The Role of Marijuana Smoking in Elevating the Risk of Lung Cancer - Essay Example

no The role of marijuana smoking in elevating the risk of lung cancer Thesis Under-determination refers to a scenario in which the evidence supplied to support a certain belief, is insufficient to warrant a conviction. Fundamentally, this means that the available data is insufficient to permit a person to make a decision between two rival theories. Consequently, in certain cases, people may be provided with evidence that fails in determining what beliefs people should have in response to the said evidence. Most of the time, a person is only convinced is the amount of empirical evidence provided is so vat and diverse that there is little room for doubt. As once stated, a theory can only be considered as evidence if it is tested in groups, and not in isolation. Basically, under-determination is a result of two rival theories, in which neither has enough evidence to out-do the other. It, therefore, follows that the lack of certainty about a phenomenon could lead to people believing various theories, so long as these theories have evidence. In the end, people are left with questionable conclusions about the said phenomenon. In addition, strong under-determination holds that if two theories have the same observable consequence, then a person cannot distinguish between the two. Introduction According to Callaghan, Allebeck & Sidorchuk , cannabis, popularly known as marijuana,is listed as the most widely used illegal drug in the world today (1811). Marijuana, like tobacco contains a lot of carcinogens which public health experts say increase the risk of contracting cancer. Additionally, health experts point out that the kind of smoke produced by marijuana is more toxic since it tends tocondense and mutate, thus making its effects more lethal than those of tobacco. To prove that there exists a direct link between marijuana smoking and elevated risk of lung cancer, a study was conducted between 1969 and 2009 (Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk 1812). In this study, 49, 321 Swedish young males, between 18-20 years, were observed for forty years to determine whether marijuana does really cause lung cancer (Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk 1812). The results of the study would shed light on whether smoking of marijuana increases the chances of contracting cancer, or it is just a belief. Accordingly, the results are containedin an article written by Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk which draws the conclusion that marijuana smoking might increase the chances of contacting lung cancer. InCallaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk’s article on the correlation between smoking marijuana and contracting lung cancer, however, under-determination is evident (1811). Some of the results of the study appear to suggest that there is a positive correlation between smoking marijuana and increased chances of contracting lung cancer; while other results tend to show that there the evidence presented is not enough to warrant such a conclusion. However, the under-determination contained in this article is not unusual considering that several other studies have failed in coming up with a completely convincing conclusion. As Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk write, there have been numerous studies on the association between marijuana smoking and lung cancer development, although some studies found no association while others have established a link (1812). Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk state that the concern on whether marijuana smoking increases the risk of lung cancer has several lines of evidence (1811). One of the theories used as evidence purports that since tobacco smoking is the chief cause of lung cancer and sincemarijuana contains the same carcinogens as tobacco; the latter could also be a major cause of lung cancer. However, there is no evidence in the article to support these claims and as such, this just remains a hypothesis that needs strong empirical evidence. The fact that two items have similar content does not mean that they deliver the same results, unless such a claim is supported by very strong evidence. In this case, however, it has not been proven that marijuana is as harmful as tobacco with regard to increasing susceptibility to lung cancer among users. Scientifically, it is said that correlation does not imply causation, which is true in this case in as far as marijuana causing lung cancer, same as tobacco is concerned. The second issue that may cause under-determination in Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk’s article is the fact that data used was from the Swedish male population only. Although Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk write that the data used was obtained from biological functions and epidemiological studies (1812), it is insufficient to warrant a universal conclusion. This may cause some critics to doubt the validity of the results of this study when applied to areas outside Sweden, as well as to the female population. In order for the results obtained from Sweden to be valid, then similar studies need to be conducted in other regions, as well as among the female gender. The evidence provided in this article focuses solely on the male gender, ignoring the fact that differences in the biological make-up between men and women could cause variations in the effects of marijuana smoking between the two genders. In addition, other factors like geographical location, weather patterns, and socio-economic status among the Swedish participants may have affected the outcome of the study. One would wonder if a similar study conducted in totally different area, Africa for example, would yield the same results. The results of the study indicated that of the 49, 321 participants, only 189 were reported to have developed lung cancer as identified by either the patient register in Sweden or the national register containing cause-of-death for individuals (Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk, 1815). Of the 189 who contracted lung cancer, only 95 were recorded in both the patient and cause-of-death registers (Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk 1815). This means that the remaining participants might have contracted lung cancer but did not necessarily die of the disease. Fundamentally, the results of this study provide strong grounds for non-conviction, especially considering that only 189 people out a possible 49, 321 were diagnosed with cancer. It is important to note that there was no evidence to prove that the 189 participants diagnosed with lung cancer acquired the cancer from marijuana smoking and not originating other causes, especially tobacco smoking. During this study, there were no mechanisms put in place