'Cannabis' may halt breast cancer

[NashVegas]

Source: BBC

A compound found in cannabis may stop breast cancer spreading throughout the body, US scientists believe.

The California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute team are hopeful that cannabidiol or CBD could be a non-toxic alternative to chemotherapy.

Unlike cannabis, CBD does not have any psychoactive properties so its use would not violate laws, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics reports.

The authors stressed that they were not suggesting patients smoke marijuana.*

They added that it would be highly unlikely that effective concentrations of CBD could be reached by smoking cannabis.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7098340.stm

---

* nooooooo, we must wait for scientists to synthesize the compound and patent it so that Big Pharma and its stockholders can get a cut.

[tekisui]

1. The sacred herb.

Respect it. Love it. Legalize it.

[allisonthegreat]

28. gotta legalize it!!n/t

[silverweb]

60. Amen.

[panader0]

2. Great to know I'll never get breast cancer......course I'm a guy

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. ahem. Actually, male breast cancer rates are sky rocketing

A doc friend of mine was treated and shared some of the lit with me. (and no, he and his honey decided against a saline bag) He believes that hormones, anti-biotics, and other chemicals are the cause.

[Danieljay]

124. xenoestrogens in the environment, obesity, etc. Stop drinking out of plastic water bottles...n/t

[hlthe2b]

8. You do know that men can get breast cancer, right?

If is rare, but it occurs... toke away, though.

[MissMillie]

14. 1% of all breast cancers are diagnosed in men

you may not use them, but you do have breasts.

What you don't have is estrogen,.... which might be why such a low percentage of men get breast cancer.

[BonnieJW]

29. Men DO produce estrogen.

Not very much, but some; just as women produce testosterone. The problem is that everyone is bonbarded with estrogen compounds found in many cosmetic prododucts such as paraben.

[Danieljay]

125. yes... weve seen men in our clinic with estradiol levels higher than women... Testosterone converts

to estradiol, especially in obese men because of aromatase in fat, which causes testosterone to be converted. With increased obesity we will continue to see a rise in this as well as breast and prostate cancer in men. Add in xenoestrogens from environmental toxicity and it compounds the problem.

[Fly by night]

15. 2,000 cases of male breast cancer occur each year in US; >400 die of it (including my friend)

Before he died, the cancer had spread to his liver, bones and brain. Not a pretty sight.

[LeftishBrit]

27. It's unusual for men to get it, but I know two who did (both long-term survivors)

[MNDemNY]

31. Only bedcause men have less breast tissue.(usually)

[MADem]

114. Montel Williams got it. NT

[stellanoir]

3. I read a report a while ago that said

some who were eligible for using medical marijuana legally were given marinol which is a pharmaceutical drug that is comprised of highly concentrated THC.

It was too strong for many of the patients so they went back to smoking pot illegally because they could self regulate and just get the enough to alleviate their pain without getting entirely spaced out.

Many said the marinol rendered them unable to function at all.

If CBD is non psychoactive then this is a different though semi related issue.

[Alter Ego]

4. The ganja can prevent breast cancer?

Next thing we know, women everywhere will be huffing the wacky weed.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[mainegreen]

6. Of course it does.

Wonderful stuff. What other medicine can be taken in brownie instead of pill form?

[Ganja Ninja]

7. Ah Cannabis, is there anything it can't cure?

:smoke:

[freebrew]

10. Conservatism...

[hootinholler]

16. Au contraire!

The drug is mind expanding and encourages thinking for oneself. If that's not a cure for conservatism...

-Hoot

[Jackpine Radical]

34. LSD was even more effective as a cure for conservatism.

I've often suspected that the fascists have known that for a long time, and that's a big part of the reason behind the drug war. In the 60's, they jailed a lot of political radicals for recreational drug use when they really wanted to get them for their politics.

[TroglodyteScholar]

47. I've met loads of rightwing tokers...

...it seems to have a paradoxical affect on them.

[sofa king]

67. Yup.

Seems to me that my rightwing potsmoking friends were also the ones also who had fewer problems doing cocaine, driving drunk, carrying unregistered guns in their vehicles, cheating on tests, and so on. But my perspective on it could be skewed by an unusual circle of friends.

Or, it could be that the fundamental illogic of the conservative position allows them to believe one thing is best for everyone else and to do another thing entirely for themselves, an offshoot of their inability to empathize with other humans.

But if that were the case, we'd certainly have seen evidence of it over the past seven years, with conservatives in government betraying their ideals and breaking the law in order to enrich themselves and their friends.

And who's seen any of that?

[Zhade]

63. Cured mine.

NT!

[boricua79]

11. hahaha...

how about that as a joke from God.

We make illegal what is actually good for us in certain situations...but...by all means, keep smoking nicotine and tobacco and drink up until your liver is shot!

Drinks for everyone!:toast:

[crikkett]

76. not just good for you in certain situations, but nearly all of them

good for the body, good for the soul.

[Zorra]

12. Could a smart herb farmer develop a strain that had a high enough

concentration of cannabidiol to allow a patient to smoke it in order to get an effective dose of the cannabinoid?

