the answer is YES re: weed curing breast cancer

[ensho]

http://www.truth-out.org/could-legalizing-marijuana-california-help-cure-breast-cancer64572


Could Legalizing Marijuana in California Help Cure Breast Cancer?


-snip-

But for a moment, forget the anti-drug ads of stoned teenagers passing the bong and click instead on the National Library of Medicine's website, "Pubmed.gov." Look under "breast cancer and cannabinoid" and you will find studies in scientific journals like Breast Cancer Research and Treatment that should warrant immediate action: "Our data demonstrate the efficacy of CBD in pre-clinical models of breast cancer. The results have the potential to lead to the development of novel non-toxic compounds for the treatment of breast cancer metastasis…"

A study in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics says, "These results indicate that CB1 and CB2 receptors could be used to develop novel therapeutic strategies against breast cancer growth and metastasis." And this from the journal Molecular Cancer: "these results provide a strong preclinical evidence for the use of cannabinoid-based therapies for the management of ErbB2-positive breast cancer." What's more, this basic research also extols the safety of potential cannabinoid therapies.

The science behind these studies finds that the human body contains its own internal system interrelated with molecules in the cannabis plant—AKA marijuana. A neurological signaling structure called the endocannabinoid system is now known to govern numerous bodily processes like appetite, pain, and even the birth of new brain cells. Cannabinoid receptors, called CB1 and CB2, are located in various cell membranes and activated by the body's own cannabinoid molecules (endocannabinoids), as well as those unique to the cannabis plant (THC, CBD) and synthetically-derived cannabinoids like Marinol®.

And now, the latest research is proving that cannabinoids, as part of this bodily system, play a mitigating role in breast cancer.

-snip-

There has to be a way to accelerate the clinical trials that will develop promising cannabinoid-based breast cancer treatments. Something simultaneously immediate, attention-getting, and policy-changing. Something that brings this issue to the fore, that can't be ignored, and hasn't been tried before.

Could legalizing marijuana in California help cure breast cancer?
-------------------------


this information should be on Obama's desk

[whathehell]

1. WTF?....Who is unreccing this?

[defendandprotect]

24. Big Pharma ....more than likely!!

:evilgrin:

[Kurovski]

25. The 100 year-old cast and crew of "Reefer Madness"

[Jackpine Radical]

65. Didn't much matter in the long run. This thread has 149 recs

as of my contribution.

Screw the Unreccing Crew.

[whathehell]

84. You are correct....but when I posted the question .

it had only a few.

Thanks for the rec....Screw the Unreccing Crew!

[Jackpine Radical]

85. Maybe it was just a few stoners trying to find the Rec button.

:evilgrin:

[whathehell]

86. Quite possible, bro.....Quite possible.

Back at ya:hi:

[NV Whino]

2. Big Pharma won't like that

[ensho]

5. you can say that again - and will fight dirty to stop it

nt

[Deep13]

48. A cure for cancer that they can produce...

...without spending millions of dollars inventing? Yeah, they'll hate that! :shrug:

[tridim]

3. IMO this is why some people smoke and others don't.

It's just self-adjusting a chemical imbalance in your own body.

And the Fed says NO! you will not balance yourself. If you do, you go to jail.

[Tsiyu]

8. This has been what I have believed for some time

so the news about these receptors makes sense to me.

But people do love their stereotypes, and the indoctrination against the 'evil weed' has been very successful. Lots of pearl-clutching on this issue by people who on other issues seem progressive and intelligent.

It's almost like they merely posture on this one issue just so they have one area in their life where they feel all "moral" and in tune with Conservatives.

As if they are attempting to placate the Fascists: "Oh, I'm a liberal, but I hate those potheads, too. Don't hurt me."

[krabigirl]

12. +1, great post.

[Tsiyu]

15. Thanks krabigirl

:pals:

Good to see you out and about on DU this evening. :hi:

if you haven't already, check out FlyByNight's post in GD

thanks!

[Baalath]

4. In a hurry

let me read the whole article and I will comment tonight.