to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the participants who contracted lung cancer did so as a result of smoking marijuana, and not from other sources. For instance, respiratory diseases such as bronchitis and asthma, as well as tobacco use and alcohol consumption could also have contributed to the occurrence of lung cancer among some of the participants. As Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk write, most of the participants, approximately 91 per cent not only smoked marijuana but had also experimented with tobacco (1816). In fact, Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk state that it was difficult to ascertain the cause of lung cancer as marijuana smoking, considering that most marijuana users also smoked tobacco (1817). It was, therefore, impossible to separate tobacco-related lung cancer, from marijuana-related lung cancer among these participants. The patient records, as well as the cause-of-death records did not contain information showing which drug had caused the lung cancer. All lung cancer victims and associated deaths were treated as the same, with no special emphasis being laid on either marijuana or tobacco as the cause of illness or death. With no means of separating cancer caused by tobacco and that caused by marijuana, then it is possible that the 189 cases were inflated, On the other hand, there is evidence in the article to show that there is a close link between marijuana smoking and lung cancer development. Among the never users of marijuana use, for example, the results were encouraging since there were very low cancer outcomes for this group. This means that even the ones who reported lung cancer in this group could have acquired the disease from other sources such as respiratory infections. This explains the large gap between lung cancer outcomes between the never-users and the ever-users. In addition, the number of heavy users increased proportionally with that of never users around 2006, meaning that the risk of lung cancer among ever-users and heavy-users increased. According to Callaghan, Allebeck & Sidorchuk , even after eliminating the other causative factors for lung cancer, the risk for heavy users (those that reported lifetime use of more than 50 times), was still significantly higher as compared to the ever and never users, respectively. From a population of as high as approximately 42,000 participants, one would expect that the number of lung cancer cases would be way higher that the figure contained in the article. Basically, if health experts emphasize that tobacco and marijuana have the same effects on their users, then one would expect that almost half of the participants would be diagnosed with lung cancer. If the same number of people were taken for study on the role of tobacco on lung cancer prevalence, the figure would arguably be way higher. In fact, considering that most people continue to use tobacco way into their old-age, thensuch a factor would reflect on the number of participants diagnosed with lung cancer caused by tobacco. Nonetheless, as Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk state, the low incidence of lung cancer reported from this study, according to Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk can be explained by a number of variables (1818). For example, studies have shown that marijuana use is at its highest during teenage, after which the early 20s experience a plateau, with the late 20s and early 30s exhibiting a decline in the use of the drug (Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk 1818). Accordingly, it would be rational to conclude that most marijuana users do not develop lung cancer, because they do not smoke marijuana for long, as compared to tobacco users. The case being presented here is that maybe if marijuana smokers indulged for as long as tobacco smokers do, then the results of the study would have had a higher number of lung cancer incidences. Another reason as to why the results showed low cancer levels can be attributed to the fact that not all of the initial participants completed the study period. According to Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk, during the study, a total of 930participants were lost in the process mostly due to emigration, while another 2,958 died of other causes other than lung cancer (1815). This means that the results for approximately four thousand participants were unavailable to help in drawing a convincing conclusion. Additionally, Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk write that some of the participants might not have been very truthful in the accounts they gave concerning their consumption of marijuana. Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk note that the participants may have exaggerated or under-stated the amount of marijuana they smoke, considering that these participants were drawn from military hopefuls. For those who understated their intake, they might have done so in a bid to avoid being turned away for drug abuse, while those over-stating might have done so, so as to avoid training (1818). Essentially, that is the problem with using data obtained fromself-reports, since there is no way of verifying whether the information given by participants is true. Evidently, the unreliability of the information presented by the participants of this study makes it even harder to be convinced by the resultscontained in the article, thus providing grounds for under-determination. In conclusion, the above discussion elucidates the meaning of under-determination.In Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk’s article, there are two conflicting theories concerning marijuana smoking that cause under-determination. One of the theories is that the smoking of marijuana is directly linked to lung cancer, often after prolonged use, which for this case; the participants were studies for forty years. The rival theory is that there is no direct link between marijuana smoking and the development of cancer in human beings. However, the study findings reported that the use of marijuana might elevate the risk of lung cancer (Callaghan, Allebeck &Sidorchuk 1818). It is important to note that the key word in the conclusion is “might”, meaning that there was not enough evidence to conclude that marijuana smoking does actually increase the risk of lung cancer. In the end, after reading the article and analyzing both theories presented, the reader is unable to make a judgment concerning the relationship between marijuana smoking and lung cancer development. Accordingly, in the end the two theories seem to hold water equally and can, therefore, be applied depending on the context. Work cited Callaghan, Russell., Allebeck, Peter., and Sidorchuk, Anna.Marijuana and the Risk of Lung Cancer: A 40 Year Cohort Study. Cancer Causes Control. 24 (2013): 1811-1820. Print. Read More