BIG NEWS!! National Cancer Institute acknowledges cannabis kills cancer.

[Fly by night]

Talk about waking up to good news. I got this email from my friend Paul Armentano, Deputy Director of NORML this morning. Folks, this represents a MAJOR shift in publicacknowledgment of the obvious (and well-researched.) For this country, after 70+ years of a war on ONE drug,
it does not come a minute too soon.

Read and speak up. If we never stop fighting, ....

----
(My message from Paul A.)

Colleagues,

Interesting to see this new “Cannabis and Cannabinoids” section added to the National Cancer Institute website. You’ll note that the page doesn’t just acknowledge the “potential benefits of medicinal cannabis” to treat symptoms of cancer chemotherapy, but there is also an acknowledgement that cannabinoids potentially possess a “direct antitumor effect” in humans. This may be the first time the NCI, which is a branch of the NIH, has ever acknowledged this point.

Schedule I???!!! Still??!!

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page2

"General Information: Cannabis, also known as marijuana, originated in Central Asia but is grown worldwide today. In the United States, it is a controlled substance and is classified as a Schedule I agent (a drug with increased potential for abuse and no known medical use). The Cannabis plant produces a resin containing psychoactive compounds called cannabinoids. The highest concentration of cannabinoids is found in the female flowers of the plant. As a botanical, Cannabis is difficult to study because of the lack of standardization of the botanical product due to the many climates and environments in which it is grown. Clinical trials conducted on medicinal Cannabis are limited.

"The potential benefits of medicinal Cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep. In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.

Cannabinoids are a group of terpenophenolic compounds found in Cannabis species (Cannabis sativa L. and Cannabis indica Lam.). This summary will review the role of Cannabis and the cannabinoids in the treatment of people with cancer and disease-related or treatment-related side effects."
-----

Now how's that for something to smile at the Universe about this morning, while I wander in the Garden.

Have a great day, all y'all. Mine started out the sane way.

[Fly by night]

1. One self-kick for sanity ...

... and some scientific honesty, at long last.

[DreamSmoker]

112. DEA is stead fast against legalization no matter what facts are there

Even with this... The DEA does not even blink...
Stead fast against even re classifying Cannabis into a lower class..
If they even consider that move.. It will give Drug companies control over the Herb.. Not You or I..
This is about control of a part of our population.. Most who use cannabis are liberals and Progressives in the Political realm..
This battle is still raging and has since Nixon and Reagan.. Both have used this tactic to gain a political edge..
It worked well too... Still does today...
In the History of America... Nothing righteous every happens without a very very long fight.. NOTHING..
Now days its He who has the most money wins.... Cannabis advocates are not paying constituents, but people like you and I..
If you are not a paying Lobbyist.... You don't get anywhere...
The DEA has so many resources involved in illegal Cannabis activity that they are one of the largest Federal law enforcers..
Now if all the sudden Cannabis were legalized totally... A very large chunk of their department would have to be cut...
This is really about Power and who will get control...
Nothing Righteous about that at all....

[Fly by night]

117. Two separate DEA administrative law judges, after years of review, recommended pot be reclassified.

Both judicial opinions were well-thought-out, weighty with scientific evidence and unequivocal in their conclusions that cannabis does not belong in Schedule 1.

It was the politicial appointees higher up (or lower down) in the DEA colon that rejected those judicial decisions.

All the Obama administration would have to do is to state that they will revisit those two decisions with an eye toward accpeting science, common sense and compassion this time around.

We don't need no more steenkin' studies. We need courage (and science, common sense and compassion.)

[defendandprotect]

216. The public has a right to MEDICINE --- direct connection to plants ...

"The potential benefits of medicinal Cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep. In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.

Cannabinoids are a group of terpenophenolic compounds found in Cannabis species (Cannabis sativa L. and Cannabis indica Lam.). This summary will review the role of Cannabis and the cannabinoids in the treatment of people with cancer and disease-related or treatment-related side effects."

[originalpckelly]

2. its POSSIBLE direct antitumor effect

Not, it's proven anti-tumor effect.

What needs to be done is the standardization of the plant, so that you can have a clinical trial done. Right now it's not standardized, so you can't do any real science based upon it, because it wouldn't be a controlled experiment. In addition, you'd have to find some kind of sham that would replicate the smell of cannabis. But how do you do that without introducing a chemical that itself could be the source of the claimed effectiveness?

This will be like rTMS, because just like with that treatment, it was very difficult to establish a clinical trial for lack of an effective sham.

I think you could standardize the plant, but I sincerely doubt you can create a sham (placebo) very easily.

[Fly by night]

6. You are so far behind on the science, and even aware of how that science is proceeding, ...

... that I don't know where to begin. If others don't clue you in, I will later, after some time in the Garden.

But just a few points: There have been two peer-reviewed articles published on cannabis and cannabinoids in the scientific literature PER DAY for the past 20 YEARS. The fact that you're unaware of much of it is quite telling.

Cannabinoids have shown robust anti-tumor activity in more than a half-dozen cancer cell types to date in vitro and in vivo. The research on gliomas and glioblastomas is particularly interesting and heartening.

In addition, the publication of two large case-control studies in the past two years (Tashkin et al at UCLA and the Kelsey et al team at Brown University and three other medical schools) have demonstrated the anti-tumor effects of cannabis ingestion in population-based studies of lung cancer and head/neck cancers respectively.

Here's a clue -- catch up.

---

Feds' Top Pot Researcher Says Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer:

A U of California researcher who has performed US-government sponsored studies of marijuana and lung function for over 30 years says that pot does not cause lung cancer. Dr. Donald Tashkin said that, when he began his work thirty years ago, he "opposed ... legalization because thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects." However, he now admits that his decades' worth of scientific research revealed an opposite conclusion. In 2006, Tashkin led the largest population case-control study ever to assess the use of marijuana and lung cancer risk. The study, which included more than 2,200 subjects (1,212 cases and 1,040 controls), reported that marijuana smoking was not positively associated with cancers of the lung or upper aerodigestive tract – even among individuals who reported smoking more than 22,000 joints during their lifetime. "What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect," Tashkin told the newspaper chain, noting that cannabinoids cause "cells die ... before they age enough to develop mutations that might lead to cancer." For more information on marijuana smoke and cancer risk, please see: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891. A literature review of cannabinoids' anti-cancer properties is available at: http://www.norml.org//index.cfm?Group_ID=7008.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
---

Marijuana May Reduce Risk of Certain Cancers, Study Says
August 27, 2009

A new study finds that long-term marijuana users have a lower risk of certain head and neck cancers, Reuters reported Aug. 25.

Researchers from Brown University studied patients with head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and a control group and found that subjects who had smoked marijuana for 10 to 20 years had a 62-percent reduced risk of getting HNSCC. Those who smoked marijuana 0.5 to 1.5 times per week had a 48-percent reduction in risk.

The study authors, led by Karl T. Kelsey, said that the findings may be linked to the known anti-tumor action of cannabinoids. However, they cautioned that larger studies are needed to confirm the findings and that the risks of marijuana use may outweigh any health benefits.

The study was published in the August 2009 issue of the journal Cancer Prevention Research.

[originalpckelly]

8. And what about lung cancer?

It could never cause lung cancer? I mean, we are after all adapted to withstand smoke inhalation on a regular basis, right?

Shyeah, it could cause lung cancer!

You may not get head and neck cancers, but you might get a lung cancer.

Our lungs are incredibly sensitive organs, and I would be surprised if it didn't cause severe damage, similar to that of smoking tobacco, over the long term.

[Fly by night]

10. Read the Tashkin et al conclusions (and their research) already posted for your edgy-cation.

Or not.

[ReggieVeggie]

12. never been shown to cause lung cancer

but hang on to that

[originalpckelly]

17. Emphysema?

Never been shown to cause that?

[jberryhill]

20. Rickets? Scoliosis? Dropsy? Rheumatism?

You can choke to death on a hot dog, you know.

[nashville_brook]

86. heheh -- dropsy.

[think]

88. thanks for the laugh

+1

[wildbilln864]

22. never! nt

[ReggieVeggie]

23. change the subject much?

We were talking about cancer.

[phleshdef]

49. You don't really see cases of smoking it causing that...

...because people who smoke it rarely smoke enough of it on a daily basis to cause that kind of impact. But you don't have to smoke it anyway. You can use a vaporizer that removes 90-95% of the carcinogens and other harmful materials or you can even take it a step further and make pastries out of it and eat it.

[slay]

106. You do know you can cook with it right? Every heard of a vaporizer?

neither contribute to emphysema. Got anything negative to say about these forms of marijuana use or are you just rabidly anti-marijuana hiding behind the cloak of "protecting health"? Now be honest.. :P

[originalpckelly]

138. I'd say there is probably a smaller portion of the population that uses it like that...

but it does sound a LOT safer to use it that way, for the obvious reasons that you're not burning it.

But again, one would have to conduct a real clinical trial.

Additionally, I do not support the criminalization of possession. It's not anyone else's business what you do to yourself, as long as it doesn't cause drug seeking behavior so strong that you'd steal or hurt someone to pay for it.

It doesn't apparently cause that.

Further study of it is necessary, however, before health professionals should imply even slightly that there might be some cancer fighting effects, because that might cause use of the drug, before any really serious side effects are widely known.

[WinkyDink]

155. I think there are plenty of people who can demonstrate there are no serious side-effects that can

BEGIN TO COMPARE WITH THOSE OF MAN-MAD PILLS AND POTIONS.

[Webster Green]

153. It's good for that too.

It's an expectorant, and some strains are better at that than others.

The miracle herb! :smoke:

[WhiteTara]

179. I have not even heard anecdotes

saying it caused emphysema, have you? My mother has COPD from having smoked cigarettes; but she has never touched cannabis.

edited for spelling.

[kurtzapril4]

221. Give up, original

Pro-pot people will ascribe all sorts of miracles to pot or hemp. There ain't two ways about it. Pot or hemp is a miracle drug, I tells ya!

Something tells me that smoke in your lungs is smoke in your lungs, and one's body deals with any sort of smoke in the lungs the same way...pot, cigs, or forest fires.

And I am pro pot. My nephew smokes quite a lot of it. It's legal where he lives. He is dying of bone cancer...and the pot is really not doing that much good except for keeping his nausea down, so he can eat. In that sense, it's a very useful drug. It also keeps his impending death from beating him in the face every day. He's still dying, just the same. Pot ain't going to save him, I'm sorry to say.

[reggie the dog]

234. no, watch this video and listen about the tashkin and his studies

for ucla, no lung cancer no emphysema from cannabis smoking, he was shocked by his own findings the first time around then reproduced the results and opened his studies to peer review

[jberryhill]

18. Where is your evidence that it does?

Let me try to grasp your notion of science...