[ensho]

6. OK

nt

[Zephie]

7. K&R, my avatar says it all

[felix_numinous]

9. K + R For a powerful healing plant.

It is cheap and it is a good plant for human beings to use as medicine. Besides all of the many benefits of hemp and cannabis, this country would really benefit from chilling out.

[immoderate]

10. This is great news!

I am a strong supporter of both breasts and marijuana.

--imm

[RaleighNCDUer]

60. You are a bra in which she keeps her stash? nt

[immoderate]

80. LOL. I can dream.

--imm

[CommonSensePLZ]

11. This is so true

It should only be used for medical purposes.

:popcorn:

[asdjrocky]

13. It should be used by freedom loving people everywhere.

Are you saying you don't love freedom?

[CommonSensePLZ]

16. xD Really?

I disagree and suddenly I "hate freedom"? Isn't that the old Republican line?

What I don't love is the idea of people misusing their freedom to intentional breathe smoke into their bodies to fool themselves into believing they're happier, because it's not real (idk, can it treat real clinical depression?). The pleasure you get from being high is your brain cells dying off faster.

I know people who want pot are going to get it come hell or highwater, even if that means funding international drug cartels, but I disagree with their choice and I have my FREEDOM to do so.

[asdjrocky]

21. I thought you'd recognize it.

I was also making an obvious joke, sorry you didn't see it.

That being said, who are you to tell someone what they can or can't put in their bodies? By the way, there are plenty of people who use cannabis without the smoke.

Honestly, you seem a bit hostile and more than a little authoritarian. My advice to you? Vape up, or you can smoke.

There are social, medical and community benefits to both cannabis and it's hard working cousin, hemp and the sooner we all come around to realizing that as a society, the better off our society will be.

[CommonSensePLZ]

27. Authoritarian?! That's it, I'm gettin' the belt!

No, just not a fan of drug culture and don't care if it means I can never be one of the "cool kids" and I wouldn't choose side effects of getting high as a hobby. Everyone else wants to do it, w/e, just not for me, and I didn't say what everyone's allowed to put in their bodies, just that I disagree with it.

Hard to tell when someone's joking because even though there's poverty, starvation, corruption and worse out there the only thing all the races and classes seem to be able to agree upon is how much they love this drug or that drug.

[HuckleB]

30. "Drug culture?"

You think marijuana should be illegal because you don't like what you think is the "culture" of users?

:rofl:

Try to get out of the house, now and then. There is singular "drug culture" in regard to marijuana.

[CommonSensePLZ]

41. I just mean

The whole "ooh, I'm smoking and/or drinking! I'm so grown and rebellious" - that's what I mean by drug culture: The "social usage," peer pressure and how glamorous, exciting or silly they always make it seem on tv (BTW I'm talking about cigarettes, alcohol and pot here). Pot is often, but not always, portrayed just as a drug that makes people silly with no possible bad side effects even though it is considered addictive.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=cannibis+addiction&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35

Been around people when they get high or drunk all my life, I don't think people are at there best in these states.

[Mimosa]

45. Reactions to marijuana are as varied as the individuals who use it

I've known quite a few people who've smoked marijuana and they didn't act 'silly' or strange when smoking.

I haven't had any in a few years. The only times I smoked it were when I had extreme menstrual pain and cramping which not even Vicodin could relieve. A few tokes from a joint actually worked. I felt relaxed and relieved, not 'high' like when one gets drunk.

[HuckleB]

46. So your whole judgment is based on a few youthful anecdotes.

Got it.

[CommonSensePLZ]

51. Anecdotes, society, the media, personal life experience, harsh scientific details

But yeah, whatever..

[HuckleB]

54. That's quite the repetitive list you got there.

:rofl:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

57. It's one of THOSE phrases, isn't it?

When a person uses it in a straight fashion, you suddenly know a LOT more about them.

[Zhade]

34. It's cool if it's not your thing. But please, don't spread lies about it.

NT!

[CommonSensePLZ]

42. I haven't and I won't

As long as you don't lie and say that I am.

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. If you say it is addictive, you are lying.

