Nature in June 2012.
Cannabinoid-associated cell death mechanisms in tumor models. Study published in the International Journal of Oncology in May 2012.
Cannabinoids, endocannabinoids and cancer. Study published in Cancer Metastasis Reviews in December 2011.
The endocannabinoid system and cancer: therapeutic implication. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in July 2011.
This list was compiled in part by Alchimiaweb.com.
– TheJointBlog"

I just don't understand how you can think that the power to influence public debate through politics and the media of pro green energy groups can compare to that of the size and influence of the old energy sector.

Green energy is a cottage industry compared to old energy. The power of environmentalists and even a few activist minded billionaires would pale to the spending power and incentive to act of old energy companies.

Surely if you're concerned about money muddying the debate, the first group you would focus on is the ones with disproportionately more money?

Also your arguments I've seen previously echo the tobacco / lung cancer debate. Aren't you concerned you're being duped by these supposedly authoritative blogs?

Wow.

So, smokers who get lung cancer can go fuck themselves? Same for people who live with smokers? No sympathy for those assholes. They should've known better. Having said that, Amy Winehouse can go fuck herself as well, everbody knows the risks of alcoholism. And no sympathy for Paul Walker either. Speeding, really? And those idiots dying in parachuting accidents deserve what's coming to them as well. Should've stayed on the ground. Same with every somewhat dangerous sport. Applies to you too, Michael Schuhmacher.
Fuck all those people who did something potentially dangerous and got seriously hurt or killed because of it. Empathy is for pussies anyways.
This is especially valid for people who cause others financial harm as they deserve death the most. Preferably by having the head crushed under a tire.

@ChaosEngine
there will always be snake oil salespeople out there but i do not think that is snipers motivation.

as i stated this is not a black and white paradigm and a healthy diet and early detection are paramount.i am not suggesting that stage 3 lung cancer can be treated by eating pot brownies and bean sprouts.

chemotherapy is a last resort.
it is a hail mary pass.
controlled poisoning is as barbaric as it is tragic.

i think what bothers me most about this subject is not the disagreement between people such as ourselves but rather the pathetic research into what causes cancer.

im not kidding.
go check the numbers on how much is spent on researching the causes on cancer versus the treatment of cancer.
the difference is abysmal and shameful.

the little research into the causes of cancer do tend to point to our diet.surprise surprise...the food we are eating is slowly poisoning us (as some research is suggesting).

check this talk out.super informative,if heavy on the vegan:
http://videosift.com/video/Uprooting-the-Leading-Causes-of-Death

*edit:i know this does not make me an expert but my family is in the medical field and my older sisters partner is an oncologist and HE avoids chemo whenever possible.so much of my opinion on this matter has been formed by my conversations with him.

I loved that segment when I watched the episode -- Ross Noble putting the whole tin directly on his face had me rolling.

I am pretty strongly anti-smoking, and this made me wonder why smokers (especially those that already want to quit) don't try to switch to snuff more often. Why isn't there some sort of movement to promote that? Shit-stain handkerchiefs and slight increase in naso-pharyngeal cancer rates seems like an easy trade to make over smelling horrendous, greatly increased lung cancer rates for yourself and probably loved ones as well, etc. etc.

Maybe in some of those places in the US where state and local governments are trying to curb smoking rates via extreme taxes or outright public-space bans, they should be promoting or providing a (comparative) tax break for snuff. I'd happily wander through a crowd of brown-handkerchief folks loitering around entrances to public buildings instead of a noxious smoke-cloud.

I'm inclined to fall in the middle here.
Smoked a pack a day for 20 years and got lung cancer? That's a victim that took a risk and lost. BUT...
It's impossible to eliminate cancer risk entirely. Cancer is semi-random with an off-on trigger. Risk is cumulative, and while incidence can be correlated with risk across populations, incidence is not directly correlated with risk for a given individual. Some people will tan for years and never experience the specific set of mutations and biologic failsafe failures that results in melanoma, while others will trigger that specific set of conditions rapidly, even when the starting biologic conditions\predispositions are the same.
So, yes, I believe some people "get credit" for their cancer (or other illnesses) because of their behaviors, but others are just unlucky.
Even setting aside the randomness of incidence, we're constantly bombarded with a significant cancer risk factor in the form of ionizing radiation, and not just from avoidable sources like deciding to live in a brick house or eating bananas.
I also disagree with the idea that more money wouldn't help eliminate (contrast with "cure") cancer, because many organizations funding cancer research are looking at identifying risk factors, which leads to opportunities for educating populations about avoiding those risk factors. Cervical cancer can be caused by HPV? Get your kids vaccinated, don't have unprotected sex, etc. Lung cancer can be caused by smoking? Stop smoking! It isn't just about finding a magic medication to reverse cellular mutations or target mutated cells, although that would be fantastic.

