Treatment


October 27, 2009 – Last week, the Justice Department ordered its staff to back off prosecution of people who use marijuana for medical purposes in the 14 states in which such use is legal. The directive reopened a med_mary_4question that has been part of the debate on U.S. drug policy for decades.

To understand more about the drug’s medical properties, we turned to Daniele Piomelli, who since 1998 has led a program, funded by the National Institutes of Health, to study the impact of marijuana and other psychoactive drugs on the brain. He is a professor of pharmacology and biological chemistry at the University of California at Irvine as well as and director of the center for Drug Discovery and Development at the Italian Institute of Technology in Genoa.

What medical benefits does marijuana offer? Have these benefits been demonstrated in rigorous scientific studies?

Several controlled clinical trials have been carried out in the last few years, using either smoked marijuana or a mouth spray that contains an extract of the marijuana plant. The results are quite consistent. They show that marijuana improves the well-being of patients with multiple sclerosis and alleviates chronic pain in patients with damage or dysfunction of nerve fibers (so-called neuropathic pain). Other work has shown that marijuana and its active ingredient THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) reduce the nausea that accompanies chemotherapy, stimulate appetite in AIDS wasting syndrome and lessen tics in Tourette’s syndrome. By and large, the use of marijuana in these trials was associated with few and mild side effects (for example, dry mouth and memory lapses).

What are the risks of medical use of marijuana? Could it become addictive or lead to use of other, more dangerous drugs?
ad_icon

Marijuana can produce dependence, though less aggressively than, say, tobacco or the so-called opiate painkillers. Frequent use is risky, however, particularly during adolescence when the neural circuits in the brain are still maturing. It turns out that the brain employs its own marijuana-like substances, called endocannabinoids, to send signals from one neural cell to another, and that THC mimics these substances. The endocannabinoids seem to be very important in brain development, so messing with them before the nervous system becomes fully mature is not a smart thing to do.

There is little hard evidence that using marijuana leads to the subsequent use of other addictive drugs. On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly clear that stressful life events (particularly in critical periods such as adolescence) can encourage drug use and facilitate the development of addictions.

How would a marijuana user be sure to get the correct dose of the active ingredient?

It is difficult to say, because the various types of marijuana now available contain widely different concentrations of THC. Standardized marijuana preparations that contain a fixed amount of THC are not currently sold to the public, though the National Institute on Drug Abuse does provide them to investigators for use in clinical trials.

Is there an alternative way to get the same ingredient in some other form?

A clinical form of THC was approved by the Food and Drug Administration many years ago. It is marketed under the name of Marinol and is used to treat nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy as well as loss of appetite in AIDS patients. It comes in capsules and is taken orally. Many medical marijuana users say the fixed dose of oral THC creates a problem; they say they prefer smoked marijuana because its dosage can be adjusted simply by changing the length and intensity of the puffs. They may be right, but the burning of a marijuana joint creates tars and other toxic chemicals that can be harmful with prolonged exposure. An alternative is to use so-called smokeless delivery systems such as vaporizers and sprays. Source.

Advertisements

October 18, 2009 – Research shows some cancers can be treated with marijuana. Even with successful surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy treatment, gliomas — a highly marijuana_leaf330-1aggressive form of brain cancer that strikes approximately 10,000 Americans annually — tragically claim the lives of 75 percent of its victims within two years and virtually all within five years.

But what if there was an alternative treatment for gliomas that could selectively target the cancer while leaving healthy cells intact? And what if federal bureaucrats were aware of this treatment, but deliberately withheld this information from the public?

Sadly, the questions posed above are not entirely hypothetical. Let me explain.

In 2007, there were over 150 published preclinical and clinical studies assessing the therapeutic potential of marijuana and several of its active compounds, known as cannabinoids. These numerous studies are in a book, now in its third edition, entitled Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids: A Review of the Scientific Literature. (NORML Foundation, 2008) One chapter in this book, which summarized the findings of more than 30 separate trials and literature reviews, was dedicated to the use of cannabinoids as potential anti-cancer agents, particularly in the treatment of gliomas.

Not familiar with this scientific research? Your government is.