It may, for some heavy users, create a psychological dependency, but that is not addiction. There are no withdrawal symptoms from quitting, there is no physical dependency, there is no need to continually increase dosage to get the same results.

It is NOT addictive.

Not to mention, as an aside, nobody in the history of the world has OD'd on pot.

[reggie the dog]

36. plenty of nerds and non cool people use drugs

i know the cool student atheletes and cheerleaders smoke a lot of weed but so do the other cliques....hell the nerds in revenge of the nerds smoke it

[CommonSensePLZ]

40. By "cool people" I meant

The majority of people who defend it, not the jocks. I mean I don't care if I ended up the only person in the world who didn't think smoking pot as a hobby wasn't a good choice.

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. And because YOU don't care for it, you think nobody should have it.

I think that's pretty much the definition of authoritarian. Your original statement was (rough quote) "should only be used medically".

[asdjrocky]

76. No my friend, you have a chip on your shoulder, that is obvious.

The last thing I am is one of the cool kids, and simply because I'm choosing to talk about one topic does not discard every other important topic.

Right now, we're talking about cannabis and cancer, tomorrow it may be something else. That's okay, right?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

28. you not only disagreed, but you also say it *should* ONLY be used for medical

Purposes.

That implies that people should be prevented from using it for non-medical reasons.

That seems to be advocating the curtailment of uses other than what you find acceptable.

Therefore, it appears that you really have no justification for accusing anyone who disagrees with your restrictive opinion of limiting your freedom.

[CommonSensePLZ]

44. I said 'should' not 'will'

As in "In my opinion, in an ideal situation people would only resort to this drug to help deal with medical problems it has been proven to help," not that I expect this to happen. I expect that people who like to get high but are perfectly healthy and don't need it will be the main ones using it.

[HuckleB]

29. Are you for prohibition of alcohol then?

:shrug:

Note: I don't really like marijuana. I prefer a fine wine, a good beer, or a nice bourbon. However, the evidence is clear to me: If alcohol is legal, it's ludicrous to keep marijuana illegal. The negatives of prohibition are many, and marijuana is certainly not more harmful than alcohol.

[Zhade]

33. Uh, yeah, it does treat clinical depression. That's part of why my doctor prescribes it for me.

And no, your brain cells are not dying off faster. Get a clue. You have the right to your own opinion, but not your own 'facts'.

[reggie the dog]

35. show me one study that says cannabis kills brain cells

i have read numerous studies saying alcohol kills brain cells and many studies saying cannabis does not affect brain function in the long term. that is why i use cannabis and not alcohol. Plus we only fund international drug cartels if we buy imported, were production legal here in the usa we would buy local...

so you think you should be free to limit my freedom even though my growing and smoking cannabis has no impact on you whatsoever?

you are indeed a totalitarian.

i never use alcohol or tobacco but i dont give a damn if other people do because i resepect LIBERTY

[CommonSensePLZ]

43. Link

http://stash.norml.org/californias-epa-rules-cannabis-smoke-is-a-carcinogen

I'm aware that there are several alternate methods of taking pot, but even middle school kids know what a carcinogen is.

I've politely disagreed with an issue with the humility to know that I cannot change anyone's lifestyle, that does not qualify as 'totalitarian' by any stretch of the imagination, but if we'll start hurling insults I'd have to say you're full of crap for that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

63. Did you read the link you posted? From that link -

"Dispensaries will be required to carry a warning that cannabis may cause cancer, even though it does not cause cancer. Dr. Donald Tashkin’s thirty years of research shows that even long-term cannabis smoking is not associated with an increased risk of head, neck, or lung cancer. He hypothesizes about a protective effect, an anti-tumoral effect from THC that seems to mitigate the carcinogens found in marijuana smoke."

The article is about how a political agency declared a non-carcinogen to be a carcinogen, for political purposes, against the evidence of science.

[CommonSensePLZ]

72. I know

I used that one to point out a legal action that was done about it's considered carcinogenic property.