>> ^swedishfriend:

also pot smokers are 60% less likely to get lung cancer compared to non-smokers.


This definitely needs a source.

also pot smokers are 60% less likely to get lung cancer compared to non-smokers.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^A10anis:
I'm sick to death of the government (UK) pretending to care about the health of smokers. Cigarettes are now hidden from view (pointless and frustrating for staff), and the aim is to have plain packaging (which will simply mean people can buy the cheapest brand without other people knowing). These silly measures do NOT stop people smoking, or starting to smoke. If the government weren't so hypocritical they would either ban smoking, or make them £200 a packet. Of course they won't, because the tax they would lose would be unnaceptable. Why don't they f off and go campaign against others who take part in, possibly, fatal activities. They could start with ski-ing, abseiling, mountain climbing, or simply getting out of bed in the morning. We smokers know, and yes, stupidly, accept the risks, so PLEASE get off our backs.

Smoking harms others, smoking also costs the public billions of dollars because of CVD, lung cancer etc. healthcare, so I'd like to hope that they won't. Smoking simply isn't an issue that can be left alone. Australia just in the past few weeks successfully defended themselves against a lawsuit by big tobacco for the new plain packaging rules, we'll see what effects the rules have in time I guess.
Most of those activities you mentioned consist of some form of pretty strenuous exercise, which is beneficial to the health of the individual - so while there may be public costs associated with each of the activities, there are also many benefits, and little to no risk to others.

You TOTALLY missed the point. And I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to explain it to you..

>> ^A10anis:

I'm sick to death of the government (UK) pretending to care about the health of smokers. Cigarettes are now hidden from view (pointless and frustrating for staff), and the aim is to have plain packaging (which will simply mean people can buy the cheapest brand without other people knowing). These silly measures do NOT stop people smoking, or starting to smoke. If the government weren't so hypocritical they would either ban smoking, or make them £200 a packet. Of course they won't, because the tax they would lose would be unnaceptable. Why don't they f off and go campaign against others who take part in, possibly, fatal activities. They could start with ski-ing, abseiling, mountain climbing, or simply getting out of bed in the morning. We smokers know, and yes, stupidly, accept the risks, so PLEASE get off our backs.


Smoking harms others, smoking also costs the public billions of dollars because of CVD, lung cancer etc. healthcare, so I'd like to hope that they won't. Smoking simply isn't an issue that can be left alone. Australia just in the past few weeks successfully defended themselves against a lawsuit by big tobacco for the new plain packaging rules, we'll see what effects the rules have in time I guess.

Most of those activities you mentioned consist of some form of pretty strenuous exercise, which is beneficial to the health of the individual - so while there may be public costs associated with each of the activities, there are also many benefits, and little to no risk to others.

^First off, weed is a relatively benign substance, no it won't give you lung cancer or kill your brain cells but believe it or not there can be withdrawal symptoms, I know because I've experienced it. During my last year of university I smoked weed constantly, at least a couple of grams a day. Whenever I'd stop smoking my nerves would be shot and I'd have absolutely no sense of appetite.

It's not anywhere near as bad as quitting cigs mind you but it's still remarkably unpleasant, imagine not being able to eat and having a small sense of panic over a 24 hour period for absolutely no reason at all, that's pretty much what it felt like.

edit: And yes Dr.Drew is full of shit here, mostly.

>> ^cybrbeast:

Lungs only get black when your a coal miner, or if you develop lung cancer (from smoking). Smoking itself doesn't cause black lungs.
http://smokescreens.org/chapter1.htm


Holy crap, what a load of BS. Smoking definitely does cause black lungs regardless of neoplasm. The ciliated portion of the airway terminates proximal to the alveolus/terminal bronchus, thus any small particles (carbon, tar, whatever) that deposit in this region will never be expelled from the lungs. In addition, some particles are retained by dust cells, further discoloring the lung parenchyma.

Lungs only get black when your a coal miner, or if you develop lung cancer (from smoking). Smoking itself doesn't cause black lungs.

http://smokescreens.org/chapter1.htm