In fact, the first experiment documenting pot’s potent anti-cancer effects took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest federal bureaucrats. The results of that study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were that marijuana’s primary psychoactive component, THC, “slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.”

Despite these favorable preliminary findings (eventually published the following year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute), U.S. government officials refused to authorize any follow-up research until conducting a similar — though secret — preclinical trial in the mid-1990s. That study, conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program to the tune of $2 million, concluded that mice and rats administered high doses of THC over long periods had greater protection against malignant tumors than untreated controls.

However, rather than publicize their findings, the U.S. government shelved the results, which only became public after a draft copy of its findings were leaked to the medical journal AIDS Treatment News, which in turn forwarded the story to the national media.

In the years since the completion of the National Toxicology trial, the U.S. government has yet to authorize a single additional study examining the drug’s potential anti-cancer properties. (Federal permission is necessary in order to conduct clinical research on marijuana because of its illegal status as a schedule I controlled substance.)

Fortunately, in the past 10 years scientists overseas have generously picked up where U.S. researchers so abruptly left off, reporting that cannabinoids can halt the spread of numerous cancer cells — including prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and brain cancer. (An excellent paper summarizing much of this research, “Cannabinoids for Cancer Treatment: Progress and Promise,” appears in the January 2008 edition of the journal Cancer Research.) A 2006 patient trial published in the British Journal of Cancer even reported that the intracranial administration of THC was associated with reduced tumor cell proliferation in humans with advanced glioblastoma.

Writing earlier this year in the scientific journal Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, Italian researchers reiterated, “(C)annabinoids have displayed a great potency in reducing glioma tumor growth. (They) appear to be selective antitumoral agents as they kill glioma cells without affecting the viability of nontransformed counterparts.” Not one mainstream media outlet reported their findings. Perhaps now they’ll pay better attention.

What possible advancements in the treatment of cancer may have been achieved over the past 34 years had U.S. government officials chosen to advance — rather than suppress — clinical research into the anti-cancer effects of cannabis? It’s a shame we have to speculate; it’s even more tragic that thousands must suffer while we do. Source.

October 2, 2009 – If the police barged into your place of wellness pointing guns, what would you do? This may seem farfetched to some, but not when theprotest medicine in question is a controversial plant known as herb, weed, pot, ganja, Mary Jane, or of course, marijuana.

Police raided 14 medical cannabis centers September 9 in San Diego, California, one of which was Hillcrest Compassion Care, a rapidly expanding collective that grants members safe access to their medicine.

Rev. Paul Cody, president of Hillcrest Compassion Care, explains that the cooperative is more than a place to get marijuana. “We don’t want a pot shop in our town,” he declares. “We want a mental and physical wellbeing center to heal people who are at the end of their ropes and are going through possible terminal illnesses. We want to help them live vibrant and healthy lives in the community.”

That’s right; it’s not about getting high legally. Indeed, through a citizen vote, state legislation allows California residents over the age of 21 with a doctor’s recommendation to safely access medical cannabis, either by growing it themselves, or receiving it through the cooperative effort of patients and caregivers.

A medicinal herb that was cultivated in China as early as 5000 BC, marijuana is currently used to treat multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, pain associated with cancer and HIV, headaches, nausea, anxiety, menstrual cramps, and many other conditions.

“The wonderful accomplishment of medical marijuana is that it provides a sense of control over people’s lives so that they can function,” Cody points out. “People do not get stoned; they get medicated.”

So what’s all the fuss about? San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis announced in a press release the day after the raids that all local medical marijuana centers were illegally dealing drugs for profit. The law mandates that collectives are non-profit entities.

On the day of the raids, police literally bashed in the doors of Hillcrest Compassion Care, handcuffing several patients and caregivers, while taking possession of the collective’s medicine and confidential patient forms. The arrest procedure posed a specific problem for Cody, who is in a wheelchair. Possessing no movement from the waist down, he would require the handcuffs to be placed in front of his body while being positioned in the front seat of the car for bodily support. His requests were ignored and consequently, he flopped to the side in the back of the police car with his hands cuffed behind his back, receiving several injuries. Subsequently, no charges were placed on any collective members.