Here are a few more statements:

"There are four times the level of tar in a marijuana cigarette, for example, than in a tobacco cigarette"

"Smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco. Marijuana smoke contains 50% to 70% more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form--levels that may accelerate the canges that ultimately produce malignant cells"

Their words, not mine: http://www.streetdrugs.org/html%20files/Marijuana.html

[reggie the dog]

74. so where is the killing of brain cells link?

i never argued about what was in the smoke, i argued that you claimed it damaged the brain. in practice studies (i think ucla and dr tashkin) showed that in use there is not a greater risk of cancer in the cannabis using group compared to the non using group whereas with tobacco there is a greater risk of cancer than in the non smoking group. most cannabis smokers smoke far less plant material per day than an average tobacco smokers does too

[RaleighNCDUer]

75. If a carcinogen does not cause cancer, is it a carcinogen?

Your quote "Smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco." omits the little fact that it DOESN'T. They aren't sure just WHY not, but the fact is that it does not, even though the chemistry says it should. That's why they weasel with 'may' and don't claim it 'does'.

[reggie the dog]

73. there is no talk of brain damage at that link

just that there are chemicals in the smoke that are carcinognen.

[Winston Wolf]

37. People Abuse Alcohol As Well...

...we should just make it illegal again, and it will work out just fine, just like it did before, right?

Prohibition of alcohol (a mind altering drug of high demand) didn't work - it just created a massive underground crime network.

Prohibition of marijuana (a mind altering drug of high demand) isn't working either, it's helping fuel and fund these fucking drug cartels you're so upset about.

And no, the high experienced off of inhaling THC isn't due to loss of brain cells. If that was the case, everyone would just hold their breath for extended periods of time, and feel the "high" off of the deprivation of oxygen.

Please, perhaps do some research, or provide some LINKS, when you go on about the evils of marijuana, it'll help you not look so foolish.

[roody]

47. It is not necessary to smoke it to ingest it.

[kenfrequed]

64. ironically

The fastest way to defund the cartels would be to legalize growth domestically. If it isn't a crime, anyone could be growing weed in their garden and organized crime over it would be over.

I am uncertain as to the medical uses, and though I do suspect it is bad for the brain, I think that your tossing in the red herring of drug cartels to this debate is ridiculous at best.

[Luminous Animal]

20. Indeed. Aches and pains, sleeplessness...

depression, cramps, appetite enhancement for a multitude of diseases, anxiety, shyness, doldrums, and vaping has even helped my friends chronic asthma. Pretty much any modern human condition can be treated with pot.

[Jackpine Radical]

87. But there are so many ailments for which it's effective--

Like ennui, for example. There's an absolute ennui epidemic in this country, and nobody's doing anything about it!

[asdjrocky]

14. Here's an important video about hash oil and skin cancer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPm0Jq9bj98

[kas125]

22. Another one is Run From the Cure, the Rick Simpson Story -

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

Five and a half years ago, I watched my mom go through chemo that made her sicker, only to die eleven weeks after her diagnosis. Then I saw that movie. Now, I tell everyone I know to watch it just in case they or someone they love gets sick. I know if my kids or I were diagnosed with cancer, his 'hemp oil' recipe would be the first thing I'd try. Chemo would be the last.

[asdjrocky]

77. Thank you!

I've been looking for that. We lost my nephew to melanoma, at age 22, before any of us knew about this.

He may have been saved were it not for the stupid war on cannabis.

[kas125]

79. You're welcome! I really do believe it works and I so hate that

our gov't is so hell bent on supporting big Pharma instead of sick people. And I'm really sorry about your nephew, it's horrible to lose young people.

[Contrary1]

17. I would like to volunteer for the clinical trial.

:evilgrin:

[bluedigger]

18. Well, that's no good.

Once I'm cured, no more MMJ card!

(I don't really have one, or cancer.)

[laughingliberal]

19. Long past time we should have legalized marijuana. nt

[defendandprotect]

23. Marijuana...an end to "slash and burn" cancer care .... ???

I'm sending this on to Obama -- thanks!!

[HuckleB]

26. I think marijuana should be legal for recreational use.

However, let's bring a little perspective to this "cancer cure" sideline.