Whatever you say is true unless it is disproven?

You might as well suggest that marijuana causes arthritis. After all, there are no studies saying that marijuana doesn't cause arthritis.

In response to a post citing actual studies, including one directly contradicting your point, you make an uncited assertion. Maybe the study in the post is flawed, but rather than providing any evidence to the contrary or pointing out a flaw in the study, you just run off with "witch trial" logic.

Amazing.

[originalpckelly]

32. The people who need to prove their case are those who claim it is safe for use in people.

That's how my "notion of science" works.

I'm putting out the usual suspects for tobacco use, because I highly doubt that marijuana is as wonderful as is being suggested, aside from it's well known effects on the brain.

[jberryhill]

36. Schedule I is going to need to be a lot larger then...

Is wine, in your mind, "safe for use in people"?

Just to be sure that I understand you, a plant that people have been using for thousands of years needs to be proven safe, or else anyone in possession of it should be locked up. Is that correct?

Can you tell me which studies confirmed that carrots were safe for use in people?

[originalpckelly]

46. Under your rationale, coca leaves would be legal.

You may not agree with the policy of how it is regulated, but a medical professional claiming it is safe for use, or even going so far as to say it has a medicinal effect beyond the known ones of pain relief and its use as an antiemetic, is irresponsible.

In addition, opening up the population of people who use it regularly from people who are going to die, to people who might be able to live for a long time is unethical. If you have terminal cancer, it's not like you'll be around to find out if it has effects on you 30 years down the road. It could harm a healthy person. That's the most important thing here.

But for a healthy person to take this drug in hopes of preventing cancer is just a wild claim that demands more than one study, or even many, because it would cause people to use it frequently.

What the general population does with its bodies is its own business, but what someone who is supposed to protect your health says about it is another thing.

[jberryhill]

59. "for a healthy person to take this drug in hopes of preventing cancer is just a wild claim"

Yes, it is a wild claim.

It is also not a claim made in the OP or the linked article.

As we are clearly discussing two entirely different articles, perhaps you might provide a link to the one you are discussing.

[Fiendish Thingy]

84. "cannabis kills cancer" is a misleading, unproven headline

the qualifiers, "potentially", and "possibly" are more accurate. While I support legalization and thorough scientific research (that is replicable in numerous trials), I don't support giving people who are suffering false hopes.

Remember all the snake oils sold as panaceas in centuries past often contained alcohol, cocaine, opiates, and yes, cannabis. While they made the user feel better for a time, they didn't cure the disease, and the user ended up addicted and still suffering (and often dying) from the original disease. I'm assuming those who are excited by this news are in favor of medical marijuana used in ways that don't just mask symptoms, but treat the underlying disease, and the science for that is inconclusive at best, due in part to its Schedule I status that prevents extensive research in the country.

[Fly by night]

118. This NIH decision is hardly news. The anti-tumor properties of cannabis have been known since 70s.

The Medical College of Virginia study, which concluded that components in cannabis showed robust cancer-fighting properties in several cancer cell lines, was effectively censored (and the research shut down) by the federal agency that funded the research (National Institute on Drug Abuse). To this day, NIDA will not fund or allow research on the potential health benefits of cannabinoids because that is "not their mission".

Their mission is to spread reefer madness. And as HL Mencken said, "It is impossible to get a man (or a government agency) to understand something when his paycheck depends on his not understanding it."

[Maine_Nurse]

62. I'll openly state it has valid uses beyond an antiemetic....

There are decades of valid research available from Germany, Israel, England, Spain, and other countries describing the CB1, CB2, and CB3 receptor systems and their purposes in the human body. These receptors are found in the CNS, PNS, and immune systems. Various natural cannabinoids (including those like anadamine, which are produced in our own bodies) trigger these receptors and can beneficially effect multiple systems of our bodies. Many of these effects have great potential for use in both physiological and mental health care.

If marijuana didn't exist to us and was suddenly discovered today, some pharmaceutical company would be throwing billions into research into this "miracle drug" (and likely stealing it from an indigenous people somewhere). Negative and largely false past history is what has truly hindered its development into useful compounds. Thankfully, there are companies like GW Pharma (as much as I hate pharma companies) and scientists that are forging ahead on useful research.

[blackspade]

135. talk in tangents much?

Actually coca leaves have been used in the Andes for thousands of years by Indian groups such as the Quechua to combat altitude sickness. It is chewed or brewed as a drink for it's stimulative effect, much like coffee or tea, with little or no side effects. The fact that it can be chemically reduced into a horrifically potent drug is beside the point. It underscores that in it's natural state it is relatively harmless and definitely beneficial, much like cannabis.

I would note that you obviously didn't review the studies as they did not focus on terminal patients, but rather people who have smoked MJ for years. No one here is suggesting that you smoke 'in hopes of preventing cancer'. Rather we are underscoring the point that it's presence on the Schedule I is not warranted, nor is it's prohibition based on the SCIENCE.

[originalpckelly]

140. Actually, that is the precise claim, IF YOU READ THE STUDY!

I took the time to find it, on my own, with the same author on PubMed. You can too.

[blackspade]

148. Studies, plural.

like this one:
Feds' Top Pot Researcher Says Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer:

A U of California researcher who has performed US-government sponsored studies of marijuana and lung function for over 30 years says that pot does not cause lung cancer. Dr. Donald Tashkin said that, when he began his work thirty years ago, he "opposed ... legalization because thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects." However, he now admits that his decades' worth of scientific research revealed an opposite conclusion. In 2006, Tashkin led the largest population case-control study ever to assess the use of marijuana and lung cancer risk. The study, which included more than 2,200 subjects (1,212 cases and 1,040 controls), reported that marijuana smoking was not positively associated with cancers of the lung or upper aerodigestive tract – even among individuals who reported smoking more than 22,000 joints during their lifetime. "What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect," Tashkin told the newspaper chain, noting that cannabinoids cause "cells die ... before they age enough to develop mutations that might lead to cancer." For more information on marijuana smoke and cancer risk, please see: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891 . A literature review of cannabinoids' anti-cancer properties is available at: http://www.norml.org//index.cfm?Group_ID=7008 .

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Thanks for trying. :)

[RegieRocker]

188. Yep additives and poisons in food are so much better for

your health.

[PufPuf23]

70. Carrots can be dangerous. Marijuana as Schedule I is stupid and social control.

A woman I knew in college got very ill and initially they thought she had hepatitis.

Carrots turned out to be the culprit. IMO she didn't need to diet but did anyway and was consuming carrots for the major part of her diet and had vitamin A poisoning.

Also a box of carrots could drop on one's head if there was an earthquake in the produce section at Costco.

[cui bono]

104. Also, Bugs Bunny eats carrots and has been known to cause danger to Elmer Fudd.

:)

[EOTE]

40. Bullshit. You don't need to prove something is safe for it to be legal.

In a free society, things should be legal by default. Only when something is proven to be generally unsafe for public consumption should it be made illegal. Drug warriors like yourself have had many decades to illustrate the dangers of cannabis and all that's been shown is how safe and beneficial it is. All of your suggestions that we need to wait until the results are in reek of the same bullshit excuses the fascists have been providing for decades.

[originalpckelly]

43. So you want big drug companies to put out any medicine they feel like?

Without any regulations at all?

That's the problem here, people are not claiming that this is a fun thing to use, it's being advertised as a medicine. "Medical marijuana" ring a bell? If you have terminal cancer, your ass will be dead in all likelihood before any of the really bad side effects crop up. On the other hand, claiming that there is a net benefit in reducing cancer might cause people to use this like a medicine over a long period of time, perhaps even causing some other disease or even cancer itself.

[EOTE]

47. Of course not. That's why we have the FDA.

You don't go tinkering around with man-made chemicals without testing them extensively before human consumption. However, we're not talking about man made chemicals, we're talking about a plant which hasn't been chemically processed. The FDA, and the government as a whole has NO BUSINESS telling people what they can do with something that grows from the ground. People can do whatever the hell they want with it.

[jberryhill]

89. Why hasn't that happened with broccoli?

Broccoli is touted as a cancer fighting agent as well, but I don't see too many morgues filled to the limit with dead cancer patients who engorged on it instead of seeking treatment.

[RegieRocker]

190. There are no ill effects from marijuana for the majority.

Some mental patients should stay away from it and many other things. Still believe in the b.s.?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

166. On the subject of waiting till its legal, I decided in 1963, not to wait.

I claimed my rights.

[jberryhill]

169. Lol I've been on the waiting list since about 1974

I guess I'll wait a few more decades, until all the facts are in.

Wouldn't want to do anything risky.

[ooglymoogly]

159. Sweetheart, You have been smoking too many tea bags.

[roody]

21. Smoking not required to ingest cannabis

[Yavin4]

29. You Don't Have To Smoke It

You can eat it.

[deathrind]

101. Cars

Have a long history of killing people. We should outlaw them...like another poster said "you don't have to smoke it, you can eat it" or you don't even have to be near it really if you don't like it. But just because you don't like it is not a reason to keep someone who could benefit from it's use from it.

[dixiegrrrrl]

31. Did you not read the post you replied to?

It said clearly:
Feds' Top Pot Researcher Says Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer.

[originalpckelly]

34. The poster edited it after I posted a reply.

The original post I replied to had nothing about that.

[Fly by night]

37. Not true. You really are a bit much, aren't you.

I don't have time to change a post for any reason other than to correct misspellage. To suggest that I did is the height of weirdness.

Look around you, Custer. You're outnumbered.

And it's about damned time.

[dixiegrrrrl]

110. I see the post was edited at 7:20, I see your reply was at 7:39, AFTER the edit.

( one reason edit times are shown in threads).:evilgrin:

[originalpckelly]

143. The post was edited at 6:44 AM my time, I posted at 6:39 AM.

So the post was indeed edited to include more information after I posted a reply.

[ooglymoogly]

154. Sweetheart, you have been smoking too many tea bags. nt

[tibbiit]

33. hello....

You can eat it or vaporize. So lung cancer and emphysema are non-issues.
tib

[EOTE]

39. Actually, marijuana, even smoked, is likely to protect against lung cancer.

But don't let that stop you spouting your indignation due to outdated notions and biases.

[Maine_Nurse]

58. There are plenty of delivery systems besides smoking, even for home users...

oral ingestion, vaporization, transdermal absorption, sublingual sprays (like Sativex). Smoking ANYTHING is harmful, but there are many ways around it.

Also, cannabis extracts are able to be standardized, as has been done with Sativex. Note that these extracts are extremely different than the older (and generally poorly performing) synthetics like Marinol. There is quite a bit of evidence that a number of the 35+ natural cannabinoid compounds found in marijuana have therapeutic benefit and likely act in a synergystic manner. Simply recreating a single compound has shown itself to be less than ideal.