Cody reflects, “We feel that our civil rights are being violated on multiple levels. That’s why there will be several attorneys specializing in different fields to address this matter. We are holding the City of San Diego, the City of San Diego Police Department, the County of San Diego, and Bonnie Dumanis responsible for how the raids were conducted.”

Several protests were held September 17-21, where demonstrators voiced their opinion that the state law be upheld. People must be able to exercise their right to safely access medical marijuana through non-profit collectives without harassment from the authorities.

On a larger scale, the question to legalize marijuana statewide is coming to a head. Activists in Oakland are moving forward on an initiative to tax and legalize marijuana for personal use. In effect, the measure would allow residents 21 and over to grow or possess up to one ounce of marijuana. Local governments would decide whether to tax and regulate sales. The projected economic impact would be monumental in bringing the state much needed revenue. The signatures of 433,000 registered California voters are necessary to get the initiative on the 2010 ballot—and as of October 1, there are 100 days to get it done.

In the meantime, Hillcrest Compassion Care, along with other cooperatives, are working to safely supply medical marijuana to collective members.
“Alternative needs are here,” says Cody. “Whether it’s through acupuncture, massage therapy, reflexology, or support groups—we need to have a place where we can access these medications and practices.”

That’s why Hillcrest Compassion Care goes beyond providing medical marijuana by using its resources as a non-profit organization to benefit the community. “We have programs that aren’t just for collective members,” notes Cody. “We try to reach the community abroad. Everyone is welcome.”

The collective offers yoga classes on Mondays, medicine education classes on Tuesdays, HIV support groups on Wednesdays, and music on Friday and Saturday nights. “There are many people out there who need help—that’s the bottom line,” affirms Cody. “It’s not done for profit; it’s done out of love and compassion.”

For more information on the 2010 ballot initiative in California to tax and legalize marijuana, visit http://www.taxcannabis2010.org. To learn more about Hillcrest Compassion Care, call 619.291.4420 or visit 1295 University Ave. Monday-Saturday, 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., or Sunday 12 p.m. to 9 p.m.

by Elyssa Paige. Source.

This article reprinted in full with permission from the 3 Monkeys Guide to Health. The original article can be found here:

September 15, 2009 – The politics and policies of drug prohibition are a failure primarily because they are not effective in actually prohibiting people from obtaining and using drugs, and also because the evidence NORML_Remember_Prohibition_supporting those policies are weak.

Here are a few rebuttals to the main arguments used in favor of prohibition.

Argument 1: The fact that drugs are illegal keeps many people from trying them, and out of harm’s way. Legalization now would contribute to many more people using drugs.

In the UK, as in many countries, the real clampdown on drugs started in the late 1960s, yet government statistics show that the number of heroin or cocaine addicts seen by the health service has grown ever since – from around 1000 people per year then, to 100,000 today. It is a pattern that has been repeated the world over.

Argument 2: If current policies are not successful at prohibition, stricter policies should be enacted.

A second approach to the question is to look at whether fewer people use drugs in countries with stricter drug laws. In 2008, the World Health Organization looked at 17 countries and found no such correlation. The US, despite its punitive drug policies, has one of the highest levels of drug use in the world (PLoS Medicine, vol 5, p e141).

Argument 3: A halfway approach, which would decriminalize possession of drugs, is doomed to fail since the lack of effective punishment will encourage more people to try drugs.

While dealing remains illegal in Portugal, personal use of all drugs has been decriminalised. The result? Drug use has stayed roughly constant, but ill health and deaths from drug taking have fallen. “Judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalisation framework has been a resounding success,” states a recent report by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC.

The Law Of Unintended Consequences comes into play as a result of prohibitionist policies. Black market items are generally very profitable, and young people may get sucked in with dreams of fast cash. Ironically, prohibition is often sold as being “for the children”.

Most drug trafficking happens through large criminal enterprises, which are also involved in murder, corruption, and kidnapping. Nearly 4,000 people have been killed this year (so far) in Mexico’s drug wars.

