You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

NCI Cannabis Antitumor admission may be good news for cancer patients but not for recreational users [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-24-11 06:45 PM
Original message
NCI Cannabis Antitumor admission may be good news for cancer patients but not for recreational users
Advertisements [?]
The studies that have been conducted have been on cancer patients and show possible tumor regression during periods of time that cannabis was taken.

"We report two children with septum pellucidum/forniceal pilocytic astrocytoma (PA) tumors..."

This evidence does not mean that cannabis may have anti-cancer effects in the general population. If you do not have cancer the cost benefit analysis is not the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -NCI Cannabis Antitumor admission may be good news for cancer patients but not for recreational users usregimechange  Mar-24-11 06:45 PM   #0 
  - But it is good for your morale. n/t  Scuba   Mar-24-11 06:46 PM   #1 
  - ahhh... ok  fascisthunter   Mar-24-11 06:49 PM   #2 
  - Cost benefit analysis?  Webster Green   Mar-24-11 06:53 PM   #3 
  - Sounds better than magic elixir.  usregimechange   Mar-24-11 06:58 PM   #5 
     - It seems to be exactly that.  Webster Green   Mar-24-11 07:31 PM   #6 
        - If a rational observer were to think that you exaggerate the benefits and minimize the cons  usregimechange   Mar-24-11 09:41 PM   #8 
           - Well...what an idiotic analogy.  Webster Green   Mar-24-11 10:25 PM   #10 
           - I don't need to guess, "THC receptors" also bind to other endogenous compounds  usregimechange   Mar-25-11 11:56 PM   #12 
              - whatever  Webster Green   Mar-26-11 12:54 AM   #16 
                 - Did you give up the then why is there a THC receptor argument?  usregimechange   Mar-26-11 01:36 AM   #19 
                    - Nah, I just got bored with your reefer madness bullshit.  Webster Green   Mar-26-11 01:55 AM   #23 
                       - You can misrepresent my position as "reefer madness" all you want but it only indicates that...  usregimechange   Mar-26-11 01:59 AM   #24 
           - When you equated alcohol to cannabis you told me everything I needed to know about your position  Occulus   Mar-26-11 12:10 AM   #13 
              - I wasn't comparing toxicity, I was comparing the use of rationalization  usregimechange   Mar-26-11 01:35 AM   #18 
  - The 'cost benefit analysis' of poking smot hahahaha  wtbymark   Mar-24-11 06:53 PM   #4 
  - What the hell happened to the idea of being able to do something  MindPilot   Mar-24-11 07:37 PM   #7 
  - When that feeling good becomes addictive and becomes more important than family, freedom, and health  usregimechange   Mar-24-11 09:48 PM   #9 
     - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Mar-24-11 10:30 PM   #11 
     - DSM-V will be removing the "cannabis dependence" diagnosis  SOS   Mar-26-11 12:31 AM   #15 
        - Under that proposal, which you misrepresented, you can still Specify "With Physiological Dependence"  usregimechange   Mar-26-11 01:34 AM   #17 
           - You could say the same about religion or Diet Coke  Occulus   Mar-26-11 01:45 AM   #21 
           - I'll make my own points thank you but I'll have to disagree about religion causing physiological  usregimechange   Mar-26-11 01:50 AM   #22 
           - Again, the diagnosis "cannabis dependence" is being removed  SOS   Mar-26-11 11:01 AM   #28 
              - So which is it "least addictive" or not addictive at all? It can't be both.  usregimechange   Mar-26-11 06:11 PM   #29 
  - And what's the cost benefit analysis of spending $40B a year to imprison people for getting high?  Warren DeMontague   Mar-26-11 12:11 AM   #14 
  - It is a sham and a huge waste of money  usregimechange   Mar-26-11 01:39 AM   #20 
  - Gee, Ya Think?  Tsiyu   Mar-26-11 02:06 AM   #25 
     - Research like this has been used by some recreational users to support their often inaccurate  usregimechange   Mar-26-11 02:11 AM   #26 
     - No where did I say that cannabis users are stupid.  usregimechange   Mar-26-11 02:16 AM   #27 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC