Pot Found Useful Medicine Against Cancer!

[MikeK]

(Excerpt)

[...]

"But perhaps most exciting, cannabinoids (chemical constituents of Cannabis, the best known being tetrahydrocannabinol or THC) may have a primary role in cancer treatment and prevention. A number of studies have shown that these compounds can inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animal models. In part, this is achieved by inhibiting angiogenesis, the formation of new blood vessels that tumors need in order to grow. What’s more, cannabinoids seem to kill tumor cells without affecting surrounding normal cells. If these findings hold true as research progresses, cannabinoids would demonstrate a huge advantage over conventional chemotherapy agents, which too often destroy normal cells as well as cancer cells."

[...]

http://blog.norml.org/2010/09/14/dr...mary-role-in-cancer-treatment-and-prevention/

 

[SmarterThanHick]

still false. and I believe you just linked to your e-mail account.

 

[MikeK]

still false. and I believe you just linked to your e-mail account.

You're right. Thanks.

But what do you mean by "still false?"

(And I just corrected the URL, so give it a try and let me know what you think.)

 

[SmarterThanHick]

There's another thread on this. If you look at the blog post, he recommends watching something like "What if pot cured cancer?". The fact is it is only a "what if". Even the excerpt you provided starts with "may have a role". Scientific findings generally sound like "the evidence supports....".

As with most marijuana research, the conclusion is already made before the "research" is conducted. People tend to look into the benefits, which may indeed be true, and completely overlook the downsides. Sure it helps with glaucoma..... for the few hours it's active. Sure it decreases the risk of epilepsy..... and increases the risk of schizophrenia. Pot is NOT a miracle drug. It's a raw herb and people like to justify getting high on it.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

As with most marijuana research, the conclusion is already made before the "research" is conducted. People tend to look into the benefits, which may indeed be true, and completely overlook the downsides. Sure it helps with glaucoma..... for the few hours it's active. Sure it decreases the risk of epilepsy..... and increases the risk of schizophrenia. Pot is NOT a miracle drug. It's a raw herb and people like to justify getting high on it.

The excerpt in my first message neither presents nor implies any conclusions. It merely reports on the findings made in legitimate laboratory experiments, which I believe are impressive in relation to all the junk science condemnation of cannabis put forth by Reefer Madness propagandists.

There are many significant medical benefits available from marijuana, as a visit to NORML's website will reveal. But the best the demonizers can come up with in the medical category is the notion that smoking pot causes schizophrenia, which is utter nonsense. While I have no doubt that THC probably can cause those who are predisposed to manifest schizoaffective symptoms, as will alcohol and a variety of prescription medications, but if smoking pot caused otherwise normal individuals to become schizophrenic approximately one third of the U.S. population would be walking around in costumes or refusing to leave their cellars during daylight hours.

The bottom line in this latest attempt to justify marijuana prohibition is, yes -- smoking pot can produce negative effects in some people but the percentage is extremely small in relation to the number of Americans who use marijuana on a regular basis. And those who argue vigorously against pot prohibition are not rationalizing or trying to "justify getting high on it." The fact is they like the effect that smoking (or otherwise using) marijuana produces and are simply sick and tired of all the lies told about it for the express purpose of facilitating certain corporate interests, including the prison industrial complex.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

But the best the demonizers can come up with in the medical category is the notion that smoking pot causes schizophrenia, which is utter nonsense.

This is still false. The difference between me and you is that you are reading the paraphrasing from a biased blog reporting on a single animal trial, while I am citing extensive human research from peer reviewed scientific publications. Your one "paper" and the opinions of other potheads do NOT equate to my evidence. Not even in the same league.

The link to schizophrenia is well studied: marijuana schizophrenia - PubMed result

Let me put it this way: if marijuana needed to withstand the same rigorous testing and trials as any other FDA drug, it would be shot down without a chance in hell of being approved for any indication. The FACT still remains that for any given bullshit miracle "cure" you can come up with, modern medicine has already found something stronger and more effective in fighting that disease, with better half lives and fewer side effects.