So what’s the alternative? There are several models for the legal provision of recreational drugs. They include prescription by doctors, consumption at licensed premises or even sale on a similar basis to alcohol and tobacco, with health warnings and age limits. If this prospect appals you, consider the fact that in the US today, many teenagers say they find it easier to buy cannabis than beer.

Accusations of evidence suppression happen everywhere, from Big Tobacco to Big Pharma, and it is rightly shocking when lives are at stake. Why are citizens willing to elect and re-elect politicians who enact policies running contrary to evidence sometimes composed by Big Government itself? Aren’t lives at stake here too?

In 1944, Mayor LaGuardia commissioned a report which was titled “The Marihuana Problem in the City of New York”. The report was written up by the New York Academy of Medicine.

This study is viewed by many experts as the best study of any drug viewed in its social, medical, and legal context. The committee covered thousands of years of the history of marijuana and also made a detailed examination of conditions In New York City. Among its conclusions: “The practice of smoking marihuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word.” And: “The use of marihuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction, and no effort is made to create a market for those narcotics by stimulating the practice of marihuana smoking.” Finally: “The publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marihuana smoking in New York City is unfounded.”

A primer on the issues at play here and a must read is The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs, by Edward M. Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine.

The recommendations in this report included:
# Stop emphasizing measures designed to keep drugs away from people.
# Stop increasing the damage done by drugs.
# Stop misclassifying drugs.
# Stop viewing the drug problem as primarily a national problem, to be solved on a national scale.
# Stop pursuing the goal of stamping out illicit drug use.
# Consumers Union recommends the immediate repeal of all federal laws governing the growing, processing, transportation, sale, possession, and use of marijuana.
# Consumers Union recommends that each of the fifty states similarly repeal its existing marijuana laws and pass new laws legalizing the cultivation, processing, and orderly marketing of marijuana-subject to appropriate regulations.
# Consumers Union recommends that state and federal taxes on marijuana be kept moderate, and that tax proceeds be devoted primarily to drug research, drug education, and other measures specifically designed to minimize the damage done by alcohol, nicotine, marijuana. heroin, and other drugs.
# Consumers Union recommends an immediate end to imprisonment as a punishment for marijuana possession and for furnishing marijuana to friends.*
# Consumers Union recommends, pending legalization of marijuana, that marijuana possession and sharing be immediately made civil violations rather than criminal acts.
# Consumers Union recommends that those now serving prison terms for possession of or sharing marijuana be set free, and that such marijuana offenses be expunged from all legal records.

There are many more major studies of drugs and drug policy like the above two available for free from the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy.

Unfortunately, the idea that banning drugs is the best way to protect vulnerable people – especially children – has acquired a strong emotional grip, one that politicians are happy to exploit. For many decades, laws and public policy have flown in the face of the evidence. Far from protecting us, this approach has made the world a much more dangerous place than it need be. Source.

August 30, 2009 – ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — Medical marijuana used to treat a 10-year-old boy with autism may sound shocking. But one Orange County mother says she exhausted all other options.
Picture 4
Before using medical marijuana, doctors described Joey as “hostile, destructive, a danger to himself and others.”

His mother says he’s now a different boy.

Four months ago, doctors told Joey’s mom that he was going to die. She strongly believes medical marijuana saved her son’s life.

“Had I had not gone this route, my son would not be here,” said Joey’s mom.

Joey was diagnosed with autism when he was 16-months-old. His symptoms are severe.

“His behavior was just completely off the charts,” said Joey’s mom. “It was taking its toll on our entire family.”

Joey doesn’t speak or walk. He’ll never lead a so-called normal life.

“He didn’t sleep for weeks, and neither did I,” said Joey’s mom.

She and a team of doctors tried everything, including 13 different medications and therapy. At one point, Joey was taking six medications at once. But the prescription drugs took a toll on Joey’s body, causing liver damage, minor seizures, insomnia and drastic weight loss.

Joey was diagnosed with malnutrition and anorexia, and his weight dropped to 46 pounds.

“I have a 10-year-old that was 46 pounds,” said Joey’s mom. “He was very weak. You could see the bones in his chest. And at that point I realized if I did not take him off these hardcore prescribed medications, my son was going to die.”