[Maine-ah]

81. hey there!!

:hi: always nice to see another Maine person on board at DU!

[jbnow]

182. Before marijuana was outlawed Cannabis Tinctures were made and sold

by all the major drug companies.
Here are pictures of the bottles they used. Note among the pharmaceutical companies with their own brand was:
# ABBOTT LABORATORIES
# PARKE DAVIS & COMPANY (today known as Pfizer, Inc.)
# ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
# MERCK & COMPANY
# UPJOHN CO.

Prior to that they were made in apothecary shops

Cannabis was a widely used medicine... different types and doses prescribed for various ailments as noted here
http://antiquecannabisbook.com/chap11/MedUses.htm

It's use is in all the medical text books and books of drugs used with specific prescriptions
So it's almost funny that they can now mock it having any medical usefulness and act like it's old hippies who push for it.

Oh, for oral ingestion the ingredients must be extracted in alcohol or fat for the useful parts to get into our system.

[frylock]

66. have you never heard of a vaporizer? green butter?

cmon man. educate yourself.

[fascisthunter]

74. Marijuana has been proven to help Asthma patients

[2banon]

82. don't have to smoke cannibis to benefit from it's medicinal qualities..n/t

[Deep13]

85. In truth, chemotherapy and ratiation are carcinogentic.

It's a question of risk versus benefits.

[SkyDaddy7]

95. Read the paper...It covers the questions you are asking. nt.

[notadmblnd]

119. There are other methods that can be used if one is concerned about their lungs

vaporizing and ingesting are two that come to mind.

[RainDog]

189. Harvard published a study in 2007 that indicated cannabis cut lung cancer tumors by 50%

which you can read in my link, below

[The Doctor.]

209. "Tea".

The point is, it should be legal so it can be taken properly.

Also, so that we can accumulate data on its deleterious effects. Thing is; this is one of those drugs with a very high benefit/drawback ratio.

[Scuba]

19. Thanks for posting. Science 1, Fear 0 n/t

[originalpckelly]

35. And:

"However, they cautioned that larger studies are needed to confirm the findings and that the risks of marijuana use may outweigh any health benefits."

And have they isolated the chemical responsible for the anticarcinogenic effects of cannabis?

I want to read the actual study. I can't find it on PubMed. Do you have a link to it?

[EOTE]

42. Those risks that they've been unable to illustrate after decades of research.

What else needs more research? Hmmm? When do we drop the bullshit and realize that the harm of marijuana lies in its prohibition? How long do we continue to lock people up due to non-violent, victimless crimes under the pretense that we just MIGHT be protecting them from themselves? Can you honestly continue to support this prohibition with a clear conscience?

[wildbilln864]

91. here ya go...

A list of real studies!
knock yourself out!
:hi:

[Webster Green]

158. Yeah, pot is really risky stuff.

I saw it on 'Dragnet'? :rofl:

[tpsbmam]

79. +1 nt

[RainDog]

186. here are some studies - including a clinical trial in Spain

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/RainDog/42

this is a link to a post with links to the academic articles related to the subject.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. One, heavily-qualified, study being blown out of proportion by the OP.

The OP title is Daily Mail quality science journalism, frankly.

[originalpckelly]

5. Even a big drug company has to have a couple trials go its way...

before it's medicine can go to market.

This is something that should reschedule it so that research can be done on the various molecules in the plant believed to be active, maybe it won't actually even be the real ones from the plant, but related ones that are found to be more effective without as many side effects.

[Fly by night]

7. See answer #6 to find a clue.

Interesting that this OP attracted such dismissiveness from the truly clueless so quickly.

First they ignore us, then they laugh at us, then they fight us, ...

... and then we win.

I don't know about the Daily Mail but I'll happily take an NIH-affiliated web-site as the source of the well-researched truth. There have been rumors that NIH is getting restive that its recommendation to reclassify cannabis has been buried at DEA for too long. This might suggest some shift-age in backbone-age.

Again, clues abound, guys. But then, so does the Garden.

[Occulus]

51. "such dismissiveness from the truly clueless"

Hint: those posters are not clueless.

They're quite well-aware of what they're trying to pull here. Bank on it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. What I'm trying to "pull" is to encourage more responsible and less sensationalist discussion of

scientific research.

It may very well be the case that cannabinoids have uses in fighting cancer.

That does not excuse sloppy, sensationalist misrepresentation of research like the OP.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. Characterizations are not accepted as facts in science

And all you did was characterize, you did not even bother to attemt to address the actual content. That speaks loudly as to the strength of your position, frankly.
'Daily Mail' quality? In what respect, Charlie?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. I very much doubt that either you, I or the OP is in any way qualified to address the content.

And even if you or they are, DU is not the place to do so, and the OP is absolutely not the way to do it.

I have no reason to believe that the claims put forwards in the OP are false. However, I also have no reason to believe that they are true.

If you want to see why "Daily Mail quality", look up the Ontological Oncology Project. The OP would be perfectly at home there.

[Fly by night]

63. Rankin, I don't have a clue who you are, but I'm happy to show you segments of my bio sketch.

Care to return the favor?

Bernard H. Ellis, Jr., MA, MPH, is an epidemiologist with over thirty years in substance abuse-related research, program development and administration. He specializes in epidemiological research strategies to assess public health program development, delivery and effectiveness. During his career, Mr. Ellis has held research and program management positions with two federal agencies (NIH and CDC) and with three state governments (Tennessee, New Mexico and Wyoming). His areas of research and programmatic involvement include substance abuse and HIV/AIDS-related epidemiological research at the tribal, state and federal level.

During Mr. Ellis’ career, he has been involved in a number of ground-breaking efforts. As a member of the Information Projects Branch in the National Cancer Institute, Mr. Ellis was responsible for developing a medical office-based smoking cessation approach which was used by over 10% of U.S. physicians and over 20% of U.S. dentists to assist their smoking patients to quit. He was a principal consultant in the public and professional education efforts surrounding the release of Nicorette, the first prescription drug licensed to assist smokers to address their nicotine addiction while quitting smoking.... In the early 1990s, Mr. Ellis was responsible for organizing the first research unit within any U.S. state health department devoted to studying substance abuse as a public health problem for the New Mexico Department of Health. That work led him to assist six other states and seven American Indian tribes in developing similar research programs and to serve as an expert consultant on substance abuse to the U.S. Congress through the GAO’s Office of Technology Assessment....

Mr. Ellis has authored numerous publications on public health strategies and performance of current efforts to reduce tobacco use, cancer, HIV/AIDS and substance abuse. In addition, he has provided consultant support to almost 100 major national and state governmental and private organizations in the past four decades. Mr. Ellis earned his BA in Psychology, Sociology and Political Science from Vanderbilt University, an MA in Sociology (Demography and Human Ecology) from the University of Texas at Austin and an MPH (Public Health Education and Epidemiology) from the University of California at Berkeley. He also has additional graduate training in Sociology at Vanderbilt University and Health Communication, Health Promotion and Medical Anthropology at Stanford University.
---

OK, Rankin. Your turn.

PS: Medical Marijuana Legislation: Mr. Ellis provided written and spoken testimony on several issues associated with establishing state medical marijuana programs for legislatures and/or governors in Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Tennessee.

[Thunderstruck]

69. Pwned hard!

[Rex]

77. Expect nothing but crickets.

I can't believe the bullshit against weed in this thread, very illuminating who has a clear agenda to keep it off the market. Wonder how many anti-pot activits actually work for Big Pharma or the govt? Sad little people lying over and over again about something that is quite frankly none of their fucking business.

Don't like pot? Then go deal with it in your own life, stop lying to people here about it.

Better yet, just go away.

:eyes:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

105. So, no actual scientific medical qualifications, then?

You refer to an awful lot of time spend advising and commenting on marijuana, but no actual scientific training that would enable you to judge reliably whether the science in the paper you refer to is valid or not.

But that's not what I'm complaining about.

The science in the paper may well be valid. I don't know; the fact that it's been peer revued is evidence in its favour. You may know; if so, that makes your original posting even more unforgiveable. My criticism is *not* "you are saying cannabis cures cancer when it doesn't", it's "you are exaggerating and sensationalising a piece of scientific research that would be better served by a more sober treatment".

I don't know if you're familiar with http://www.badscience.net/ or http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/ (or any of the other manifestations of the oncological ontology project). But science journalism is in general appauling, and a post headlined "BIG NEWS!! National Cancer Institute acknowledges cannabis kills cancer" is not a good way of reporting anything that contains the word "possible".

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulk]

133. the poster you responded to brings up some valid points

and your response in no way advances your cause. You exhibit the primary failing of many in the pro marijuana community - advocacy bordering on fanaticism.

Which sucks, imho - as a medical marijuana card holder myself, I would appreciate a more serious approach to it's use as a medicine - and I don't find the sort of sensationalism in the claims of your OP useful toward that end.

[Fly by night]

139. The decision by the NCI to acknowledge the anti-tumor properties of cannabis is very big news.

It is being treated that way in a number of my circles, not just this one. I am glad you have a medical cannabis card. There are many Americans (including myself) who would benefit from access to cannabis who cannot yet do that legally. The decision by the National Cancer Institute to acknowledge scientific fact that has been with us since the 1970s is much appreciated and very long overdue. It may also help folks sooner than later, sensationalist headline or no.

Out of curiosity, for what condition do you have a cannabis prescription? Casting aspirsionsitis, perhaps?

[Rex]

149. I'm shocked at all the head burying going on around here.

You would think they would be rejoicing, not trying to downplay a very historic moment for cannabis. Makes me think they are just being insincere or don't understand what the term 'sensationalism' means.

I don't think it means what they think it is supposed to mean.

EDIT - here is what you will have to do to get people to take it to help fight cancer - put it into pill form and stamp eli lilly on it...cuz you know they have our best interest at heart (Big Pharma) THEN you will see all these people accepting it as a cure or preventative. THAT is the only way...otherwise just dirty fucking hippies smoke pot and you know how people hate them for existing.

[RegieRocker]

183. It is called denial and it is seen at both ends of the spectrum

left and right.

[paulk]

198. since you asked

chronic pain from degenerative arthritis - for which I've found mj to be only moderately effective ... mostly, perhaps, because I don't like being stoned all the time...

Another poster on this subthread doesn't like the idea of big Pharma developing a pill - I'm all for it! I would love for there to be real research into this drug, equating to specific effects, dosing, etc., rather than the mishmash of claims made by all the local dispensaries about the different strains and their different health/medicinal effects. Especially since I would bet money that the majority of people getting cards here in CO are using the drug for recreational reasons. (I do personally know some that aren't, but I know many more that are...) Make it legal for recreational use and make a true separation between the medicinal and recreational properties.