They've certainly increased the dosage of other cannabinoids by crossbreeding different strains.
;-)

[tridim]

18. It's just a matter of letting it go longer..

At peak maturity THC starts to degrade and is converted to other medically beneficial cannabinoids. It's really that simple, but it's still mostly guesswork. If the government would allow real research on the miracle herb we could figure out exactly how this process works and how to maximize the concentration.

It starting to become apparent that Cannabis just might be the single most beneficial plant on Earth. Human kind needs a cannabis revolution.. Not tomorrow, not next year, NOW!

[Prophet 451]

24. Doubtful

On the other hand, if any project deserved a research grant, that ones does.

[dysfunctional press]

71. it's healthier to eat it than to smoke it.

canna-butter makes for GREAT fudge.

[eridani]

73. CBD=cannabidiol?

Couldn't find a reference to that in the OP. They are wrong about it not being psychoactive, however. I'd call putting people to sleep a psychological effect, myself. Strains high in the diols are the most soporific, and some people (moi frinstance), are especially susceptible.

[Trillo]

13. Gee, and you can make paper from it

and not need to cut down trees to do so. Hemp cloth is alleged as high quality and longer lasting than cotton. The list of non-drug uses of the plant is quite large, I've read, and now a compound in it also cures cancer?

:wtf: is wrong with the state? Are competing business interests manipulating our legislators minds? Are the state and corporate business now One with each other? Is there more accumulated profit in creating a black market for a plant known as a "weed", and in incarceration of the 'lower classes' for the slave labor ($$$) tyrannical anti-drug laws provide?

A profitable industry can be built by outlawing a plant with sub-therapeutic levels of a cancer killing chemical, then charging people who get cancer great sums for cancer treatment!

The corruption wheel of insatiable greed and legislative spin spins on in the halls of the "educated" elite....

[havocmom]

21. What's wrong with the state? It serves corporate interests and ignores our's

Just think how much $$ Big Pharma and Big Medical Care would lose out on if so much of the treatment and drugs to deal with side effects were not needed.

Where's that link to which pols get what money from which corporate/industry sources? That link pretty much says it all.


edited for typo

[daleo]

22. Hemp cloth is really good

I have a couple of shirts. They are quite remarkable - cool in summer and warm in winter. And they wear like iron.

[Prophet 451]

26. Can I ask where you got them?

They're virtually impossible to get hold of over here.

[daleo]

83. In Canada

I got a couple of shirts in Nelson B.C. in the spring, then found another store in St. John's Newfoundland this fall. I believe they were all made in B.C., though.

The shirts from Nelson were hand dyed by local artisans, so they really are quite nice (mine are just a solid color, no pattern or anything). I think the place in Nelson was called The Hemp Store. I can't remember what the place in St. John's was called.

They weren't cheap, but they fit really well and don't seem likely to wear out for a long time, so they were worth the money. My wife got some too, and she really likes them as well.

[Prophet 451]

89. Good enough

I have an aunt in B.C. so she should be able to grab a couple for me. Cheers.

[Prophet 451]

25. Not just paper

Full disclosure: I've been campaigning for cannabis legalisation for fifteen years. It's also about that long since I actually smoked it. Partial list of uses:
- Paper. Ever see those old Bibles printed on really fine paper? That's hemp.
- Cloth. For many years, the British Army made all it's uniforms from hemp. We still have my grandfather's. I'm not sure about higher-quality than cotton but I'd say it's about the same and it's immensely tough. Plus, doesn't need loads of pesticides to grow.
- Food. Remember gruel? That was a stew of cannabis seed. Tastes like crap but highly nutricious and keeps near enough forever.
- Oils. No, you (probably) couldn't run your car on it but the oils in cannabis can be used for paints, lamp oil, lubrication, preserving woods (cricket bats used to be treated with hemp oil). IIRC, you can even make plastics from it.
- Medical. This one's a laundry list. In addition to the cancer properties listed above, it's also a highly effective painkiller and less damaging than most commrcial painkillers (used as such pretty much since the dawn of time) and has been shown to have beneficial effects for complaints ranging from MS to insomnia. It also stimulates the appetite (which can be surpressed by certain illnesses).

Downsides: The main one is that last I checked, smoking pot was as or more likely to cause lung cancer as smoking tobacco although eating it is entirely safe. Can also act as a trigger for people with mental health conditions (as can numerous other things). And, of course, alters perceptions and reaction times.

In balance, cannabis really does look like the wonder plant. No end of beneficial uses, very few drawbacks, easy to grow, requiring very little maintenance (it's actually quite hard to stop it growing once started). I'm deliberately leaving aside the recreational uses but it's not difficult to see how one could run an economy off this stuff.

[EOTE]

33. Why couldn't you run your car on hemp oil?

I've seen many cars modified to run on biodiesel which in those instances was just filtered oil left over from fast food restaurants. I wouldn't imagine that the oil from hempseed would have any lower potential of energy than frying oil.

[Prophet 451]

35. I have no idea

I'm not mechanically minded enough to say. I assumed you couldn't because in all the literature I've read, no-one mentioned that as a potential use.