In desperation, Joey’s mom finally turned to medical marijuana. She gives it to him in specially prepared brownies and cookies.

She says the changes have been dramatic.

Joey’s doctor said she noticed a difference within weeks.

“She looked at Joey and said, ‘For the first time Joey has cheeks,'” Joey’s mom recalls. “Now he eats everything. Everything! Calamari & he eats sushi. My son is finally getting the nutrients that he’s been missing for the last seven years.

But it’s not just his appetite that has changed. Joey is calmer and less edgy.

“He’s happy, he feels alive. And to hear him make sounds, I mean, we’ve never heard him make sounds,” said Joey’s mom.

Joey’s repetitive behaviors have also diminished.

“This to me sounds like a very reasonable use of medical marijuana,” said Dr. Drew Pinksy, a specialist in addiction.

“The idea that somehow cannabis is a ‘bad’ drug and there are ‘good’ drugs, that’s a huge mistake. There are drugs that have liabilities and used properly can really help people. This is a clear situation where it’s helping a kid. Why shouldn’t they use it?” adds Dr. Drew.

He warns that any such treatment must be carefully monitored by Joey’s doctors, but potential addiction shouldn’t be an issue.

“I mean there may be withdrawal symptoms, there may be anxiety and other mood disturbances down the road from using cannabis, but you’re not going to use, it’s not going to convert this child who has no history of addiction into an addict,” said Dr. Drew.

Dr. Drew and Joey’s mom, both agree that more research is needed. But for now Joey’s mom believes the marijuana saved her son.

“People who have seen Joey … Joey’s a completely different child,” she said.

Joey’s mom did not want her name used in fear of a backlash, but agreed to tell their story in hopes of helping other parents with special needs children. By Ellen Leyva. Source.

Aug 28, 2009 | LISBON – The evidence from Portugal since 2001 is that decriminalisation of drug use and possession has benefits and no harmful side-effects.greenwald_whitepaper

IN 2001 newspapers around the world carried graphic reports of addicts injecting heroin in the grimy streets of a Lisbon slum. The place was dubbed Europe’s “most shameful neighborhood” and its “worst drugs ghetto”. The Times helpfully managed to find a young British backpacker sprawled comatose on a corner. This lurid coverage was prompted by a government decision to decriminalise the personal use and possession of all drugs, including heroin and cocaine. The police were told not to arrest anyone found taking any kind of drug.

This “ultraliberal legislation”, said the foreign media, had set alarm bells ringing across Europe. The Portuguese were said to be fearful that holiday resorts would become dumping-grounds for drug tourists. Some conservative politicians denounced the decriminalisation as “pure lunacy”. Plane-loads of foreign students would head for the Algarve to smoke marijuana, predicted Paulo Portas, leader of the People’s Party. Portugal, he said, was offering “sun, beaches and any drug you like.”

Yet after all the furor, the drug law was largely forgotten by the international and Portuguese press—until earlier this year, when the Cato Institute, a libertarian American think-tank, published a study of the new policy by a lawyer, Glenn Greenwald.* In contrast to the dire consequences that critics predicted, he concluded that “none of the nightmare scenarios” initially painted, “from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for ‘drug tourists’, has occurred.”

Mr Greenwald claims that the data show that “decriminalisation has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal”, which “in numerous categories are now among the lowest in the European Union”. This came after some rises in the 1990s, before decriminalisation. The figures reveal little evidence of drug tourism: 95% of those cited for drug misdemeanours since 2001 have been Portuguese. The level of drug trafficking, measured by numbers convicted, has also declined. And the incidence of other drug-related problems, including sexually transmitted diseases and deaths from drug overdoses, has “decreased dramatically”.

There are widespread misconceptions about the Portuguese approach. “It is important not to confuse decriminalisation with depenalisation or legalisation,” comments Brendan Hughes of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which is, coincidentally, based in Lisbon. “Drug use remains illegal in Portugal, and anyone in possession will be stopped by the police, have the drugs confiscated and be sent before a commission.”