[Fly by night]

200. We share at least one of the medical problems for which cannabs is useful.

I also derive benefit (re: improved sleep and pain reduction) from fibromyalgia and diverticulosis.

I agree that we need more research to parse out the benefits of the plant. There are also many ways to ingest the plant material besides smoking it, though inhalation (these days, most folks use vaporizers to eliminate cabbon monoxide and tars entirely) provides the most immediate relief and the best way to titrate dosage.

Since you are in Colorado, I imagine you can find strains with higher CBD and CBN levels and lower levels of THC that might bring you benefit without being as high. I have some contacts in the cannabis science world out there, if you'd like to speak with someone who might be able to guide you to better strains/dosage schedules, etc.

[Fly by night]

242. In addition to finding lower-THC strains, you might try using less.

Unless the cannabis strain you are using is very high in THC, you should be able to use less at any one time to mediate the "stoned" feeling. Inhaling cannabis is the best way to titrate the dosage and varporizers are the best way to do that without exposing yourself to tars and carbon monoxide.

My offer to put you in contact with university-based researchers in Colorado who might be able to help you still stands. Just let me know.

[Rex]

125. So you haven't actually read the paper, but will comment on its validity

just based on...nothing really just your unprofessional opinion. :eyes:

Looks like you got pwned...or maybe you just don't know when to quit.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

156. No! No! No! I've been very careful *not* to comment on its validity!

Read what you're criticising before you write, please!

[EOTE]

126. No scientific medical qualifications?

Ummm, do you know what an Epidemiologist does?

[Rex]

129. Someone who collects butterflies?

Kidding that is a lepidopterist.

[Fly by night]

132. I'm not a skin doctor either.

Just glad mine is thick enough these days.

[Rex]

146. Ha! Good one!

And YES you do have to have a very, very thick skin on DU...to survive the years of the thinner skins and their unwarranted outrage at everything.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

160. Data analysis.

Epidemiology is the study of the incidence and demography of illnesses, not of their biology.

But, again, that's neither here nor there - I would happily tear strips of the OP if it came from a nobel laureate in medicine. The complaint I am raising is *not* that the science is not valid, but that the reporting of it is shoddy.

[EOTE]

239. It IS here.

There are few people better qualified to determine the significance of this data than someone who does that for a living.

[Fly by night]

141. I've shown you a small portion of my resume. Now show me yours. Pretty please.

Hope that more polite request prompts some kind of honest response.

Or not.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

157. I've already told you I'm a mathematician.

More specifically, I have a first class BA in maths and a Certificate of Further Study from the university of Cambridge, an MSc with distinction in maths from the University of Warwick, and I've just completed a PhD in maths from Queen Mary University of London (my thesis went to the binders today).

None of this is in any way relevant, but since you asked for the information, here it is.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

168. Take a look at my signature.

As you say, I am completely unqualified to comment on whether cannabis can help treat cancer, *which is why I've refrained from doing so*!

What I (and anyone who can read) am competent to comment on is sensationalist reporting of scientific issues.


Incidentally, congratulations on a post which consists entirely of personal attacks and has nothing of any substance whatsoever to it.

[Fly by night]

170. You're welcome. Good look finding a job.

My Uncle Billy is always hiring. But you'll have to bring your own shovel.

[emilyg]

215. You lost me - quite unpleasant.

[Fly by night]

226. That sub-thread did degenerate pretty quickly. Sorry if I offended you.

It is frustrating to have one's credentials, or even one's right to bring information here, questioned so persistently by someone who has no basis for their attacks. It usually brings me down to their level, which is someplace I try to avoid.

Besides, many of my best friends are PhDs. Really. They just live and work in the real world. That has tended to season them a bit.

Once again, sorry if I offended you.

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Buzz Clik]

131. I have a relevant question:

Assuming that you are, indeed, Bernard Ellis (I have no reason to believe otherwise), then I'm impressed with your creds. So, please, answer this question: In your OP, you stated that "cannabis kills cancer". Do you really feel that the Cancer Topic summary actually supports that statement?

Going a few pages deeper into the article, antitumor properties are discussed in various trials. The first paragraph of results discussed the decreased incidence of tumors in rats and mice when exposed to or fed cannabinoids. The second paragraph talks about possible antitumor mechanisms in cell culture and in rats and mice. The third paragraph discusses the antiinflammatory actions of cannabis and the subsequent development of the hypothesis that it can help in the prevention and treatment of colorectal cancer. The final paragraph discusses the relevant antiviral actions of delta-9-THC.

All of which is fantastic and hopeful news.

But, my question is this: Can we really equate those medical facts with "cannabis kills cancer"? It's not mere semantics; scientists and medical researchers generally use very measured terms in such circumstances to avoid overstating or extrapolating results.

[Fly by night]

136. Titles of OPs are limited by the space available -- no room for caveats or footnotes.

Again, the fact that cannabinoids attack and kill multiple cancer cell lines is not news to anyone who has followed this science for the past four decades, as I have. If you'll read back through the OP comments, you'll see multiple posts with links that document this fact.

For those of you who struggle with semantics, you should note that I didn't title the OP: "Cannabis kills ALL cancers ALL the time." That would not only have been misleading, it would have been wrong.

As it is, there is nothing wrong with my OP title. It is accurate and it is eye-catching -- as good titles should be.

As for me impersonating myself, well, I don't know many folks who have been around DU for the past seven+ years, long enough to know my story, who would trade places with me. I wouldn't trade places with myself if I had a choice.

But since I can't, and since the feds are still watching, I will continue to give them (and you) a good show. Complete with links and footnotes.

[Fiendish Thingy]

151. You could have composed your OP title to include the word "MAY"

as in "may kill cancer"; that's 3 little characters that I'm sure would have fit in, despite space limitations, and would have been a much more honest, less sensationalistic headline.

Your waffling, saying "I didn't title the OP: "Cannabis kills ALL cancers ALL the time" only weakens your case. If you, like myself, support research in the effort to ease suffering and cure illness (as opposed to unquestioning, cherry-picking advocacy), then you too would be opposed to the use of the phrase "Cannabinoids kill cancer", when the research you link supporting your headline doesn't make that assertion.

[Fly by night]

152. But I didn't. So sue me, or keep twisting semantic pretzels with your logic.

It is entertaining.

Not very informative nor of much use in moving this discussion forward.

But entertaining (in a mental mastubatory sort of way).

Go for it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

172. I don't consider treatments with life/death ramifications to be "semantic pretzels"

Why are you afraid of being held accountable for your choice of words?

I actually think debate about the accuracy of your definitive assertion that "cannabinoids kill cancer!" advances the discussion more than 100 posts in unquestioning agreement do - that's something best left to the echo chamber of right wing talk radio.

Remember, I'm in favor of legalization and research too - we're on the same side on this issue- it just seems that my standards for scientific proof of the efficacy of ANY treatment for ANY life threatening illness are higher than yours.

[Fly by night]

174. Hyperbolic much?

There were indeed life and death implications for the millions of people who have died since the cancer-killing properties of cannabis were first announced by the Medical College of Virginia (and then promptly buried and de-funded) in the 1970s. If the National Cancer Institute had overridden the decision by NIDA to de-fund that research and instead had decided to quadruple the funding to the MCV in order to fight a real war on cancer by pursuing this promising scientific evidence, just imagine where we would be today.

Certainly not debating the niceties and specificities of OP titles here at DU. You betcha. If you're on the same side of this issue, then act like it. Be thankful that the NCI has finally acknowledged four decades of research, all of which has come to the same conclusion, on their web-site.

Cannabinoids possess potent cancer-fighting properties. For that reason, among three dozen others, cannabis does not belong in Schedule 1.

Deal with it, drug worriers.

[cui bono]

199. Wow! You should find this Mr. Ellis and get him to post here!

:hi:

[Fly by night]

201. Now that's an idea.

He must be around here somewhere.

[Lint Head]

4. LEGALIZE NOW!

[wildbilln864]

9. k&r! nt

:patriot:

[Fly by night]

11. One more self-kick for my old NCI stomping grounds ...

... and then (really) to the Garden.

[meow mix]

13. "no medical value" indeed

the law is based on untruth and not even valid.

[spanone]

14. K&r...

[Scuba]

15. here's the emperical evidence for marijuana

http://marijuanamovie.org

Takes about 45 minutes to watch.

[Fly by night]

24. For more empirical evidence for the health effects of cannabis, read this.

Emerging Clinical Applications For Cannabis & Cannabinoids
A Review of the Recent Scientific Literature, 2000 — 2011

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7002

It takes about 20 minutes and doesn't require broadband access to the 'net to access.

(Plus, I helped edit that report.)

[Scuba]

115. Thanks for posting, and your help on the work. n/t

[Scuba]

16. BTW, I wonder how long that will stay up on the website....

... I took a screenshot, and recommend you do too.

[opihimoimoi]

25. I just knew it....besides cancer aspect.....pot keeps you looking younger and less wrinkly....

[TahitiNut]

44. Even better ...

... it keeps others looking younger and less wrinkly. It makes the world a better place. :silly:

[Generic Other]

56. Oh yeah! Some weed, Opi, Tahiti and my youthful glow

Come! Don't bogart that joint!

[opihimoimoi]

177. LOL....Come, we get lo'ded w a CHONG... :o)

:smoke:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUWD-FflZPI

[dixiegrrrrl]

111. LOL!!!!!!

[felix_numinous]

26. K&R

[Javaman]

27. Yes and the fake war on drugs is a massive money maker for the government.

Nothing will change until there is an institutional exchange of profit from the selling, growing and manufacture of pot.

[karynnj]

30. Explain George Harrison, Linda McCartney and many other 60s musicians' deaths

No one ever suggested they stopped using pot.

[Fly by night]

38. Are you seriesly making that leap of logic here?

Please read the link to the Tashkin et al research cited above. PULLEEZZE!

Those scientists accurately assessed that exposure to cannabis does not increase cancer risk and may indeed provide SOME protective effect.

Even nonsmokers of all substances get lung cancer. We are talking relative risk and other (you know) scientific concepts here.

Read the Tashkin et al above. (Pretty please.)

[karynnj]

68. The OP's subject had no such subtlety - "Cannabis kills cancer"

I understand completely that the study says that it does not increase the risk and might slightly help, but that is NOT Cannabis kills cancer! I did not say that cannabis causes cancer.

I do understand the scientific concepts - in fact, I worked in applied math and statistics for 23 years.

[liberation]

100. So you and the OP are even then.

Since your original fallacy argument had no subtlety either.