Cannabinoids for treating cancer?
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/08/19/cannabinoids-for-treating-cancer/

"Researchers in Spain have published results in this week’s British Journal of Cancer showing that certain cannabinoids – molecules so-called because they were originally found in cannabis – could hold promise for treating prostate cancer.

So does this mean that smoking cannabis could treat the disease?

Certainly not. In this paper the researchers were using purified man-made cannabinoids. And they were investigating how to harness the cancer-fighting powers of these chemicals without the mind-bending ones.

Cannabinoids and cancer

Certain cannabinoids, such as THC, the main active ingredient in cannabis, have well-documented mind-altering properties. But other cannabinoids have been known for some years to have biological effects elsewhere in the body. Of most interest to cancer researchers is the evidence showing that they can slow the growth and spread of cancer cells, or even kill them.

..."


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


Yes, this is just one paper, but it is similar to where most scientists are going with their research in this area. It's likely we will find success at some point in using parts of the plant for such specific treatments, and the plant does provide benefits whole for other ailments or side effects. However, the actual, specific treatment of cancer is not looking at the whole plant, or at smoking it for treatment (though, obviously, smoking can have benefits for the side effects of some current cancer treatments and some symptoms of cancer).

:hi:

[shockra]

31. I remember reading about this research being done in the 70's

That’s right, news about the ability of pot to shrink tumors first surfaced, way back in 1974. Researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institutes 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.

The Washington Post reported on the 1974 study — in the “Local” section — on Aug. 18, 1974. Under the headline, “Cancer Curb Is Studied,” it read in part: “The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered.” The researchers “found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers, and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.”

http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/

Big Pharma routinely suppresses cancer cures. It's a $50 billion dollar industry they don't want to end.

[happygoluckytoyou]

32. a joint... removes bad memories, cures bad mammeries, and pisses off the bright whites= TRIFECTA!

[eShirl]

39. no. the bright whites approve.

it's the whites who are not so bright who kick and scream against the inevitable tides

[indimuse]

38. KNR! n/t

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[MilesColtrane]

50. "could be used to develop novel therapeutic strategies"

So perhaps we'll see a synthetically produced prescription drug that uses these cannabinoids somewhere down the line.

But, I don't see how an effective manufactured pharmaceutical is going to influence legalization for recreational purposes.

[HuckleB]

55. Indeed.

Which is what makes the posts on this thread about fighting Big Pharma a bit humorous.

[chimpymustgo]

52. The Powers That Be KNOW this. K&R.

[Deep13]

53. Well, the answer is "maybe." There has been no clinical testing as of yet. nt

[HuckleB]

56. Yup. -eom-

[caseymoz]

58. Sorry, this is reefer madness in the opposite way.

People get connected to their drugs of choice. And marketing plays on it, even when the drug is illegal.

No, I don't think cannabis has half of the great effects its promoted to have. Read the effects nicotine and opium or cocaine were extolled as having in the late 19th early 20th century. This would be one I would be very surprised about. I notice the wording: "could be used to develop novel strategies . . ." In other words, it might work if we only knew how to use/improve it. The same could be said of peanut oil.

A study like this warrants-- more studies. Not immediate legalization. A single study, in fact, means very little. The researcher might be as gung ho about legalization as you are, and might not be so disciplined in their science when they study it as a result.

Also don't be naive to think that putting this on the President's desk will get it legalized. Ever.

[RainDog]

66. actually, there are thousands of studies

that demonstrate the medical effectiveness of cannabis for a variety of health issues. MS and CP particularly, for over a decade, tumor-suppression (the focus of this study) for 30 years, glaucoma, migraines, arthritis, the side effects of chemo and AIDS... these are valid studies that have been accepted by peer-reviewed journals for years and years.

So, the reality is that these studies have gone on for decades. Unfortunately, the U.S. has ACTIVELY tried to suppress information about the medical value of cannabis - one researcher in Spain who did a study on the anti-tumor effects of cannabis in Spain could not get the U.S. govt to release its reports from the 1970s that indicated tumor-suppressing activity of cannabinoids. This same researcher recently set clinical trial standards for injecting cannabinoids directly into brain tumors to study the tumor-reducing properties of his previous studies.