Nor is it uncommon in Europe to make drug use an administrative offence rather than a criminal one (putting it in the same category as not wearing a seat belt, say). What is unique, according to Mr Hughes, is that offenders in Portugal are sent to specialist “dissuasion commissions” run by the government, rather than into the judicial system. “In Portugal,” he says, “the health aspect [of the government’s response to drugs] has gone mainstream.”

The aim of the dissuasion commissions, which are made up of panels of two or three psychiatrists, social workers and legal advisers, is to encourage addicts to undergo treatment and to stop recreational users falling into addiction. They have the power to impose community work and even fines, but punishment is not their main aim. The police turn some 7,500 people a year over to the commissions. But nobody carrying anything considered to be less than a ten-day personal supply of drugs can be arrested, sentenced to jail or given a criminal record.

Officials believe that, by lifting fears of prosecution, the policy has encouraged addicts to seek treatment. This bears out their view that criminal sanctions are not the best answer. “Before decriminalisation, addicts were afraid to seek treatment because they feared they would be denounced to the police and arrested,” says Manuel Cardoso, deputy director of the Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Portugal’s main drugs-prevention and drugs-policy agency. “Now they know they will be treated as patients with a problem and not stigmatised as criminals.”

The number of addicts registered in drug-substitution programmes has risen from 6,000 in 1999 to over 24,000 in 2008, reflecting a big rise in treatment (but not in drug use). Between 2001 and 2007 the number of Portuguese who say they have taken heroin at least once in their lives increased from just 1% to 1.1%. For most other drugs, the figures have fallen: Portugal has one of Europe’s lowest lifetime usage rates for cannabis. And most notably, heroin and other drug abuse has decreased among vulnerable younger age-groups, according to Mr Cardoso.

The share of heroin users who inject the drug has also fallen, from 45% before decriminalisation to 17% now, he says, because the new law has facilitated treatment and harm-reduction programmes. Drug addicts now account for only 20% of Portugal’s HIV cases, down from 56% before. “We no longer have to work under the paradox that exists in many countries of providing support and medical care to people the law considers criminals.”

“Proving a causal link between Portugal’s decriminalisation measures and any changes in drug-use patterns is virtually impossible in scientific terms,” concludes Mr Hughes. “But anyone looking at the statistics can see that drug consumption in 2001 was relatively low in European terms, and that it remains so. The apocalypse hasn’t happened.” Source.

August 3, 2009 – We’ve told you for a while now about the anti-tumoral properties of marijuana. We’ve repeatedly shown you that marijuana smoking doesmarijuana_leaf330 not lead to an increased risk of head and neck cancers. But now research is showing that marijuana smoking may actually help prevent head and neck cancers!

(Cancer Prevention Research) Cannabinoids, constituents of marijuana smoke, have been recognized to have potential antitumor properties. However, the epidemiologic evidence addressing the relationship between marijuana use and the induction of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is inconsistent and conflicting.

Cases (n = 434) were patients with incident HNSCC disease from nine medical facilities in the Greater Boston, MA area between December 1999 and December 2003. Controls (n = 547) were frequency matched to cases on age (±3 years), gender, and town of residence, randomly selected from Massachusetts town books. A questionnaire was adopted to collect information on lifetime marijuana use (decade-specific exposures) and associations evaluated using unconditional logistic regression.

After adjusting for potential confounders (including smoking and alcohol drinking), 10 to 20 years of marijuana use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of HNSCC [odds ratio (OR)10-<20 years versus never users, 0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.22-0.67]. Among marijuana users moderate weekly use was associated with reduced risk (OR0.5-<1.5 times versus <0.5 time, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.85). The magnitude of reduced risk was more pronounced for those who started use at an older age (OR15-<20 years versus never users, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.95; OR?20 years versus never users, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.90; Ptrend < 0.001). These inverse associations did not depend on human papillomavirus 16 antibody status. However, for the subjects who have the same level of smoking or alcohol drinking, we observed attenuated risk of HNSCC among those who use marijuana compared with those who do not.

Our study suggests that moderate marijuana use is associated with reduced risk of HNSCC. By: Radical Russ. Source.

« Previous PageNext Page »