BTW, George Harrison was stabbed in the lung in his mid 50s and was a cigarette smoker during most of his life. So it is very easy to "explain" his cause of death based on probability alone, anyone with basic understanding of applied math and statistics would know that.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EOTE]

41. For real? You really can't be serious.

I had an Uncle who died of cancer. He ate Pez many times per week, it was his favorite candy. Clearly Pez causes cancer.

[phleshdef]

50. George Harrison smoked cigarrettes for over 2 decades.

Linda McCartney got breast cancer which is a huge danger for all women, regardless of lifestyle.

[LaPera]

208. Harrison smoked cigarettes for OVER forty years-right up until he was diagnosed with throat cancer

"The Fab Four openly used the deadliest, most addictive drug known to man - cigarettes!".

It wasn't pot or LSD that killed Harrison. It was cigarettes. The Beatles smoked cigarettes as much as or more than any band in the history of rock music. They picked up the habit in Liverpool, which has one of the highest rates of cigarette smoking on Earth and also one of the highest rates of death from cancer.

'In the poorer areas of Liverpool, the smoking rate is probably 70 percent," "The lifetime risk of a man in Liverpool getting lung cancer is one in seven."

That's one of the highest rates on Earth. The rate for women is also unusually high.

George Harrison smoked cigarettes right up until he was diagnosed with throat cancer in 1997 and that the ex-Beatle blamed the disease that killed him on the habit. He was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2000, not long after he had survived a stabbing by a deranged intruder into his home.

[Geoffrey_Lebowski]

72. George Harrison was a cigarette smoker ...

Just an FYI

[Baclava]

45. I'm gonna live forever????!!!!

Awesomo!

I guess I'll need to buy more shoes.

[EOTE]

55. That's what I'm thinking.

Weed is one of my few vices. I love reading stuff like this. I feel better now than I did in High School by a good margin. I attribute a lot of my good health to cannabis. When I was in my teens, I'd get bronchitis at least once a year and it would always be BAD. I'd have to take a week off school and take antibiotics for 8 days or more in order to get rid of it. Since I started smoking, I haven't suffered from bronchitis AT ALL. Now when I feel that familiar tickle, I'll smoke a bowl or so and my chest clears up immediately. I'm able to cough up any mucous residing in my chest and that tickle goes away. I think we're going to continue to hear about the beneficial effects of cannabis for a long time.

[Baclava]

162. Rock on. I'm getting younger every day.

Whatever works, plants are medicinal too.

It doesn't have to come in a powdered pill.

[MelissaB]

48. A big K&R

:kick:

[uponit7771]

52. This is REALLY good news, REALLY good news

[Ordy116]

57. Good to hear

But I doubt that it will do much. People are just too ignorant to pay attention to facts.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

60. Congrats on your victory!

May you find peace and happiness after your long struggle.

NGU

[tridim]

61. It's the best stress and anxiety tonic on the planet.

And my government says I can't take it at risk of losing my freedom.

Does. not. compute.

[drokhole]

64. And the people who say "pot makes me paranoid" are usually just afraid of getting caught.

If it were legal, it wouldn't be a problem.

[liberation]

102. To be fair, pot can exacerbate some people who may have predisposition to psychosis

That being said, there are plenty of "triggers" for such individuals and that would lead to half of our existence to be outlawed if we were to be consistent.

Not everybody can handle pot, and not everybody should have it. But those who have no issues with it should have access to it. A legalized substance could be controlled for quality, and doctors could screen people that could be affected by it. Never mind, that instead of wasting money on fighting drugs for profit (let's not forget that) we could be actually increasing tax revenues. And instead of prosecuting people for profit (here we go again), we could be using far less money with better results educating them.

What it is ridiculous is that our government decided to spent billions of our tax money on "protecting" us from what is basically a plant (a weed really), while at the same time that very government tells us that providing health care for the majority of our citizens it is not their responsibility. So there seems to be a clear lack of consistency...

IMHO, if the government does not want to help pay for the "upkeep" of our bodies (aka healthcare) it should not be in the business of telling us what we can do with them.

In the end, I always find it quite telling that some substances like pot which help some people out, makes them more relaxed, provides them with a better quality of life, or just makes things more enjoyable... those substances are outlawed. Yet things with little benefit and a plethora of health issues like tobacco and hard alcohol are not only legal but highly profitable. It seems we do not have a society with the goal of benefiting the many, but simply with the goal of allowing the few to profit obscenely... it seems that in the US we pay taxes, in a big part, to help pay for our own repression.

[drokhole]

128. Well put!

Great point in mentioning that other factors/triggers can lead to mental health issues (society being one of the largest, in my opinion), and you're right in that there seems to be a chance cannabis could be a contributing factor to those with a predisposition. From what I've read/seen, they've addressed that, but have noted they haven't been able to draw any definitive conclusion. In truth, it's probably a combination of a lot of things.

I guess the kind of people I was referring to are those who by all accounts are "normal" (whatever that means), but get "paranoid" when they use cannabis because they think someone might catch them. A lot of those reactions, I feel, would be lessened with proper set and setting (including the larger "setting" of it being legal).

In addition to your other fantastic points, I'd also like to point out one more "substance" that is legal and highly profitable, yet gets an almost complete free pass by the public - sugar. Sugar is completely unnecessary to the human body/diet, and has lead to the record rates of obesity and type-2 diabetes. Not only that, its proven to be addictive, affecting your body and brain chemistry, and altering your mood/consciousness (funny how people are so comfortable with the notion of a "sugar high"). The cost to the individual, and the rest of society, is insurmountable (with health costs in the trillions). Yet we feed it to our children on a daily basis. Now, I'm not saying that sugar should be outlawed or banned - people can eat whatever the hell the want - just that people need to be thoroughly educated on the matter.

[liberation]

181. It's even worse than that

Some substances like corn syrup (and "real" sugar is no different in this respect) which is a huge factor in the epidemic levels of diabetes in this country, as well as beef consumption which is behind the equally epidemic levels of heart disease... are not only "legal" but we actually invest billions of dollars in public money subsidizing them.

There is no logical reason, based in physical reality, that would lead a bag of steak tomatoes to be more expensive than an actual steak. It takes far more land, nutrients, space, and energy to raise a pound of beef than to grow a pound of tomatoes. Yet, in this country poor people have to eat large quantities of meat instead of vegetables because it is cheaper. So there is not only a lack of consistency on what its "allowed." But also on what it is "fomented." That is why I always find the whole "we're doing this for your own good" arguments so utterly nauseating.


Pot like many other natural substances is not OK for some people, but the same can be said for things like nuts... some people are incredibly allergic to them. Now, should nuts be banned? No. Those who enjoy them should be able to eat them, and those who can't have them for whatever reason should have access to information to avoid them.


We no longer have a government for the people (I don't think we truly ever had it to begin with). It is an institution which is paid for and bought by the highest bidder, and the individual's checkbook is no match for a corporate one. So pot is prohibited not due to "health concerns" but rather because there is a very powerful and profitable industry which revolves around drug enforcement. And that leads to another of the massive inconsistencies of our system: the worst thing that could happen to the industry in charge of "fighting drugs" is that drugs were to disappear tomorrow as that would put them out of a job and profit. That is how messed up the system is.

[drokhole]

194. This post rocks the shit.

I'd add to it, but there's no need (plus, I'm limited to typing this on a phone, which is a bit of a chore). And most are well aware of hemp's myriad of additional uses, and the types of industry that it would immediately threaten (can't threaten the lumber industry fast enough, IMHO), so I won't bother listing them. You nailed it on the head with the allergy analogy, wish it was viewed in that scope more often.

There's some seriously sinister shit that's been pulled on us, and our environment, that's too long and too tiring to list. In terms of the food business, they sell us the foods that make us sick and provide the medicine that treats, but never really cures, us. It's a circular profit loop that's completely fucking demented. And pot threatens the medicine side, as do other hallucinogens - another "Schedule I" called Ibogaine has been shown to seemingly cure herion users almost overnight, yet it remains highly restricted and almost completely illegal. In terms of the business side of pot, "The Union: The Business Behind Getting High" does a fantastic job exposing the pretty much sanctioned black market in selling and prosecuting it.

[RainDog]

206. Your two posts should be published in every newspaper in the country n/t

[jtown1123]

65. I am pro cannabis all the way but it does increase risks of getting testicular cancer

So definitely not a cure all.

[EOTE]

93. There is no definitive link.

And it appears the study has multiple flaws.
http://www.nowpublic.com/health/flawed-study-hypes-testicular-cancer-risk-marijuana

[wildbilln864]

97. link please?

I'd like to see the evidence for your as sertion. Thanks IA. :hi:

[byronius]

67. Completely unsurprised by this.

Rings true, seems true, lots of other evidence both scientific and anecdotal.

Yet the handwringers mumble on, undeterred, having just seen 'Reefer Madness'.

[orbitalman]

71. K & R x 1000

[freshwest]

73. Not big, but huge news! Will sanity return to the USA?

[GReedDiamond]

75. Good...knr...nt.

[GreenTea]

76. And organically grown weed is the very best weed! Remember this.....

Anybody worth knowing here in Humboldt County uses their expertise (using genetically superior strains) spends the the time and the money growing weed the right way...Organically....No chemical fertilizers, nor chemical "nutrients" in the soil or with watering - No chemical insecticides or pesticides. And personally I prefer good strong intense all day sunshine to artificial lighting. Finally curing the weed slowly and properly....To me, that's Cannabinoid pure, true natural clean tasty potent organic weed!

[NashVegas]

87. I Have Yet To See a Single Pro-MJ User

Show any signs of giving a shit whether or not Monsanto gets a patent for a legal version.

[slay]

108. I do - and I will never buy "patented" weed by Monsanto - one of the most evil corporations

i'd rather keep it underground than let Monsanto get they grubby little hands on it. that's a large part of why it's illegal - so far it has not been able to be patented legally - and i hope it never is - patented that is. I DO hope it becomes legal and is only sold locally, by local growers. THAT should be the law.

[Fly by night]

124. Do you believe legal medical cannabis will only be available through Monsanto?

Can't quite grasp your logic here.

Medical cannabis is now legal in 15 states and the District of Columbia.

The last time I checked, Monsanto wasn't a registered caregiver or a registered dispensary in any of those places. They also don't serve those functions in any other country where medical cannabis (in its many forms) is available.

[NashVegas]

144. Hi You

:)

I do believe the sequence of events will lead us to just that. If MJ is widely legalized, the potential for revenue is too great for Eli Lily and Monsanto to ignore.

So there will be legislation limiting who can get licenses to grow and under what circumstances. There will be legislation limiting who can distribute and under what circumstances. How will that legislation be drafted? By whomever gives the best bribes campaign contributions.

Next up, with cannabis legal to grow, the bio-tech industry becomes involved via GMOs. A slight modification here and hello! We have a new patent. All those nifty dozens of varieties that have been around for centuries/millennia? Watch as seed companies get bought up and traditional seeds disappear.

Sorry to be so dour, but I don't see anyway the idealists can keep this from happening. There's simply too much money to be made and the *average* MJ smoker doesn't care if their Doritos come from GM corn or not. I don't believe they'll care much who they buy from, either.

[Fly by night]

163. Hey, neighbor. Have you read our TN Safe Access to Medical Cannabis bill?

It also restricts who can grow, process and distribute medical cannabis here in Tennessee, if we are ever allowed to re-establish our medical cannabis program. But since I wrote it, I can assure you that neither Monsanto, Big Pharma nor any other corporate monolith paid me to write legislation that would favor them. (If you don't believe me, look at my bank account. Here, I'll lend you my magnifying glass.)

Once again, the states that have legalized madical cannabis have not experienced what you fear. It has been thirteen years since California led the way in re-legalizing medical cannabis. If Big Pharma et al were going to do something, they would have done it by now.

The real monopolists in the medical cannabis field now are the handful of highly competent providers in California who are exporting their methods, their experience and (unfortunately) their obscene street-based pricing structure to other states. We benefit from the first two. No one, most assuredly sick folks with few resources, benefits from the third.

Our TN legislation will make high-quality, pharmacologically consistent and organically grown medical cannabis available to eligible patients at $60/oz, with 40% of that price going to the farmer, and 20% apiece going to the processor, distributor and the state.

I'd be happy to send you some details on the bill, if you want. (I think I still have your email address.) Unfortunately, since the flying monekys are in firmer control of our legislature now, our bill will not go as far this year as it did last year (when it passed out of all House committees, including a 20-4 vote in the House Health and Human Resources committee). Pity, that.

[NashVegas]

211. This Just In:

http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/24/medical-marijuana-sales-rival-viagras-new-report/

Medical marijuana is becoming big business — racking up sales totals that rival those for Viagra, according to a new report.

The report, released by See Change LLC, a Colorado company that provides investment advice to businesses (See Change is selling an in-depth version of the report for $1,150), shows that medical marijuana sales have already reached $1.7 billion in states where it is legal — compared with annual Viagra sales of $1.9 billion. (More on Time.com: The 'Gateway' Myth that Will Not Die)

In a conference call with reporters this week, report editor Ted Rose noted that 1 in 4 Americans lives in a state in which medical marijuana is legal, and that nearly 25 million people in those states have medical problems for which the drug can be prescribed. Rose projects that medical marijuana sales will reach $8.9 billion in five years.

The pharms and bio-tech will make the cartels look like Bonnie & Clyde.

[Fly by night]

227. Yes, medical cannabis is BIG business. No, Big Pharma is not involved yet.

Medical marijuana is booming almost everywhere it is now legal. There are a few exceptions, like New Mexico, whose mmj program has been described (accurately) as "schoolmarmish."

But that big business is now spread across tens of thousands of caregivers and dispensaries in the legal states, not concentrated in the hands of a few. Since no one can choke off the supply (anyone can learn to grow at least passable pot in short order) and since most states limit the number of mmj patients that a caregiver or dispensary can supply to and since most states also limit the number of plants per patients that those caregivers/dispensaries can grow for; there are a number of reasons why mmj is much more a "share the wealth" plan than it is a model for monopoly.

Personally, I would like to see some economies of scale in the industry so that patients can pay $60/ounce for their medicine instead of $600/ounce. But that can be done in ways that still maintain the broad-based nature of the enterprise.

Once again, I'd be happy to share with you the TN Safe Access to Medical Cannabis legislation, if you are interested in the subject.

[Fly by night]

243. These BIG businesses profit from the status quo: for-profit prisons, Mexican drug cartels, ...

..., BIG Pharma, alcohol distributors, drug-testing labs, corrupt cops and judges, ....

Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum.

The list is endless and endlessly powerful, until we end the reefer madness.

[Fly by night]

120. Agree completely with you, including the benefits of sunshine over artificial light.

I hope one day soon we can unleash the Humboldt brainpower (and green thumbs) to train tens of thousands of medical cannabis producers nationwide, including here in Tennessee. You folks definitely have much to share with the rest of us (including some mighty incredible strains).

Bless your green tea-infused hearts (and minds)!!

[indimuse]

78. KNR! n/t

[thereismore]

80. Add this: Cannabinoids for Treatment of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain

"Fifteen of the eighteen trials that met inclusion criteria demonstrated a significant analgesic effect of cannabinoid as compared to placebo, several reported significant improvements in sleep. There were no serious adverse effects."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21426373

[Duer 157099]

83. There's just a ton of research that says it's a valuable drug

But somehow it remains Schedule 1.

In a just universe, this of course could not happen. However...

[cmd]

90. I'm available for clinical trials

It would be a great way to get rid of my cancer.

[Fly by night]

130. It's a sad irony that your attempt at humor is accompanied by a photo of Ted Kennedy.

We have almost a decade of research now coming from Spain that demonstrates that cannabinoids attack and kill glioma and glioblastoma cells, the same difficult-to-treat cancer that killed Senator Kennedy. It would have been nice if we could have tried those cannabinoids in treating Senator Kennedy. Of course, he could have just been faking his brain cancer in order to get high.

Sad irony, indeed.

[cmd]

223. It wasn't an attempt at humor

I have stage 4 breast cancer.

[Fly by night]

229. Sorry about your stage 4 breast cancer.

Hope you are able to find cannabis for palliative relief. Perhaps this decision by the National Cancer Institute will help others in your situation in the near future. I hope so.

[raouldukelives]

92. K&R

[slay]

94. It's about time, it's about time, it's about time, it's about time!

sorry got a beastie boys song stuck in my head there for a second - but YAY! NOW is the time to use this information and push for NATIONWIDE medical marijuana! woo-hoo! :woohoo:

Oh yeah, here's that awesome beastie boys song - Beastie Boys- The Update: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3Tk2uy9_Uw

Lyrics for Beastie Boys- The Update:

Children of the earth
Well I Can Hear The Trumpets Blowing Screaming Out The End Of Time
Look Around And Listen And You'll See Every Sign
The Waters Are Polluted As The Forests Are Cut Down
Bombing And Drilling Deep Below Ground
Check The Prophecies From Around The World
And Look Around Now As It All Unfurls
Look Into Yourself And See What Goes On
Get A Feeling In Your Heart Of The Right From Wrong
Because The Mother Earth Needs To Be Respected
Been Far From Too Long That She's Been Neglected
Race Against Race Such A Foolish Waste
It's Like Cuttin' Off Your Nose To Spit Your Face
And At The End Of The Wars What Was The Cost
Well It's Clear That The Earth Was The One Who Lost
We Are One With Her As She Is One With Us
It's Unreal How She Is Treated So Unjust
As Our Planet Grows Smaller Each And Every Day
Everyone Affecting Everyone In Every Way
We're All Citizens Of The World Community
All Here Together And We're Searching For Unity
Over The Years I've Grown And Changed So Much
Things I Know Now Years Ago I Couldn't Touch
There Are Things I've Done That I Wouldn't Do Again
But I'm Glad That I Did 'Cause I've Learned From Them
I Just Try To Stay Present Right Here Right Now
No Worries No Fears And Without Any Doubts

Well It's About Time It's About Time
It's About Time It's About Time It's About Time

'Cause In These Times These Changing Times
A Transition Is Occuring And I Am Not Blind
As The Pendlum Swings A New Age We Enter
And With Every Swing It Draws Closer To The Center
Yes The Storm Before The Calm And The Wars That Lead To Love
Things Must Run Their Course So We Push And We Shove
But We're Here To Work It Out In One Way Or Another
To Find A Mutual Respect For Ourselves And One Another
And The True Key Is A Trust In Self
For When I Trust Myself I Fear No One Else
I Took Control Of My Life Just As Anyone Can
I Want Everyone To See It's In The Palm Of Your Hand
The Past Is Gone The Future Yet Unborn
But Right Here And Now Is Where It All Goes On
I Know We Can Fix It And It's Not Too Late
I Give Respect To King And His Nonviolent Ways
I Dream And I Hope And I Won't Forget
Someday I'm Going To Visit On A Free Tibet
Someday I'm Going To See Us All Joined As One
And It Would Be Too Bad To Blow It Up Before We're Done
'Cause We Long Behind The Rage Learning From The Pain
The Love Behind The Tension Like The Sun Behind The Rain
I'm Sending Loving Light To All That Is
To All Creation And The Life We Live
I'm Not Preaching Bull Shit, Just Speaking My Mind
'Cause I'm Here Now And It's About Time

Well It's About Time It's About Time
It's About Time It's About Time It's About Time

[HCE SuiGeneris]

96. Forgot to reccomend!

Adding a BIG kick, too... :kick:

[Buzz Clik]

98. That's a great endorsement.

Does the quoted material actually say that "cannabis kills cancer"?

[ZombieHorde]

127. The article says cannabis has a potential antitumor effect.

They define antitumor as "Having to do with stopping abnormal cell growth."

[Buzz Clik]

134. Yeah, I know. That's different than killing cancer.

[Fly by night]

137. Yes, like choking someone to death and getting them to stop breathing are two different things.

Same effect, but different things.

I suppose.

When science fails ye, try semantics.

[Buzz Clik]

150. You understand the difference to which I'm referring.

Your thread title, "National Cancer Institute acknowledges cannabis kills cancer" would never be allowed to be a title for a peer-reviewed journal publication. It's vague and highly overstated. After reading the Cancer Institute's brief, the ONLY thing you could say with scientific and technical accuracy is "National Cancer Institute acknowledges that cannabis has the potential for antitumor effects on some forms of cancer in cell culture, mice, and rats." That's it.

I recognize that some research articles have reported stronger conclusions than that, but not every study verifies those conclusions. So, softening the claims is not only warranted, it is demanded.

You know it. I know it. And we both know it is far more than semantics.

[Fly by night]

167. Tree. Meet forest.

Last time I looked, DU was not a peer-reviewed journal. Frankly, the response time is instantaneous here, as is the requirement that posters defend their positions with facts and links, not with phrase-parsing punctiliousness.

What is BIG NEWS about this decision by the National Cancer Institute to post information on their web-site on the chemotherapeutic properties of cannabinoiuds -- in whatever cautious ways they choose to couch that fact -- is that we have known this for almost four decades now and the volume of relevant research on this issue continues to mount (and accelerate) every day. The research findings aren't news -- they have been replicated ad nauseum.