The question you should be asking yourself is: do you want to continue grasping at straws, or will you acknowledge the legitimate evidence performed by unbiased research that simple shows what you WANT is not what IS?

 

[MikeK]

[This is still false. The difference between me and you is that you are reading the paraphrasing from a biased blog reporting on a single animal trial, while I am citing extensive human research from peer reviewed scientific publications. Your one "paper" and the opinions of other potheads do NOT equate to my evidence. Not even in the same league.


Let me put it this way: if marijuana needed to withstand the same rigorous testing and trials as any other FDA drug, it would be shot down without a chance in hell of being approved for any indication. The FACT still remains that for any given bullshit miracle "cure" you can come up with, modern medicine has already found something stronger and more effective in fighting that disease, with better half lives and fewer side effects.

The question you should be asking yourself is: do you want to continue grasping at straws, or will you acknowledge the legitimate evidence performed by unbiased research that simple shows what you WANT is not what IS?

February 18, 2010 - Bristol, United Kingdom:

Bristol, United Kingdom: Clinical evidence indicating that marijuana use may be casually linked to incidences of schizophrenia or other psychological harms is not compelling, according to a scientific review published online by the journal, Addiction.

Investigators at the University of Bristol, Department of Social Medicine assessed the potential health risks of cannabis, particularly whether use of the drug may be causally linked with mental illness.

Authors wrote: "We continue to take the view that the evidence that cannabis use causes schizophrenia is neither very new, nor by normal criteria, particularly compelling. ... For example, our recent modeling suggests that we would need to prevent between 3000 and 5000 cases of heavy cannabis use among young men and women to prevent one case of schizophrenia, and that four or five times more young people would need to avoid light cannabis use to prevent a single schizophrenia case. ... We conclude that the strongest evidence of a possible causal relation between cannabis use and schizophrenia emerged more than 20 years ago and that the strength of more recent evidence may have been overstated."

In 2007, an analysis in the British medical journal The Lancet estimated that experimenting with marijuana could increase one's risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life by some 40 percent. Following this report, Parliament in 2008 voted to reclassify marijuana as a Class B substance, making its possession punishable by up to five years in prison.

University of Bristol researchers also criticized Parliament's reclassification of the drug, which took effect earlier this year. They concluded: "The only important possible benefit of prohibition is prevention of cannabis use. There is little or no evidence that it effectively achieves this benefit. Patterns of cannabis use in the population appear to be independent of the policy surrounding use, and criminalizing individual cannabis users does not appear to modify their use in a healthy way."

Overall, investigators determined that marijuana's most significant health risk was its association and reinforcement with tobacco smoking.

For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: [email protected]. Full text of the review, "How ideology shapes the evidence and the policy: what do we know about cannabis use and what should we do," appears online in the journal Addiction.

Review: Supposed Marijuana And Schizophrenia Link "Overstated" - NORML

-----------------------------------

SmarterThan,

I have been reading and hearing about "scientific studies" that condemn marijuana use for far too long to swallow their content without chewing, and there are several very good reasons for my skepticism.

Early in Reagan's escalation of Nixon's counterproductive War on Drugs I read a very impressive "scientific study" conducted by impressively credentialed medical professionals explaining how extensive laboratory research proved that marijuana smoking causes emphysema. What that report didn't mention but was later revealed is the "laboratory research" consisted of binding a dozen monkeys, fitting them with respirator masks and pumping enough concentrated marijuana smoke into their lungs to suffocate them -- in fact killing one of them!

That "scientific study" was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Later, another impressive NIDA-funded "scientific study" reported finding a number of toxic and carcinogenic substances present in marijuana smoke. What this report failed to mention is the sample used in the study was provided by the DEA and was part of a batch confiscated in a raid, therefore was likely to contain any number of toxic pesticides and common growth hormones which are carcinogenic when heated. None of the harmful substances mentioned in the "scientific research" are found in marijuana which is grown in a clean environment with no chemicals added to it.