[Jackpine Radical]

39. Interesting question.

I know nothing about hemp oil, but I do know a little about practical biodiesel. Here are what my concerns would be: 1)How much would it cost to produce significant amounts of hemp oil? OK, you're going to use the stems & leaves for other things, which would defray some or maybe all the costs, but let's see some actual numbers on the economic picture. 2) What are the properties of hemp oil? Many biodiesel oils thicken and become difficult or impossible to use in winter temperatures. Is its caloric content similar to petroleum or other veggie oils? Are there any special problems with burning it?

In any case, I am pretty sure that the issue of legalizing hemp is an economic one. Whose ox would be gored if hemp were to become legal? Fiber industries, paper industry, various agricultural interests, etc. will no doubt be lobbying heavily against you; and unfortunately, our government is a process of selling legislation to the highest bidder.

[Prophet 451]

43. "Whose ox would be gored if hemp were to become legal?"

BIG PHARMA

The medical uses of cannabis are numerous and well-established. It's cheap and easy to grow, takes very little preparation and is virtually without side-effects. It can't be patented though so Big Pharma can't charge through the nose for it.

Last I checked, there were ten pharma companies on the Forbes list. Those ten make more money than the other 490 companies combined and give more in campaign contributions. What are they going to lobby for, a $1.50 blunt or a $30 pill?

[crikkett]

77. Not just big pharma, but all the major brewers and logging industry

The beer market would go belly-up as people would overwhelmingly select carb-free cannabis over diabetes-inducing alcohol as their recreational drug of choice.

On edit:
if marihuana (legal spelling by the way, google it) were legalized then industrial hemp would be legalized. That hurts chemical companies like AMD, it hurts logging for paper, it hurts cotton, and it hurts corn and other oil crops, as hemp is a superior material for these applications. In fact it was these industries (logging, chemical and industrial agriculture) who lobbied to criminalize marihuana in the first place.

[Prophet 451]

84. Not here

I'm a Brit, our legislation says "cannabis" (occasionally, with a missing N).

I don't think the beer market would collapse but it would shrink a lot. Some people (including myself) are always going to prefer a pint to a spliff and I think there'd be enough of us to support some kind of beer industry. That said, since most of us would be choosing our beer for taste rather than chemical effect, the big breweries who turn out crap beer would probably struggle while micro-breweries would do fine.

And that sounds like a nicer world all around.

[Mythsaje]

96. I disagree about the beer...

Though Coors doesn't, apparently, considering they're a big supporter of anti-cannabis legislation and policy decisions.

It's probably more the big, mass produced CRAP beers that would be affected. Good beer wouldn't lose any support.

[Prophet 451]

103. As I said, nicer world all around

Mass produced crap brewers wither away. People producing good beers get chosen by the people (like me) who like the taste, not just the chemical effect.

[texastoast]

115. Cotton farmers

But, duh, they could switch.

Oh, but cannabis doesn't need a bunch of herbicides and pesticides.

Oh, now we have the chemical companies involved of which many are subs of oil companies . . .

[texastoast]

116. Oh, yeah, I forgot about the timber companies

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6641909.html

http://www.hemphasis.net/Building/building.htm

[eppur_se_muova]

59. It's too nutritious to waste as fuel.

Hemp Seed Oil
The oil contained in the hemp seed is 75-80% polyunsaturated fatty acids (the good fats) and only 9-11% of the lesser desired saturated fatty acids. Hemp seed oil is reputed to be the most unsaturated oil derived from the plant kingdom. The essential fatty acids (EFAs) contained in hemp seed oil are required in our diet more than any other vitamin, yet our bodies do not naturally produce them. They must be obtained from external sources in the food we eat. EFAs are involved with producing life's energy throughout the human body and without them, life is not possible. In general, North Americans have a high dietary deficiency in EFAs due to out high intake of animal fats versus plant fats, caused by our high consumption of processed foods and meats versus natural organic foods.

Hemp seed oil has been dubbed "Nature's most perfectly balanced oil", due to the fact that it contains the perfectly balanced 3:1 ratio of Omega 6 (linoleic/ LA) to Omega 3 (alpha-linolenic/ LNA) essential fatty acids, determined to be the optimum requirement for long-term healthy human nutrition. In addition, it also contains smaller amounts of 3 other polyunsaturated fatty acids in gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), oleic acid and stearidonic acid. This EFA combination is unique among edible oil seeds.
(see nutritional composition )

Extensive studies have demonstrated that many
common illnesses are related to deficiencies or imbalances of specific fatty acids in the body. Symptoms are often related to a lack of Omega 3 and Omega 6 fatty acids and their derivatives, the postaglandins. Most people eating a healthful diet, one that includes a balanced ratio of essential fatty acids, also have healthy skin and a strong immune system. Yet some individuals may experience shortages in specific fatty acids or their metabolites due to dysfunctional enzyme systems or other inhibitions in their metabolic pathways caused by genetic, immune-system-related, or even environmental factors. It has been proven in several clinical studies that dietary supplementation with EFAs or their metabolites (such as GLA) will often prevent or even cure these illnesses. Since hemp seed oil contains both EFAs in a desirable balance while also providing two of the EFA metabolites, it is a good resource for the prevention and treatment of certain illnesses.