What is news is that our preeminent federal agency established to reduce cancer incidence is finally acknowledging it. And by so doing, they have put the lie to the "no medical benefit" requirement for inclusion of cannabis in Schedule 1. We could just as easily have focused on the other medical benefits of cannabis mentioned in the same NCI web posting. They, too, put the lie to keeping cannabis in Schedule 1.

As for the world of relevant science, I will make the same offer to you that I made upstream. I will show you my resume if you'll show me yours. Then we can discuss who might know something about how to express science in layman's terms and who does not.

Your turn. Please don't respond without acknowledging or identifying your own relevant credentials.

If you're simply a 'net grammarian, that's ok too. It's just not science.

It is, however, a one-trick pony.

[Buzz Clik]

196. You were real quick to challenge a poster because of your credentials.

Lots of degrees, lots of research experience, lots of ability to sift through scientific and medical literature and come up with nuggets of truth.

If you were some slouch who did this as a hobby, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. But, when a man with a string of letters after his name and a big time title says, "Cannabis kills cancer", then people believe him.

You can't have it both ways, Dr. Ellis. If you want to portray yourself as scientifically and medically credible, then live up to those standards. If you want to be just another bulletin board hack, then we'll give you the level of respect due such a person.

Your announcement really is big, big news. There was absolutely no need to sell it so hard. I have absolutely no doubt that more than half the people who read your OP are now convinced that a hot shot cancer institute believes pot cures cancer. That pushes the boundaries of false hope.

[Fly by night]

203. I'm not sure now just what your point is. Really.

As I have said now numerous times on this thread, there is nothing newsworthy about the FACT that cannabinoids have been shown to have potent anti-tumor effects in at least a half dozen cancer cell lines, if not more. Those of us who have followed the issue have known that since at least the mid 1970s.

What is newsworthy is to have the National Cancer Institute acknoweldge that FACT, along with acknowledging that cannabis provides other medical benefits to cancer patients (and to others suffering from a host of serious diseases) that should preclude its continued classification as a Schedule 1 drug (no medical benefit, highly toxic, high potential for abuse).

Rather than continue down this path (toward where, I am no longer sure), you might want to visit the NORML report cited earlier on "Emerging Clinical Uses for Cannabis and Cannabinoids", which has a section on cancer. You might also want to track down the proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Cannabis Therapeutics, which I was honored to be invited to as a guest of the conference last April. You would learn a great deal by reading those reports.

I have been posting here for seven+ years and am comfortable both with what I post and how I post it. There is ample scientific evidence that cannabinoids both cure and prevent cancer. It is difficult to debate those FACTS with someone who won't read the citations provided. If you want to do that and then get back to me, please do so.

[Buzz Clik]

214. I guess we come from different professional cultures.

But I'm not sure why that is. I've served on the editorial board of two scientific journals and dozens of panels that review research proposals, including NIH.

With that background comes the discipline of being very careful in exactly how important observations are worded. One simply does not overstate findings. If an author or investigator claims that "drug x kills disease y", then that better be the case because that statement is sweeping and very important. If, as you claimed earlier, that your intention was simply to say "cannabis kills some cancers some of the time", then that's what you should have said.

Please keep in mind that I am not diminishing the importance of the article you posted. Having a group with clout state unambiguously that cannabis can kill some cancer cells and reduce the formation of some tumors is big. Real big.

I'll leave you alone now. No ill will intended.

[Fly by night]

230. Thanks. I am glad we agree on the importance of the substance of my OP, if not the title.

I could not post an OP here entitled "The sun rises in the east" without being held to account by someone who could say, rightly, that in the winter, the sun rises in the SOUTH-east. Most readers would get my point. Not all.

Perhaps my title was too provocative for some. However, as we agree, to have the National Cancer Institute finally acknowledge what some of us have known for decades (both the chemotherapeutic and the symptomatic relief benefits of cannabis for cancer patients) is indeed BIG NEWS that hopefully will influence policy in short order.

From what I hear, a recommendation to reclassify cannabis was sent forward from NIH months (if not years) ago. It is still sitting on the DEA's desk. Sure glad DEA had no role in the approval of penicillin, though we might be a less crowded planet if that were the case.

I would be interested in the basis of your professional opinion on the issue, if you'd like to PM me with that. Thanks.

[DeSwiss]

99. Well duh. - K&R n/t

[intaglio]

103. For the umpteenth Bl**dy time you do not have to FN smoke it

Rapid action pharmacological effects - use a vapouriser

For constant low doses - use in food; yes, brownies; chocolate drinks and once long ago a friend used to add as a spice to lamb chops. Check the many Cannabis Cookbooks

If you really must mix intoxicants for recreational purposes (where legal) then make a retsina.

I repeat

You do not have to smoke it

[slay]

107. +1. "the smoking is bad" line does not work on marijuana - you can cook with it, use a vaporizer

just like you said. it's amazing how well anti-marijuana propaganda has worked on some people.

[Shining Jack]

109. K&R

Great news indeed. :)

[riverbendviewgal]

113. You do not have to smoke it

I believe my late husband and late son, both diagnosed with cancer within two months of each other, lived a very good quality life with the help of smoking pot and helped them cope with their pending deaths.

It lessened their pain and gave them calmness and they could live in the present enjoying each moment.

My friend's 80 year plus mom was in agony with severe arthritis pain. She was given morphine for meds. She was sleeping all day, had no appetite, was dizzy and very groggy. Six months ago my friend had a mutual friend who told her he was taking medical cannabis for his cancer pain.
So my friend, her sister and her mother went to their family doctor and persuaded him to prescribe the medical cannabis. She now takes no morphine, just takes 1 cannabis pill in the morning and a Tylenol in the afternoon She has an appetite. One of the first things my friend's mom said was that she found herself hungry more often. LOL. BTW the doctor who poo pooed the idea has reluctantly admitted some things do work better.

So now she is a very happy older lady who can enjoy the things she used to and no longer sleeps all the time and has very little pain. Even her therapists said they can see the difference. She has lost the tenseness and stiffness she once had.


I believe the pharmas don't want this med legal because it will be cheaper and cut in on all their other pain killers.

[Recursion]

121. "Cannabis kills cancer"? And the award for bogus sensationalist headline goes to...

... Fly by night!

[Fly by night]

145. And the reward for the least meaningful and/or most pointless response goes to ...

... well, it's a tie. There are at least three other "drug worriers" also responding on this thread. I'll let the four of you fight it out for "Most Irrelevant" honors today.

Me, I'll just keep celebrating the honesty of the National Cancer Institute, long overdue as it is.

[Recursion]

147. Look, I'm glad your pardon application is being sent...

...and if there were a petition I would sign it, but I'm so tired of hearing people make bogus claims about this one weed. It's neither the devil nor a cure-all. It's a ****ing plant with complex physiological and psychotropic effects, and the stridency and self-righteousness on either side of this is simply irritating.

[Fly by night]

176. There is nothing strident, self-righteous, or bogus about the OP or the power of NCI's decision.

There is also nothing at all new about this topic, including here on DU. Here are three threads I've posted over the past four years on this topic as illustration:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2326296

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5831628

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5877153

What is (GOOD) BIG NEWS is that the National Cancer Institute has finally acknowledged this science (and other science on the legitimate medical uses of cannabis) publicly.

As for your comment about signing a petition, I would say "thanks" if I thought you were being sincere. However, signatures from strangers on a petition carry no weight in the Presidential pardon process. Hopefully, signed and notarized support letters from 170 professional colleagues, government officials, neighbors, friends, fellow activists in the election integrity and medical marijuana arenas and a dozen homegrown DUers who I do actually know might just do the trick.

[Mnemosyne]

122. A huge K&R! Hope you had a great day in the Garden!

:hi::hug:

[blackspade]

123. Excellent!

Hopefully, this will help chip away at the drug crusader narrative.

[midnight]

142. So happy to read this...

[Enthusiast]

161. It will remain illegal.

'The powers' are convinced there is a link between marijuana and subversive action.

[RegieRocker]

184. No the link is no willingness to go to war.

[louslobbs]

164. Kickerrooo! Now can we let out all those terrible, pot smoking criminals being stored

in our corporate prison system? Perhaps that would make room for Republicons like Wisconsin Dicktator Scott Walker, Florida Dicktator Rick Scott and Ohio Diktator KaSick when they are convicted of crimes against humanity and the attempted destruction of democracy. I can hope can't I?
Lou

[Blue Owl]

In related story, Willie Nelson Cures Blues

:smoke:

[Blue Owl]

171. In related story, Willie Nelson Cures Blues

:smoke:

[Swampguana]

173. The miracle drug

[OwnedByFerrets]

175. SO? A drug that kills millions is legal in US, but a drug that will

save millions is illegal. That sounds about right for this FUCKED UP country.

[usregimechange]

178. This may be good news for cancer patients, not recreational users

The research does not indicate potential use as a preventative measure for the general population but instead have indicated anti-tumor effects locally on tumors that already exits. At least that is my reading of the research as of a couple of years ago.

[RegieRocker]

187. So how many people out of 10 get cancer?

[Fly by night]

192. Actually the Tashkin and Kelsey studies referenced in post #6 suggest just that.

In these studies, the researchers compared the lung cancer and head/neck cancer risks (respectively) of recreational cannabis users versus non-users (controlling for alcohol and tobacco use and other risks for these cancers). Both research teams concluded that cannabis use does impart a protective/preventive effect that reduces cancer incidence among recreational cannabis users for these types of cancers commonly associated with tobacco smoking.

Again, these studies are referenced in post #6, with links.

[RainDog]

222. The issue - as far as govt - is that cannabis needs to be rescheduled

the synthetic THC, marinol, has recently been rescheduled - because it is manufactured rather than an herbal. however, marinol only contains 1 cannabinoid, and is not considered as useful as the natural plant extracts with cannabinoids that moderate the other's effects.

So, at this point, the govt. has admitted there is medicinal value for THC - but they refuse to extend this rescheduling to the plant itself - or extracts from it, like cannabis oil (which one man in Canada claims removed skin cancer cells on his face - I've seen the video, but it was an uncontrolled experiment and that's not sufficient - but it's definitely of interest and worth study.

As a schedule 1 substance, cannabis is incredibly hard to obtain in the U.S. for study - that's why most studies have been coming out of Israel and Spain - tho some have been done here. In order to do controlled studies, the DEA needs to reschedule cannabis to make it possible for scientists to obtain non-Mississippi-grown govt cannabis for study.

Cannabis extract, sativex, is already available in at least three other countries as a prescription for treatment of effects of MS. That's not the synthetic marinol. That's the plant that is condensed/made liquid and used as a spray.

For the general population - study after study demonstrates that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol. Cannabis is less harmful than aspirin. Cannabis is less harmful than every single anti-depressant on the market.