I'm not suggesting that the studies outlined in the reports you provided are equally fraudulent, but in all such studies I've learned that what isn't mentioned is pivotal. So the things I would need to know before accepting what this research implies is, first, where did the researchers obtain their subjects, and was each subject thoroughly examined and certified to be free of schizoaffective premorbidity? Because any such determination takes quite a bit of time to reach.

I'm not saying that using marijuana cannot cause some types of psychological harm to some individuals because I'm sure it can. Just as drinking alcohol can cause some people to commit murder. Just as eating peanuts can cause some people to die of respiratory failure. Just as hundreds of Americans die every year from taking aspirin. And on and on.

You used the term "pothead" in obliquely referring to me, which not only is offensive but reveals a strongly negative bias against marijuana. The commonly accepted definition of a "pothead" is the equivalent of a "drunk," a "wino" or a "junkie." I wonder if you know, or care to know, that the vast majority of adults who enjoy marijuana (mostly in preference to beverage alcohol) in no way fit the stereotype of "pothead," nor are they any less productive, dignified or substantive in their social status than you are.

I am seventy-four years old. I first tried marijuana in 1957 and I used it quite regularly throughout the 1960s and 70s when it was decriminalized in New York City. I've had many friends, including one MD, several lawyers, one who became a civil court judge, and a few other professionals who prefer the effects of marijuana to those of alcohol. And in all those years I am not aware of even one who manifested the slightest indication of schizophrenic affect. Not one.

So based on the information provided in NORML's article (above) and my own experience and observations, I tend to take the implication in the studies you've referred to with a grain of salt. And last, I refer you to, Marijuana, The Hidden Medicine, by Dr. Lester Grinspoon, MD, Ph.D., Professor of Psychiatric Medicine, Harvard Medical School. (Available from Amazon).

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Once again you seem to be comparing all current literature against ONE BLOG post. Even if based on a book by ONE doctor, how do you reconcile all the recent research on this very topic? Note the link I gave you was packed with articles from this year. Bloggers claiming evidence either doesn't exist or is old suggests stupidity or blindness.

Furthermore, the assertion that the medical and scientific community snub the substance simply because it is perceived as a naughty naughty drug is just foolish. Cocaine and opioids are used frequently in medical practice as controlled substances. Why? Because they have established indications, which marijuana does not. We similarly have no aversion to natural remedies, as one of the most widely used pain relievers is made from the bark of the willow tree. Look it up.

As I pointed out in my previous post, all the ways in which people claim marijuana can help are already bested by other modern medical treatment options. So when asked "why do we need this?" the only answer I'm seeing is "you haven't proven that it DOESN'T help cure _________!", which is not only false, but doesn't actually answer the question.

My bias is against people who promote the use without actually having a medical reasoning. You simply want it mainstreamed because you do it yourself. You're looking for justification. If you wanted to help patients, you'd be promoting big pharma instead.

 

[Big Black Dog]

So, if you itemize your taxes, can you write off ZZ Top rolling papers as a medical expense?

 

[topspin]

So, if you itemize your taxes, can you write off ZZ Top rolling papers as a medical expense?

that's a lot of joints if they are over 7.5% of your gross income.

 

[rikules]

Once again you seem to be comparing all current literature against ONE BLOG post. Even if based on a book by ONE doctor, how do you reconcile all the recent research on this very topic? Note the link I gave you was packed with articles from this year. Bloggers claiming evidence either doesn't exist or is old suggests stupidity or blindness.

Furthermore, the assertion that the medical and scientific community snub the substance simply because it is perceived as a naughty naughty drug is just foolish. Cocaine and opioids are used frequently in medical practice as controlled substances. Why? Because they have established indications, which marijuana does not. We similarly have no aversion to natural remedies, as one of the most widely used pain relievers is made from the bark of the willow tree. Look it up.

As I pointed out in my previous post, all the ways in which people claim marijuana can help are already bested by other modern medical treatment options. So when asked "why do we need this?" the only answer I'm seeing is "you haven't proven that it DOESN'T help cure _________!", which is not only false, but doesn't actually answer the question.