Hemp seed oil also provides an adequate supply of antioxidants (Vitamin E), carotene (precursor to Vitamin A), phytosterols, phospholipids and a number of minerals including calcium, magnesium, sulfur, potassium, phosphorus, along with modest amounts of iron and zinc. Hemp seed oil also provides a good source of chlorophyll.

The daily recommended allowance of hemp seed oil is 14-28 ml (1 to 2 tablespoons). This allowance provides between 8 and 16 grams of Omega 6 (LA) and between 3 and 6 grams of Omega 3 (LNA).

source: http://www.hempoilcan.com/nutri.html

[Prophet 451]

85. Can't we do both?

Cannabis is easy to farm and grows virtually anywhere. I'm not sure how much hemp oil you could get per plant but I'd imagine there'd be enough to do both.

[eppur_se_muova]

100. Well, sure, I'm just being overenthusiastic. :^)

****IF**** US farmers were allowed to grow hemp on a large scale, even the "ultra virgin first cold pressings" would provide all the tasty, nutritious dietary supplement we could consume. The steam-pressed dregs would be unsuitable for anything but fuel or soap-making, as with other oil crops. And the free market :O could decide what to do with all the product of intermediate quality.

[Prophet 451]

104. Of course, if we're going large-scale

Pot and hemp has so many uses that if you allow large-scale farming, you can virtually run a reasonable economy on the stuff.

[ladywnch]

37. does smoking it through a bong or other water filter system still

have the same carcinogens as smoking a joint or pipe?

[Prophet 451]

38. Not sure

I would imagine using some method of cooling the smoke (such as a bong or hookah) would cut down on the level of carcinogens but I'm not sure if it would be enough to make a difference.

[Fly by night]

52. The solution to avoiding the risks of smoking is to use a vaporizer.

Vaporizers heat up the cannabis without burning it. At a certain temperature, the useful ingredients (which are all resinous compounds) will vaporize and are captured by the vaporizer, usually in a plastic bag of some sort. These vapors can then be inhaled without the user being exposed to any carcinogenic tars, carbon monoxide or other hazardous by-products of burning the cannabis and inhaling the smoke.

Vaporizers are so safe and non-hazardous that they are allowed to be used in hospitals in states where medical cannabis programs have been approved. (We're up to 12 states and counting.)

One popular brand-name for a vaporizer is the Volcano ( www.thevolcanovaporizer.com ). But other models are available.

[Zhade]

64. No, and as pointed out elsewhere, pot does NOT cause cancer. It shrinks tumors.

Something that shrinks tumors cannot give you cancer - it KILLS cancer.

[ladywnch]

95. but as pointed out elsewhere the SMOKING of it includes inhaling

the tars, resins and carbon monoxide.....the nonbeneficial elements. I understand the active chemical compounds are beneficial.

[clixtox]

41. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

A quick perusal of the listings when "lung cancer" and cannabis are "Googled" together would indicate that there is no scientific evidence that smoking pot causes any increase in health risks, including lung and other cancers.

You can be sure that there have been many efforts to link the recreational use of marijuana with having any deleterious effects on folks health.

Despite the misinformation and outright lies propagated by our Federal, state and local keepers and unscrupulous, purported, medical professionals, there isn't any credible evidence that the utilization of cannabis has ever been medically harmful. In fact, the more research that is getting done, the more medically efficacious the components of cannabis are discovered to be. Ironic considering the prohibition on such research for decades in the USA, for who knows what reason, if any, other than fear and hysteria.

Cannabis might very well turn out to be the panacea and elixir that I have believed it to be since I started recreationally using pot daily 43 years ago. I am in fantastic health, I look younger than my age, I have lots of energy and I am successful financially and in love and life. Of course, I am usually very happy....

The only downside to using pot is the fascist USA regime's senseless prohibition and the draconian penalties if apprehended. So wasteful and downright stupid on so many levels, only in Amerikkka!

[Prophet 451]

42. Not only in America

I'm a Brit, our government is equally dense. In fact, having downgraded pot to a class-C substance (an important step toward legalisation), our government is now considering upgrading it again (based on some very sloppy research regarding mental health issues and a big outcry from Middle England).

Since a reefer is normally rolled with tobacco, I'm sure it has the normal risks but that's a problem with the delivery method, not the plant. If I'm wrong as regards cancer risk, fine. I'm doing this from memory and if my memory is faulty on this one, great. I've got no interest in painting pot as more harmful than it actually is.

[clixtox]

44. Cannabis isn't actually harmful unless...

One tries to swallow a bunch of it in a plastic baggie in an attempt to avoid arrest, and in this case it worked. The only death I have ever heard of associated with pot!

[silverweb]

61. And in that particular case...

...we're talking natural selection and Darwin award material as cause of death, not the pot! :D

[Zhade]

66. FALSE. IT DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER!

It shrinks tumors - by definition, it can't give you cancer!

[Prophet 451]

88. I made a mistake

As I said upthread, I'm doing this from memory and that part was based on my misunderstanding of an (in my defence, poorly phrased) article. Someone else here has provided a more up to date article so I apologise for that one.

