Wow, marijuana news is hitting a feverish pitch lately, especially with that most-winning "Olympian pothead" making news.
I am glad to see studies like this being performed. If you are a pot smoker, keep in mind that taking smoke in your body in any form is unhealthy.
I suspect that eventually one state (Nevada?) will attempt to legalize it and the house of cards will begin to fall in the US. Until then, big business (pharma?) who controls Congress isn't going to let it happen without a fight.
It's ironic, but the US Federal Government might have a harder time maintaining prohibition inside the US then out. Many countries that are clear losers from prohibition or those that have really decided against it have had a hard time getting out of international agreements to maintain the laws. The US' zeal is the greater part of the reason for why these are so enforceable & why most decriminalisation decisions in Europe have mostly been cheats of some kind.
That would seem logical but I don't think large-scale studies have been done. Large-scale studies on smokers have been done and did not find an increased lung cancer risk.
1. Old (2007)
2. Not the original source. I would be in favor of an informal community contract here on HN, that any link to an article which starts off with "Researchers have shown" or "A new study was published", that we must include the original research paper in a link in the first comment. Here, I'll help out this time (it only took me ~5 min):
3. Not horribly interesting. Know what else will shrink a tumor? Cyanide! If anything, this link is a good example of what has been happening with science reporting recently. Publications, especially those dependent on a page-view model for revenue generation, have been increasingly sensationalizing science. This is irresponsible.
I've watched this thread with puzzlement because it was almost immediately a dead link. ...and I couldn't readily find it at sciencedaily.com Now that it's a Phoenix from its ashes I understand its death: the article is from April 2007.
Unfortunately, mj research seems to produce "discussions" that combine the fervor of religious + political topics. The cited study is just one more study in the mj research legacy that shows lots of possible damages and several possible benefits of cannabis depending on the application and the population concerned. Recommendation: cool heads, please (not for the pun).
I am glad to see studies like this being performed. If you are a pot smoker, keep in mind that taking smoke in your body in any form is unhealthy.
I suspect that eventually one state (Nevada?) will attempt to legalize it and the house of cards will begin to fall in the US. Until then, big business (pharma?) who controls Congress isn't going to let it happen without a fight.