My bias is against people who promote the use without actually having a medical reasoning. You simply want it mainstreamed because you do it yourself. You're looking for justification. If you wanted to help patients, you'd be promoting big pharma instead.

"My bias is against people who promote the use without actually having a medical reasoning. You simply want it mainstreamed because you do it yourself. "

so what?


MOSTLY people who want to smoke tobacco DEFEND its' legalization.

I don't smoke tobacco or go to prostitutes but I defend their legalization

I don't NEED a medical reason to justify the freedom of smoking pot

it's NOT as dangerous as some people claim
it's LESS dangerous than MANY OTHER THINGS that are legal
and it's NOBODIES business if we do it in the privacy of our homes

 

[rikules]

But the best the demonizers can come up with in the medical category is the notion that smoking pot causes schizophrenia, which is utter nonsense.

This is still false. The difference between me and you is that you are reading the paraphrasing from a biased blog reporting on a single animal trial, while I am citing extensive human research from peer reviewed scientific publications. Your one "paper" and the opinions of other potheads do NOT equate to my evidence. Not even in the same league.

The link to schizophrenia is well studied: marijuana schizophrenia - PubMed result

Let me put it this way: if marijuana needed to withstand the same rigorous testing and trials as any other FDA drug, it would be shot down without a chance in hell of being approved for any indication. The FACT still remains that for any given bullshit miracle "cure" you can come up with, modern medicine has already found something stronger and more effective in fighting that disease, with better half lives and fewer side effects.

The question you should be asking yourself is: do you want to continue grasping at straws, or will you acknowledge the legitimate evidence performed by unbiased research that simple shows what you WANT is not what IS?

"Your one "paper" and the opinions of other potheads do NOT equate to my evidence. Not even in the same league."

I don't know what "evidence " YOU have but I havethe evidence of 40 years experience with other pot smokers.

you do NOT know what you are talking about

pot is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco
it's probably less dangerous than fatty foods

and in a free country we should all be able to decide for ourselves

 

[SmarterThanHick]

"My bias is against people who promote the use without actually having a medical reasoning. You simply want it mainstreamed because you do it yourself. "

so what?


MOSTLY people who want to smoke tobacco DEFEND its' legalization.

I don't smoke tobacco or go to prostitutes but I defend their legalization

I don't NEED a medical reason to justify the freedom of smoking pot

No, you need a MEDICAL reason to justify the MEDICAL use of a drug. If you are at all confused on this point, see the title of this thread.

it's NOT as dangerous as some people claim

Irrelevant for medical use. Usefulness with minimal side effects is what is desired for a decent medicine. It has no usefulness which is not already trumped by some other better treatment option.

it's LESS dangerous than MANY OTHER THINGS that are legal

Still irrelevant for medical use. Furthermore, this reasoning is just immature. It's the kind of excuse children use: "but that kid does much worse things!". This is a general response. If you want to promote something, I recommend you say why it's good, and avoid focusing on why it's not as horrible as other things.

and it's NOBODIES business if we do it in the privacy of our homes

Especially murder. And child pornography! No, I'm not comparing marijuana to those things. I'm just showing, once again, why your "reasoning" is not sound. I think if you refined your ideas a bit, you'd have a much stronger stance when it comes to general legalization reasons, but you'd still be bankrupt in reasons for medical purposes.

"Your one "paper" and the opinions of other potheads do NOT equate to my evidence. Not even in the same league."

I don't know what "evidence " YOU have but I havethe evidence of 40 years experience with other pot smokers.

One paper? Perhaps you didn't actually click my link, but there are hundreds of peer reviewed published studies on the topic of marijuana and schizophrenia, and over 15,000 on marijuana alone. So no, the 40 years experience of one pot head with friends still does not trump blinded controlled trials. Sorry, but the FDA doesn't go with "yeah trust me, I've been getting high for DECADES" as proof of any kind.