[dysfunctional press]

72. i'm calling bullshit on your lung-cancer claim...

that one, you have to back up with some cites and/or websites.

i'm not saying that smoking pot is a healthy thing- obviously, ingesting any smoke into your lungs is going to have at least SOME detrimental effects...BUT- considering the number of people who smoke/have smoked- if what you claim is true- there should be a fair amount of potheads who have died of lung-cancer not related to tobacco use- find a few cases for us.

pot works as a bronchial dilator- it actually helps you clean your lungs with that coughing.

tobacco works as a vascular constrictor- that's one reason why cig-heads have higher blood pressure than pot-heads.

[Prophet 451]

86. My mistake

No need to be aggressive about it. As I stated earlier, I'm doing this from memory and since someone else pointed out the error, I went and checked the article. It was my misunderstanding and I'll apologise for that.

[OnionPatch]

78. Time to check again

You said "last time I checked....." FYI, about marijuana and lung cancer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html
:bounce:

[Prophet 451]

87. Thanks n/t

[Caretha]

58. Addressing your 2nd paragraph

Yes, yes..and yes

[pokercat999]

110. I was told, don't know if it's true, that.

Dupont paid congress to outlaw Mj to get at the hemp plant. Hemp made much better rope and cloth than nylon but Dupont invented nylon not hemp.

Like I said, don't know if it's true but it sounds too logical not to be.

[Prophet 451]

117. Not exactly

As far as I can tell, he didn't pay them so much as engage in a fairly modern lobbying operation at a time when that was rare. Of course, there were also dozens of others calling for the same thing for much the same reasons.

[pokercat999]

120. IMHO a "fairly modern lobbying operation" is bribery, pure

and simple.

But is the basic premise correct, MJ is outlawed because of DuPont and nylon?

[Prophet 451]

123. More or less

I'd actually agree about lobbying operations.

It's slightly more complicated but the basic gist is sound. DuPont was one of the primary movers in the US campaign.

[Nihil]

121. Ah ...

> ... a fairly modern lobbying operation ...

... so he *did* pay them then ... wonder if it was just the usual off-book
money, prostitutes & blackmail or if there were any more subtle options?

:evilgrin:

[Prophet 451]

126. Good question

DuPont was one of the primary movers in the outlaw campaign but there were others, all of whom had something to gain except a deranged guy named Anslinger. They were also highly lucky that most of the western world was talking about cannabis legislation at the time.

Effectively, there was a confluence of forces: The industrial world (led by DuPont) wanted cannabis gone because they stood to make a fortune. The public wanted cannabis gone because they'd been fed a lot of scare stories about "reefer madness" and "ginger-haired niggers" (apologies for the word but that's a direct quote from Anslinger) and because there was a racial element to the outlaw campaign. All illegal drugs have always tended to become associated with certain ethnic groups (i.e. the Chinese and opium, black people and crack) and the association of pot with blacks and (to a lesser extent) Mexicans was useful in an America suffering from racial divisions.

[Fly by night]

17. We have known that cannabis kills cancer cells for over three decades.

Last Tuesday, I gave a 40 minute talk to the TN legislature in our efforts to re-establish a medical cannabis (marijuana) program here. (Our program operated successfully and without incident from 1983-92, until Bush I cut off supplies of federal pot for the program.)

As part of my PowerPoint slideshow, I included the following slide as my last slide:

-----
Recent research from Spain and Israel (2006-7): Research demonstrates that THC attacks, shrinks and kills several cancer cell lines, including cancers of the brain, lung, prostate, breast and lymphoma

Suppressed research from the Medical College of Virginia (MCV-1975): “Cannabis showed powerful anti-tumor activity against both benign and malignant tumors.” After this research conclusion was published, the DEA pressured the National Institutes of Health to de-fund the MCV studies and prohibited any future cannabis/tumor research in this country.
-----

It is bad enough to prevent sick and dying patients to obtain relief from nausea and pain that cannabis can provide, better and with fewer side effects than almost all other medicines.

It is IMMORAL to prevent scientists from studying a substance that might be a potent cancer cure.

If anyone would like a copy of my PowerPoint presentation, PM me with your "outside" email address and I'll send it to you (there are 18 slides).

[Fly by night]

54. Cannabis components kill cancer cells of the brain, breast, prostate, lung and lymphoma.

Those are just the cancer cells that cannabis has been proven to kill so far.

Just imagine what we would find if we were actually allowed to research cannabis in this country, using better medicine than the poorly grown, poorly cured and very mediocre quality schwag grown at Ole Miss -- the only federally-approved pot that is allowed for research in this country.

The Ole Miss dirt weed is so bad that they estimate people feel the effects of smoking one of their joints for an hour or less. (Most people I know who smoke high-quality pot can still feel the effects of a few puffs many hours afterward.) That is why the federal government provides its few remaining approved med pot patients 300 government joints per month (10 joints a day -- good Gawd!).

Most of the people I provided med pot to could get by on one or two joints a day. And these people were primarily terminally ill patients with much nausea and in great pain. ( www.saveberniesfarm.com ) .

