I mentioned yesterday the recent study on marijuana use that demonstrates it does not cause cancers normally attributed to smoking, including lung, throat, esophagus, mouth, and tongue cancers that generally are linked to cigarettes.  The study clearly indicates that even heavy use of marijuana did not increase the chances of developing any of these maladies.

With ample proof showing its medicinal use (including pain treatment in cancer patients, appetite stimulation in cancer and AIDS patients, and so on), and all that despite the FDA’s recent denial of such uses contrary to the government’s own studies, a very intriguing aspect of this most recent look at the drug is why marijuana does not play a part in cancer development.  Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles, and the lead researcher for this study, offered some conjecture on what might have caused these surprising results.  He explained that “tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), an active substance in marijuana smoke, may promote earlier death of aging cells, preventing the injured cells from becoming cancer cells.”

Read that very carefully.  And then read it again.

Let me first say that his response is, as I already pointed out, conjecture, a personal supposition based on the findings.  You see, marijuana contains higher amounts of some known carcinogens found in cigarettes, hence the great surprise at finding it does in fact not cause cancer.  That is why it’s important to understand the mechanims involved.  If the drug has more cancer-causing agents than cigarettes, yet it fails to cause any type of cancer, it is of the utmost importance to determine why.

If THC impacts aging cells the way he infers, essentially helping them die when they’re supposed to instead of allowing them to mutate and become cancerous because they are old and malfunctioning, the implication is astounding: it could be a cancer preventive.

Think about it, then ask yourself why the government keeps lying about it being a dangerous drug with no medicinal benefits or uses (again, a declaration that contradicts a great many studies, including some by the government, that show quite the opposite).  And now we have an even bigger question to answer: if it does in fact have larger amounts of carcinogens in it yet fails to induce any increased risk of the associated cancers, what is the reason and what does that mean?  The answer, I believe, is of the utmost importance.  It could be moot and something we can not take advantage of, but shouldn’t we find out?