Mainstream Media Peddles Tired Cannabis Cancer Myth (Updated)Keelan Balderson, Contributor Without citing any evidence whatsoever, Dame Helena Shovelton, BLF chief executive is quoted in the Independent as saying: This is an increase on their old dubious claim that 3 joints are equal to 20 cigarettes [1]. These statements are oversimplified and counterintuitive to the majority of the scientific data. Unless theyve been treated with obscene amounts of pesticides, Marijuana buds that are hand rolled by weed smokers are a far cry from the mass produced chemical laden, poison filled, preservative stuffed and radioactive packs of cigarettes bought from the shops. Cannabis simply does not contain the arm-long list of dangerous cancer causing additives that cigarettes do. Dr. Melamede from the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, USA, writes that although cannabis smoke and tobacco smoke are chemically very similar, evidence suggests that their effects are very different and that cannabis smoke is less carcinogenic than tobacco smoke. The obvious question to ask is if the BLFs claims are true where are all the deaths? A widely cited report by theIndependent Drug Monitoring Unit states that there are at least 3 million cannabis smokers in the UK [3] (with some estimates higher and lower), and the general consensus is that there are about 9 million tobacco smokers [4]. So what amount of deaths are linked to smoking cannabis? None! There are zero reported deaths linked to smoking cannabis each year. While its possible there are some here and there, they dont make any recognized list and are clearly not on the scale of tobacco-related deaths, even though there are millions of cannabis users. If there were lots of deaths linked to cannabis, dont you think the likes of the Independent would have reported such facts in their article? Instead they focus on fear-mongering biased statements. At one time the Daily Mail ran with the headline Cannabis kills 30,000 a year, but rather than sourcing the deaths directly it was simply a maths sum of how many pot smokers should be dying each year if cannabis is as bad or worse than tobacco, not that 30,000 were actually proven to be dying each year. The BLFs statement is based on a revamped version of a report they published 10 years ago, which they used to claim 3 joints were as dangerous to the lungs as 20 cigarettes. The new Impact of cannabis on your lungspaper is now being cited to claim 1 joint is equal to 20 cigarettes. The Independent notes at the beginning of their article: Well just because they found it alarming, doesnt mean that it is. Despite what lobbyists and Government bureaucrats might claim, the current scientific evidence shows cannabis to be relatively harmless if used recreationally by adults without underlying mental health issues, and a very positive form of pain relief and medicine for many illnesses. Using basic death/hospital statistics, alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous that pot, but are legal and a huge source of taxation. David Nutt former head drugs adviser was sacked for making this obvious statement. Professor John Beddington, the Governments chief scientist backed Nutt, saying the evidence to support the claim wasabsolutely clear cut [7]. Despite these two leading experts stating the self-evident facts, politicians unsurprisingly have taken the hypocritical political rout, rather than the scientific one. Origins of the Myth In 2002 the British Lung Foundation released a report entitled A Smoking Gun, that compares the health risks of smoking tobacco to cannabis. Rather than new scientific data, the authors simply interpreted studies already conducted over the years. The original claim that 3 cannabis joints equates to 20 cigarettes was a crude deception, and the BLF themselves sensationalized their own report to the media. The data for the claim appears to be taken mainly from two papers published in 1987 [8], Tashkin, DP, Coulson, AH, Clark, VA, et al and Gong, H, Fligiel, S, Tashkin, DP, Barbers, RG, but these papers themselves did not make the explicit claim and did not make any numerical link between joints and cigarettes. Rather the BLF decided to play word games and present their own more severe conclusion to the press. As this was reported and exaggerated by the media, and other papers cited the BLF, the myth has spread without anyone bothering to trace back the source material. The two 1987 studies on which the claim is based examine only a limited range of respiratory illness symptoms, and did not estimate the risks of lung cancer and emphysema. To reiterate the original studies cited by the BLF to back up their claims that smoking cannabis puts you at a higher risk of developing lung cancer than cigarettes, didnt actually make a conclusion on the link between cannabis and lung cancer! In its report the BLF use political semantics to brush this glaring flaw under the rug, claiming that there areconflicting findings on the link between lung cancer and cannabis, and more research should be undertakento establish what link there is. Given that the data used doesnt actually cover the main risks, and the link between these major risks is acknowledged to be uncertain by the BLF, it is dishonest to allow the claim about cannabis and lung cancer to hit the mainstream media. Yet today, almost 10 years later the Independent and BLF spokespeople are still making the claim, and have increased the severity of it. In their latest report the BLF put most of their eggs in a 2008 study that looked at just 79 lung cancer patients [9]. While it did conclude that long-term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults, it was strongly criticized by the European Respiratory Journal, who said the conclusion was inadequately supported by the data, and the study demonstrated several methodological flaws: What Science Says Other than this flawed 2008 study that the BLF clamored to cite after 10 years of nothing to corroborate their agenda, other studies that have looked at links between cannabis and lung cancer have concluded that there is no direct link! Even a 2012 study (omitted by the BLF) concludes that analyses of pulmonary function and lung disease have failed to detect clear adverse effects of marijuana use on pulmonary function.[10] Hashibe et al carried out an epidemiological analysis of marijuana smoking and cancer. A connection was not observed [11]. These conclusions are reinforced by Tashkin et al who were also unable to demonstrate a cannabis smoke and lung cancer link [12]. As noted by the CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform group:Extraordinarily, although the BLF report references a great deal of Dr Tashkins work, this, the most significant study of all, is not mentioned. One possible explanation for the new findings, he said, is that THC, a chemical in cannabis smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier (a process known as apoptosis) and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation. Tashkin is backed up by an earlier 1997 study by researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO [13]. They monitored nearly 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didnt also use tobacco had no increase in cancer risk, and in fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers. This suggests that far from being more prone than cigarettes to cause lung cancer, cannabis may in fact lower the risk of lung cancer! THC Cures Cancer? Not only does smoking cannabis possibly protect you from cancer, but Marijuanas active compound THC and other chemicals within the plant, administered in a variety of other ways has been found to actually slow down numerous cancer types directly. Conclusion Its difficult to determine why the UK mainstream media and the British Lung Foundation are so biased and sensational about presenting facts regarding cannabis and cancer. An evening on Google with basic discernment will easily turn up a wealth of studies that show the health benefits of Cannabis and the complete lack of a link between smoking the plant and lung cancer. Considering the BLF claim to be working for positive change for the future diagnosis and treatment of lung disease, youd think theyd be all over findings that THC cuts lung cancer growth in half for example. It could be just a case of mediocrity through bureaucracy. Dame Helena Shovelton who is quoted by the Independent is not a scientist or an expert, shes a life long bureaucrat. Before joining the BLF she was Chair of the UK National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and former Chair of the UK National Lottery Commission. What they have to do with understanding cannabis is anyones guess. This article first appeared at Wide Shut. If you found this information valuable, please help promote it on Reddit by clicking the like arrow: HERE 