[libnnc]

19. That's great but if I smoked it everyday...

I'd weigh 800 pounds.

Smoked a half a joint a couple of weeks ago and downed an entire pepperoni pizza.

[tridim]

20. Get some good food and eat that instead.

I like to munch on granola cereal when I take my medicine. Not because I'm a hippy, but because it tastes just like oatmeal/raisin cookies and is mostly extra fiber and vitamins.

[killbotfactory]

97. You would think, but...

Both my wife and I have been losing a bunch of weight since we started smoking pot. It makes sense, since we drink a lot less, have little stress (which causes weight gain), and makes nutritious food taste wonderful so we are eating a lot healthier. It has improved our lives in so many ways, and has so few negative side effects, that it's just insane to me that it's illegal. The same goes for industrial hemp.

[libnnc]

98. Well...once the SO retires from her job

We WILL be partaking :smoke:

Pizza be damned. :silly:

[ourbluenation]

23. "Mr. Collie, Collie Man don't you hear me troubled call?"

:smoke:

[downindixie]

30. Will it show up on company drug test?

If it will then the government won't allow it!

[Deep13]

32. Well let's see how it goes in testing.

This is not the first magic bullet to have been proposed.

[Rageneau]

36. It seems to work on Lung Cancer too.

In June of 2003, I was told I had 3-6 months to live before I died of Non small cell lung cancer, stage four. At first, they told me nothing could be done -- except chemo, and that that would do very little besides make me sick during my last months on earth. (Later I had both Chemo and radiation.)

I am still alive, and my tumor sites have all shrunk in size. I have actually GAINED weight since my diagnosis. Meanwhile I have lost ten other friends to cancers, all of whom were apparently fine when I was already supposedly terminal.

What's the point to all this?

It's that the one thing I do that other people "don't" do is smoke lots of weed.

You can consider me a 'heavy' marjuana user. You can also consider me a medical miracle because almost NOBODY lives five years with stage four lung cancer.

But this coming June (puff, puff) it will be five years for me.

Prohibiting marijuana use, and especially research, is what's really criminal.

[snappyturtle]

40. Good for you! I have a cousin through marriage with lung cancer

and very sick from chemo....unfortunately she is one who bad mouths pot and pot users and would probably die on the spot if we recommended that she smoke it!

I am just curious about your particular case....would you tell me if you were an active smoker when you got your diagnosis...or had you previously quit? The reason I ask is this: a couple of years ago while at St. Luke's Hospital in Houston watching my brother-in-law succomb to melanoma I picked up a booklet on lung cancer. In it is a chart that says ex-smokers are at an increased risk of lung cancer after quitting for specified periods of time (years) based on the amount they previously smoked. It haunts me.....and now I am watching a cousin dying of lung cancer who had quit eighteen months before her diagnosis. You obviously don't have to answer this but it's an interest of mine...or PM me if you'd rather. Whatever you decide, the very best to you and keep up whatever you are doing---HA!

[damntexdem]

46. So, if one gets lung cancer from smoking marijuana ...

just keep on smoking to keep the cancer from spreading?

Sounds like a Woody Allen film to me.

[snappyturtle]

49. I guess I didn't make myself clear. I'm asking if this poster

had quit smoking tobacco for some length of time before his diagnosis....and even then I'm not sure he smoked tobacco at all. I'm not as surprised by the findings of the posted report as I am of what I read at St. Luke's.

[RainDog]

53. Breast and brain cancer, crohn's disease, mental illness, parkinson's m.s.

migraines, nausea...boy, that marijuana sure is a bad herb.

the links for some of the other benefits are at the bbc page, btw. if anyone cannot see that prohibition of this herb has NOTHING to do with safety and EVERYTHING to do with control, well...what can I say.

[snappyturtle]

56. There isn't anything you can say.....control is the objective. imho nt

[Fly by night]

55. Large-scale studies of long-term ganga smokers in Jamaica showed no increased lung cancer risk.

That would be consistent with the cancer-fighting properties of cannabis.

These studies showed some COPD risk (e.g., emphysema) but even that was lower than expected. In part, that may be because THC is a vasodilator whereas nicotine is a vasoconstrictor. Many people who smoke pot cough reflexively, which is a consequence of the vasodilation effect. That cough reflex is usually a sign of the strength of the cannabis.

Or as we say around these parts: "You don't get off unless you cough."

[Zhade]

65. You cannot get cancer from smoking something that shrinks cancerous tumors.

NT!

[LeftishBrit]

112. Not necessarily so..

Not speaking specifically of cannabis, but some agents (radiation and some forms of chemo) that can cure cancer, are also capable of causing it under certain circumstances. It can depend very closely on the exact dosage.

[dysfunctional press]

106. i'm a fairly heavy user as well, and my lungs are clean as a whistle.

i don't and never have used tobacco, but i go through about an ounce of weed per week. and that's just me- my wife doesn't toke, and neither do any of my friends. i've been smoking for over 30 years now.

[damntexdem]

45. This is horrible, tragic!

Think of all the lost revenue to cancer surgeons should women start smoking marijuana to halt the spread of breast cancer!