It has beneficial effects for the general population for people who suffer from chronic pain, arthritis, glaucoma, depression, migraines, alzheimers, chronic stress, nausea... some of these are medical problems that require a doctor's supervision and some of them are health issues that people often tend to themselves - like migraines or nausea - with an over-the-counter product.

This prohibition is simply ridiculous and should stop immediately and it is an example of our failure as a nation to respond to science in a rational way that the govt continues to insist this be classified as a schedule 1 drug and prevent research into its possible uses.

[WillyT]

180. HUGE K & R !!!

:kick:

[Warren DeMontague]

185. No! Pot presents a danger to our air, water, farmland and children!!!!

Nuclear power, on the other hand, is relatively harmless and at worst leads to hunger and listening to jambands.

[fascisthunter]

191. Uptight Conservatives will have to Swallow their Pride

now to enjoy a packed bowl of some mean green.... :smoke:

[Corruption Winz]

193. Even if this wasn't a cure....

The elimination of the symptoms and the relief of pain was worth it. This just compounds the point.

Of course, lawmakers can't allow this to stand or hold up in court rooms. I mean, we can't allow patients to get better without being able to tax what cures/helps them.

We can't cure anything. That'd be awful. I mean... If people aren't sick, then who does the government sell THEIR drugs to?

[thelordofhell]

197. SEND WEED TO JAPAN!!

Make everyone in Japan smoke marijuana until the radiation levels go down.

[RainDog]

207. actually, hemp and other plants can help by removing toxins - as was done at Chernobyl

...with sunflowers.

http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/botany/botany_map/articles/article_10.html

so, yeah, in truth, if the Japanese would sow hemp and other plants in the contaminated areas, those plants would pull toxins from the soil and the plants could be used for oil or biomass.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

202. K & R

[sarcasmo]

204. Legalize it now! Surprised Canadian liberal is not on this thread.

[colsohlibgal]

205. Wow, Did Not See That Coming.....This Quickly

Win-win though - and as others have said, there are non smoking ways to get it into your body. I used to have quite the brownie recipe, I may have to revisit it.

It is beyond time to decriminalize it - but better late than never, I believe we will soon make it so, to coin Jean Luc's signature phrase.

[sonias]

210. Kicking for good news

Some sanity creeping into our thinking.

:kick:

[Fuddnik]

212. WOULD YOU PEOPLE PLEASE JUST STFU!!!???!!!

And kindly pass me that joint please. Pretty Please?

[Fly by night]

231. You first.

[Harriety]

213. Ha!

Cool! Not only is it good for glaucoma and pain but now this. Now, let's put it to a vote. No. That won't work. They don't pass anything that's good for us.

[existentialist]

217. First, I meant to hit recommend, and accidentally hit unrecomend

Sorry.

Second, last spring I was at a judicial conference where a variety of scientists presented on various topics from DNA evidence to use of bacteria to reduce the hazards of toxic waste to addictions.

The scientist who presented on additions was also a physician, and she spoke on addictions to five categories of drugs:

1) methamphetamine

2) cocaine

3) opiates

4) alcohol

5) tobacco

She did not mention marijuana in her initial presentation.

One of the judges--who is also a former attorney general of our state--asked her about that, she responded.

My summary of her response will be close to a quote:

First, she did not wish to give marijuana her approval as being safe, indeed, she stated it seems to cause problems with short term memory that are not much acknowledged and are under appreciated, but that stated she believed the problems with marijuana were far less than those of any of the five categories of substances she had discussed in her initial presentation, and that some of the problems that many have associated with marijuana seem to be not a problem with marijuana itself, but with the fact of its illegality.

Our former attorney general responded stating that he thought that marijuana was a gateway drug leading users to experiment with more dangerous drugs, and that in his experience as attorney general had had never experienced a methamphetamine case where marijuana was not also present.

The presenter responded that the apparent factor of marijuana as a gateway drug was part of what she was referring to as one of the problems associated not with marijuana itself, but with the fact of its illegality. She specifically stated that the research that has been done does not support the idea that marijuana functions as a gateway drug in places where marijuana is legal.

[BklynThirtyThree]

218. Va-po-ri-zer

it's been mentioned before, but needs to be repeated.

All the benefits, none of the drawbacks. This is huge news.

[Tripod]

219. That is a great post.

We have known the benefits for a long time. Fuck the government for keeping this beneficial drug from us.

[Romulox]

220. L E G A L I Z E I T ! ! ! ! ! !

Yes man! Legalize it! Decriminalize it!
And I man Mr. Banton will advertise it... Sensimilla!

Me send a letter to the residence of the president
with a stamp on the front saying very urgent.
The message inside went something like: Legalize it! Sensimilla!

Sensimilla is a herb that grows naturally
just like any other plant or tree.
Natural as the birds, natural as the bees
and just like them sensi ought to be: Free!
To be grown anywhere that we please
in the city in the town and in the country. Free!
In the hills and in the valley
sensi should be there for everyone to see.

To call sensi a drug is very absurd
it should be known as a natural herb.
So much diseases sensi has cured
that's why doctors use it all round the world.
For glaucoma and fever, rheumatism, arthritis and asthma
insomnia, emphysema and to block epileptic seizure.
To alleviate pain and nausea
associated with the AIDS and cancer.
Some say it is the best stress reliever
Lord knows I am believer.

Give me the ganja cookie, and the herbal tea.
Sensimilla is: Irie!
I don't care what no government say.
Sensimilla is: OK!

Legalize it! Yes man legalize it now!

We want legalization, decriminalization and emancipation
for all those sentenced to incarceration for participation
with the healing of the nation.
It's just another case of political insanity
abusing the rights of humanity.
But we should all plant a seed of this weed that we need
to avoid an ecological calamity.
We can use for paper to save some trees
use it for fuel to save some seas.
Use it for medicines to help fight diseases
and use it for food when we hungry.

Legalize it! Fe we medication.
Legalize it! Lord fe we meditation.
Legalize it! Woe throughout the nation.
Legalize it! Yes we sensimilla.

Yes! From downing street to D. C.
time to paint the white house green.
You know what I mean... Scene!


-Pato Banton
"LEGALIZE IT!"

[Imagevision]

224. Drug companies are sending their top notch lobbiest's to Washinton to stop it from

becoming legal or especially for medical reasons. I've read that weed is the most successful treatment for bi-polar disease patients.

[RegieRocker]

233. Why would drug companies want to keep it illegal? I wonder.....

[tavalon]

I personally hate the effects of pot on me

That said, I will always be a strong advocate for legalization. I just hope like he'll I never have a personal need for it.

[tavalon]

225. I personally hate the effects of pot on me

That said, I will always be a strong advocate for legalization. I just hope like he'll I never have a personal need for it.

[cui bono]

240. Is one of them that it makes you double post?

;)

[tavalon]

241. LOL

No, that would be my son's IPad which I borrow overnight. Glitchy little Bastard.

[sulphurdunn]

228. Whatever the merits

or lack of merit for the science, the fact remains that "harmful" or "beneficial" have never had much to do with drug laws. This issue is primarily social and political, not scientific. People shouldn't have to defend the use of marijuana because of its medicinal benefits. Their is simply no legitimate legal or moral justification for telling me or anyone else they can go to prison for smoking a plant they grow in their backyards or anywhere else, nor is it anyone's goddamn business if I choose to sell it than there is if I choose to sell my car or the gun gathering dust in the attic, both of which actually have great potential to do harm.

[reggie the dog]

232. research has been going on for a while now

http://marijuanamovie.org/ to see more about cannabis

as well as the man who is seems to be healing cancer with cannabis oil named Rick Simpson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjhT9282-Tw

[Le Taz Hot]

235. K & R for the science of the ganja. n/t

[mdmc]

236. Democrats still think minorities should go to jail for pot

Just ask any elected dem..

[Fly by night]

237. Another beautiful morning. Another research report that cannabis kills cancer (cells).

Vancouver, British Columbia: Cannabis inhalation is associated with spontaneous brain tumor regression in two subjects, according to a pair of case reports to be published in Child's Nervous System, the official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery.

Investigators at the British Columbia Children's Hospital in Vancouver documented the mitigation of residual tumors in two adolescent subjects who regularly inhaled cannabis. Authors determined that both subjects experienced a "clear regression" of their residual brain tumors over a three-year-period.

"Neither patient received any conventional adjuvant treatment" during this time period, investigators wrote. "The tumors regressed over the same period of time that cannabis was consumed via inhalation, raising the possibility that cannabis played a role in tumor regression."

Researchers concluded, "Further research may be appropriate to elucidate the increasingly recognized effect of cannabis/cannabinoids on gliomas (brain cancers)."

A 2006 pilot study published in the British Journal of Cancer previously reported that the intratumoral administration of the cannabinoid THC was associated with reduced tumor cell proliferation in two of nine human subjects with brain cancer.

Separate preclinical studies assessing the anti-cancer activity of cannabinoids and endocannabinoids indicate that the substances can inhibit the proliferation of various types of cancerous cells, including breast carcinoma, prostate carcinoma, and lung cancer.

[Fly by night]

238. Postscript: How cannabis is hypothesized to kill cancer (for those who need to know).

This is reprinted with permission from the NORML report: "Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids: A Review of the Recent Scientific Literature: 2000 to 2011." (Sorry about the lines through the text. Seems to be a new DU "feature". FBN)
-----

Gliomas (tumors in the brain) are especially aggressive malignant forms of cancer, often resulting in the death of affected patients within one to two years following diagnosis. There is no cure for gliomas and most available treatments provide only minor symptomatic relief. A review of the modern scientific literature reveals numerous preclinical studies and one pilot clinical study demonstrating cannabinoids' ability to act as antineoplastic agents, particularly on glioma cell lines.... Investigators at Madrid's Complutense University, School of Biology, first reported that delta-9-THC induced apoptosis (programmed cell death) in glioma cells in culture.<1> Investigators followed up their initial findings in 2000, reporting that the administration of both THC and the synthetic cannabinoid agonist WIN 55,212-2 "induced a considerable regression of malignant gliomas" in animals.<2>... Writing in the November 2003 issue of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics Fast Forward, researchers concluded, "Non-psychoactive CBD ... produce a significant anti-tumor activity both in vitro and in vivo, thus suggesting a possible application of CBD as an antineoplastic agent."<4> ... More recently, investigators at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute reported that the administration of THC on human glioblastoma multiforme cell lines decreased the proliferation of malignant cells and induced cell death more rapidly than did the administration of WIN 55,212-2. Researchers also noted that THC selectively targeted malignant cells while ignoring healthy ones in a more profound manner than the synthetic alternative.<6>

For more information on the hypothesized mechanisms for how cannabis and cannabinoids kill cancer, visit this link:

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7002