http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/crtoec/asap/html/tx700275p.html

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Here is the problem with these results (in 'results and discussion'),
there was nicotine found in the marijuana smoke:

"It was surprising to find nicotine in the mainstream and sidestream
marijuana smoke (Tables 3 and 4). For mainstream smoke, of the 20
marijuana cigarettes examined under ISO conditions, 16 showed no nicotine
and none of those examined under extreme smoking conditions had any
evidence of nicotine. As nicotine is present in high concentrations in
tobacco, in the range of mg per cigarette, it was concluded that the
source of nicotine was cross-contamination from tobacco smoking. The level
in mainstream represents about 0.2% of that found in tobacco smoke. This
could be problematic for compounds present in very high concentrations in
tobacco and known to be present in low concentrations in marijuana. Such
cross-contamination could then result in exaggerated results. However,
there seems to be no such compound, at least not in these analyses. With
the exception of nicotine, and the cannabinoids of course, the two
matrices have compounds present in the same order of magnitude, so a
contamination of 0.2% would not cause an exaggeration of the determined
residue."

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message
news:5tl083F1e7trjU1@mid.individual.net...
> http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/crtoec/asap/html/tx700275p.html
>
> -- 
> Dr John Watson
> Baker Street

So, on the presence of the following substances in marijuana
smoke versus tobacco smoke from this article:

hydroquinone -  much less
resorcinol - more
catechol - much less
phenol - much less
m + p-cresols -  the same
o-cresol - less

Also, didn't THC have anti-carcinogenic qualities,
according to a recent study?

http://www.ccguide.org.uk/nocancer.php

BOSTON, Jan. 30, 1997 (UPI) - The U.S. federal government has failed to make public its own 1994
study that undercuts its position that marijuana is carcinogenic - a $2 million study by the
National Toxicology Program. The program's deputy director, John Bucher says the study found
absolutely no evidence of cancer. In fact, animals that received THC had fewer cancers. Bucher
denies his agency had been pressured to shelve the report, saying the delay in making it public was
due to a personnel shortage.

The Boston Globe reported on Thursday 30th January 1997 that the study indicates not only that the
main ingredient in marijuana, THC, does not cause cancer, but also that it may even protect against
malignancies, laboratory tests on animals show.

The report comes on the heels of an editorial in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine
that favors the controlled medical use of marijuana, and calls current federal policy misguided,
heavy-handed and inhumane.

SO, YOU THOUGHT IT WAS THE TAR THAT CAUSED CANCER
The KAISER PERMANENTE. Prohibition is unhealthy. 1997

Kaiser-Permanente is a large US health-care provider. This study into the effects of long-term
smoking of cannabis took 10 years and involved 65,000 people who had received check-ups between 1979
and 1985. The patients were divided into those who had, and those who had not, used cannabis
regularly or currently. It was reported that risks associated with cannabis smoking were lower than
for tobacco smoking. It also noted that smokers with AIDS had no higher death-rate than non-smokers
with AIDS.

The report stated
"Relatively few adverse clinical effects from the chronic use of marijuana have been documented in
humans. However, the criminalization of marijuana use may itself be a health hazard, since it may
expose the users to violence and criminal activity."
The Kaiser Permanente study - "Marijuana Use and Mortality" April 1997 American Journal of Public
Health".

See also: Radioactivity in Tobacco
UCLA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

An 8-year study at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Medicine, concluded
that long-term smokers of cannabis do not experience a greater annual decline in lung functions than
non-smokers.
Researchers said:
"Findings from the present long-term follow-up study of heavy, habitual marijuana smokers argue
against the concept that the continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant factor for the
development of [chronic lung disease]"
"No difference were noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and nonsmoking of marijuana."
Volume 155 of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1997
NATIONAL DRUG AND ALCOHOL RESEARCH CENTRE, AUSTRALIA, January 1997


A study of 268 cannabis smokers who, on average, had smoked for 19 years and 31 non-using partners
and family members, concluded that the health of the long-term smokers is virtually no different to
that of the general population.
Chief researcher Richard Reilly said "The results seem unremarkable...The exceptional thing was that
the respondents were unexceptional."
For more information e-mail Jamnes Danenberg

Source: New Scientist (UK)
Website: http://www.newscientist.com/
Pubdate: Sat, 15 Aug 1998
Author: Redford Givens

DOPE VERSUS CANCER

Michael Roth's "preliminary evidence" suggesting that the THC in marijuana may promote a
carcinogenic effect (This week, 25 July, p 16) flies in the face of Louis S. Harris's findings in
Analgesic and Anti-Tumor Potential of The Cannabinoids (Medical College of Virginia, 1972) that
delta-8 THC, delta-9 THC and cannabinol are quite active as anticancer agents.

At the time of Harris's research, no anticancer agent that was much more potent than delta-9 THC
existed and no compounds differentiated between tumour and normal cells the way delta-9 THC does.
Considering that delta-9 THC alone increased survival in cancerous rats by 36 per cent, it seems
very unlikely that THC promotes carcinogenic effects.

THC's known anticarcinogenic properties are probably the reason the Center for Disease Control in
Atlanta, Georgia, has never been able to trace any cancers to marijuana use.

Redford Givens San Francisco

Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)

Back to main index