;-)

Don't worry, in states where hemp is still an illegal crop, there will be no difficulty holding a non-pyschoactive cancer preventive is illegal. And I'm sure that the feds will find a way to attack its use everywhere.

[BushOut06]

48. Cannabis could cure all diseases, and the Rethugs wouldn't care

As long as someone can get high from it, they don't give a shit about any other legitimate uses.

[Le Taz Hot]

80. The Rethugs?

Other than Kucinich, do you see any Democrats advocating legalization? I don't. They're just as bad as the Republicans on this issue and we need to recognize that AND address it.

[BushOut06]

82. I primarily blame the Rethugs

If the religious right - primarily rethugs - hadn't made marijuana such a "poison pill" issue, then I think we'd probably see more Democrats taking a more sensible approach. As it is now, taking a "pro-pot" position can be considered political suicide for many.

[HuffleClaw]

50. sure says something that it is the BBC that is reporting this eh?

and the cute little caveat they (the researchers) just HAD to add.

[Prophet 451]

92. CYA

The researchers had to add that caveat. Pot is still illegal here and our government is dicking around with the classification. They have to cover their collective asses on that one.

[Cha]

51. At first I read

"cannibals" ..and then the rest..so I had to go back and read again. Hmmm..makes more sense. :smoke:

Interesting how they figured that out. And right..Big Fat Pharma will not sit by and let anything as simple as this compound in cannibis heal people without them getting the lion's share of profits. I can't even believe the commercials on tv for drugs..I try to mute them but once in awhile one gets almost by me and I dive for the remote and start screaming insults at the tv.. like, "You Stinking Drug Pushers!"

[bamacrat]

57. Yet another reason to legalize it.

I thought for sure the fact that legalizing weed would make billions of dollars would make the gov't act, it didnt. Now a chemical found in the most perfect plant can stop cancer...it will never be legalized will it? If something natural can heal you why would we need to spend our way into poverty taking man made drugs that only postpone the inevitable. All people sick or not should be able to live the high life, and be happy. (not talking Miller beer.)

:smoke:

[Prophet 451]

93. Probably not

Your government is openly run by corporations. My own (British) is as well but we're about ten to fifteen years behind you so they at least pretend not to here and too many corporations stand to lose too much money if pot were legalised. Who's going to spend thirty dollars on a pill if you can buy a blunt for a buck-fifty? Pharma is the worst offender but when you think of the long list of things which cannabis can replace (either entirely or mostly) and the sums involved, the chances of legalisation start looking pretty remote.

Way I see it, the only chances are either to get the money interests out of politics or move to somewhere they have a sensible attitude towards pot. Everyone knows about Holland but most of Germany is also fine with "personal use" amounts.

[bamacrat]

101. Good point Prophet.

But $150 for a blunt, damn thats high.(Pun)

:smoke:

[Prophet 451]

102. Hey, it's been a long time

Seriously, I haven't smoked pot in about fifteen years, I have no idea how much it goes for.

[Zhade]

62. This has been known for a long time.

The reason marijuana DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER is because it SHRINKS TUMORS. Tumors *are* cancer.

[RainDog]

68. Whoa...I looked up the info

and found out that the U.S. destroyed records and has virtual news blackouts about the beneficial effects of cannibas on tumors. ()

The term medical marijuana took on dramatic new meaning in February, 2000 when researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis.

The Madrid study marks only the second time that THC has been administered to tumor-bearing animals; the first was a Virginia investigation 26 years ago. In both studies, the THC shrank or destroyed tumors in a majority of the test subjects.

Most Americans don't know anything about the Madrid discovery. Virtually no major U.S. newspapers carried the story, which ran only once on the AP and UPI news wires, on Feb. 29, 2000.

The ominous part is that this isn't the first time scientists have discovered that THC shrinks tumors. In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.

They've known for more than 30 years about the beneficial aspects of cannabis and have kept this info from cancer patients!

Can we get a priority check here? Reality check? Why is my tax money wasted on a harmful war on cannabis? And the article in this link is 7 years old?!?!

[Zhade]

74. As a result, our government has MURDERED countless cancer patients.

Yet some still think this is the best country ever.

[allisonthegreat]

79. yeah that's right...

a harmless herb that could help patients with chronic pain, glaucoma, and cancer. Or at least help with the symptoms of chemotherapy.

[Prophet 451]

94. Manslaughter, not murder

Murder requires specific intent (i.e. the gummint actively wanted the sufferers to die). Manslaughter allows for general intent (i.e. they didn't care either way).

[orleans]

69. well, damn! if the nonpsychoactive part can cure cancer--just think

of what it can do when you get high

[Socal31]

70. So who would trade

breast cancer for lung cancer?

[Fly by night]

81. You don't have to trade. Read up-thread, pot doesn't cause lung cancer - it prevents/cures it.

[Socal31]

99. Are you joking?

Marijuana has 5X the carcinogens as tobacco. Also, putting 2000 degree smoke in your lungs doesnt help either.

Im all for medical marijuana (I even dabble in it myself) But to say that it doesnt cause lung cancer just about made me fall out of my chair. It shows a very low IQ in my opinion.