Your govt actively working to keep valid medical research from progressing because of an ideology that puts fear and money for a few over the health concerns of the many. That's criminal. That's the reefer madness, not the many reports of health benefits.

I do agree that more studies need to be done but there is more than one study that indicates a tumor suppressive agency from cannabinoids, again, as I noted, going all the way back to the 1970s.

What should bother you is that your govt. has worked to keep valid medical research from going forward because it is invested in lies, lies that were based upon racism.

Btw, opium derivatives and cocaine are still valid medical products. So, the claims in the 19th c. that they were valid medicines is actually still true. The difference is that those things are also physically addictive so they are now controlled substances instead of over-the-counter medications.

[caseymoz]

70. ROTFLMAO Thousands?

I could believe, maybe, hundreds, but when you say thousands I have to ask the obvious: are you just pulling numbers out of your ass? There probably isn't that much funding for studies of everything in the entire NIH budget, much less on the subject of marijuana, and otherwise, there isn't that much scientific research to go around. Are you given to some exaggeration here? You've actually read thousands of studies? Or you've read about thousands of studies, and perhaps, just a few, redundantly?

I'm sorry, your title alone invites incredulity. If there's an effort to suppress studies on the benefits of marijuana, there's also an effort to exaggerate studies done and their results and to downright fabricate studies to serve the propaganda in getting pot legalized, which are avidly picked up and exaggerated by enthusiasts as you've just demonstrated here. It's opposite, but it's not quite equal, the government has had an upper hand.

The irony is, even as I laugh at you here, I'm pro-legalization. I'm on your side. I'll vote to legalize it. I just have a bullshit detector, that's all, and I'll just advise you, don't expect cancer to be cured the day pot is legalized. Don't expect anything close to the medical breakthroughs you're being promised.

[RainDog]

82. here ya go

if you read my first sentence, you would note that I said there are thousands of studies that demonstrate the validity of cannabis for a variety of medical applications. I didn't single out cancer when I wrote what I did. You singled out cancer.

so, laugh your ass all you want. what I said is true. most of the research into cannabis has taken place outside of the U.S. Israel has done a lot of research into the topic - but the U.S. has funded a lot of the research as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18777572

Research on the chemistry and pharmacology of cannabinoids and endocannabinoids has reached enormous proportions, with approximately 15,000 articles on Cannabis sativa L. and cannabinoids and over 2,000 articles on endocannabinoids. The present review deals with the history of the Cannabis sativa L. plant, its uses, constituent compounds and their biogeneses, and similarity to compounds from Radula spp. In addition, details of the pharmacology of natural cannabinoids, as well as synthetic agonists and antagonists are presented. Finally, details regarding the pioneering isolation of the endocannabinoid anandamide, as well as the pharmacology and potential therapeutic uses of endocannabinoid congeners are presented.

I'm glad you're for legalization. The truth is that R&D into uses of various cannabinoids is a area of research that has yielded a variety of interesting outcomes. Does you bullshit detector indicate that an article noting thousands of studies from someone in the Department of Medicinal Chemistry and Natural Products, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel included in articles from the U.S. Library of Medicine from the National Institute of Health pass the test?

[caseymoz]

88. "Medical validity" is an utterly meaningless term.

All it can mean with regards to a substance being tested, as opposed to say, religious practices, is that cannabis testable and at least doesn't noticeably make the test subject any worse. And, of course, it can be used for a lot of illnesses without making them worse. Effectiveness is another thing, but if your sick, getting high will likely make you feel better.

So now you've proved that there's thousands of articles on cannabis, not necessarily pertaining to cancer research. That's a funny way our government has of suppressing research into it, BTW. How many of these are US studies and how many of them are other countries? Out of these studies, how many out of that actually say cannabis is medically effective? Specifically say this? Recommend it for medical use, where the researcher puts their name behind it? Do you have that number?