[Zhade]

109. FALSE. There is NO evidence it causes cancer.

Meanwhile, there IS evidence it kills tumors - which are cancer!

Educate yourself!

[Fly by night]

111. Once again, read up-thread. Studies are cited for you to read.

There is no evidence that cannabis causes lung cancer -- just the reverse.

Besides, vaporizers reduce exposure to heated air (by the time the user inhales, the vapor is room-temperature). In addition, it exposes the user to no carbon monoxide and no smoke/tar.

You're quoting old, discredited DEA folderol about cannabis having 5X the tar as cigarette smoke.

Why is that?

[Socal31]

119. Riiiight...

because everyone uses Vaporizors.......(que?)

[Prophet 451]

90. I made a mistake there

Upthread, I said that cannabis posed a risk of lung cancer. That turned out to be based on my misunderstanding of an article, for which I apologise. Someone else has supplied a link to a more up to date article which refutes such a link.

[Mythsaje]

75. According to what I remember from the

Marijuana Grower's Guide and Marijuana Botony (admittedly from somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 years in the past) CBNs and CBDs are mildly psychoactive compounds that are what THC turns into when it starts to break down. They're more depressant than hallucinigen, and more prevelant in brown rather than green pot.

Like I said, this is pulled out of the deep well of memory from a LONG time ago. But that memory makes me wonder about the whole "non-psychoactive" angle.

This is another element to the whole "why doesn't pot cause cancer?" question. Because there are a host of things in it that work to prevent it? Possibly.

The stuff ain't all good (as if anything is) but it does seem to have a LOT of good qualities. Too bad the government (wait--it is still WE the people, right?) doesn't like it.

[Prophet 451]

91. No, it's "They, the mega-corps" n/t

[ThePowerofWill]

118. You are correct.

The three major chemical compounds in marijuana that are psychoactive are THC, CBD, and CBN. They are in fact very related, and very close in chemical structure, THC actually degrades into CBD, and CBN. THC is by far the strongest, however both CBD, and CBN influence the type of high. Herb with high concentrations of CBD, and CBN tend to produce slow lethargic stones with read eyes, and lots of munchies, and cotton mouth, also makes you lethargic after smoking. Strains that produce lesser amounts of CBD, and CBN have highs with faster onset, shorter length, less red eye cotton mouth, the high is much more cerebral, and less lethargic.

[Whoa_Nelly]

105. Needs to be added to the book!

[fascisthunter]

107. Maybe if Conservatives Smoked a Little

we would have less wars. We might eliminate their cancer too. Nah... they are too uptight and paranoid to ever be able to enjoy it.

[rhett o rick]

108. Let's take this a step farther. Let's make it a law that everyone must smoke cannabis, especially

the "so called" conservatives.

[meow2u3]

122. Conservos would become libertarians if they smoked some

Isn't that the libertarian platform? Right-wing stoners? :shrug:

[Fly by night]

113. 64 million (deaths) question: IF GOVT-FUNDED STUDIES IN '75 SHOWED POT'S ANTI-TUMOR EFFECTS, ...

.... than what in the plu-perfect hell would cause us to sit on this information for three decades?

When a potential cancer fighter was at our finger-tips (so to speak)?

THAT is a question for Bob Koehler, Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, Keith Olbermann et al to get behind.

WHAT HAVE WE KNOWN AND WHEN DID WE FIRST KNOW IT?

Cannabis prohibition has been in place in this country for less time than the life-span of one old man. If humankind has benefited from the medical uses of cannabis for over 5,000 years of recorded history, can we not (as a nation and a species) decide we made a mistake 70 years ago?

Time to return the Goddess to Her (gentle, useful, respected) place among us.

Support medical marijuana programs in your state (or work to initiate them).

Make medical cannabis re-classification a national Democratic platform "plank" issue in 2008. (Speak up now, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel et al. Speak now so that we can, once again, hold our peace.)

Hey, a guy can dream, can't he? And he/she can work to make it happen.

I appreciate DU for keeping a steady and open discussion (through regularly-posted 'Greatest" threads) about the need for serious drug reform policy shifts in this country, particularly around medical marijuana. If we never stop fighting, we cannot lose.

We are the ones we've been waiting for.

[gorbal]

127. an old article

Cannabis may help combat cancer
Cannabis plant (BBC)
Cannabis has several medical applications
The chemical in cannabis that produces a high may help to combat the spread of cancer, research suggests.

Scientists have discovered the active ingredient, delta-9-tetrahydrocannibol can block the spread of gamma herpes viruses.

The viruses are linked to an increased risk of the cancers Kaposis sarcoma, Burkitts lymphoma and Hodgkins disease.

The research, by the University of South Florida, is published in the online journal BMC Medicine.

Gamma herpes viruses are different from the herpes simplex viruses responsible for cold sores and genital herpes.

Among those that have been associated with an increased risk of cancer is Kaposis Sarcoma Associated Herpes Virus.

Once infected, it is almost impossible to get rid of the virus as it lies dormant for long periods within white blood cells.

However, the virus can snap back into action, and suddenly

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3655586.stm