I'll try to communicate my concern with you: the more effective a drug is in making you feel good, the more skeptical you have to be about claims of its benefits, especially when the benefits are all over the map, almost like we're all born with a cannabinoid deficiency, which has only been discovered not when we ate something, but when we smoked something. Unlike say, vitamin C, which we discovered when people were deprived of certain foods, that is, from eating them the way any other animal does. You wonder why I'm skeptical, how plausible is this, really? Put yourself into the mind of somebody who doesn't use pot (but might).

I mean, nicotine, in the form of smoking, used to be marketed for an aid to digestion, among other things. In other words, an anti-nausea. If your brain loves a substance, consciously or not, your mind could play all kinds of tricks on you about its benefits, this includes researchers, but really much more from people who then interpret the research and convert it then into rumors, or downright propaganda.

BTW, scientists have also said that nicotine derivatives have a lot of pharmacological potential, except since nicotine is such a politically incorrect drug, the research will never be funded. Where is your activism about that? Have there been 10,000 papers written on medical nicotine? No, so which drug is really being maligned and censored by our government?

Just trying to put this into perspective for you.

[RainDog]

89. fwiw - my drug of choice is caffeine

you make the assumption that I consume cannabis at this time. that's incorrect. someone did share some with me when I had a raging migraine and no medication for it and the cannabis stopped the migraine pain immediately - as well as the nausea. that's one of the medical uses for it in CA. that's what piqued my interest - it was much better than imitrex - faster, no sick feeling..I was able to work (from home, on my computer) - all things I was not able to do when I had a migraine in the past. but I live in a place that would put someone in prison for using this substance as a medicine - a ridiculous trick of geography - but one with real consequences.

before that, I had gone for decades and never consumed cannabis - and had rarely consumed alcohol, for that matter. even so, I had, all during that time, thought that cannabis should be legal b/c I knew it was no worse than alcohol - and b/c I knew and know that people enjoy using mind-altering substances from time to time and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. In fact, I think it might even be good for a lot of people, on occasion. If doing so, as with any substance, interferes with day-to-day functioning, it's a problem.

after the experience I had with my migraine, I became interested in medical uses - when I was younger that wasn't my intention for use, but I'm not a kid anymore. I was interested in part b/c medications that are available are expensive and not nearly as efficient and effective, at least for me.

if you're interested in reading the literature, it's available. I have been reading a lot of the studies over the last months b/c a friend asked if I might be interested in doing so. I've always been more interested in things that outside of the sanction of mainstream society b/c that is, historically, where and how progress occurs across a spectrum of ideas. so before you assume you may speak with authority about any of these studies, you should take the time to read them.

this site has a few full articles and lots of abstracts whose full articles are available via your local u. library system. and of course, you local u. library has dbs for journals that contain many more peer-reviewed studies and findings.

http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com/studies.htm#HD

the truth is that cannabis is a valid substance for scientific research and for medical use. as others have noted, with "big medicine" like cancer treatment, the use of cannabinoids will most surely be via concentrated, "liquified" forms - more like Sativex - currently available as a prescription in Canada, GB and Germany for people with MS. A study in prep. in Spain intends to inject cannabis into the site of tumors - so I'm aware of the vast difference between "big" medical applications and recreational or less severe medical problems.

Oh, did you know that Sativex is liquid marijuana concentrate? Not a synthetic. Cannabis is already in use as a medicine for MS based upon studies that were done more than a decade ago. (you can google this if you want to read about it - the reports are all over the web. the studies were done in 2000.) it seems that the cannabinoids bind to the cannabinoid receptors to mimic natural endocannabinoids that are deficient in people with MS (and which seem to be the reason for the loss of bodily control.) As with other medicines that are effective, doctors do not seem to know the exact processes that make this effective (the same is true with anti-psychotics for uses other than psychosis, for instance) but they employ those drugs b/c of a demonstrated effectiveness.

the breast cancer study had to do with CB2, a cannbinoid that is not psychotropic - there is no "high" feeling from CB2 - and scientists are also studying CB2 to see if it has value for schizophrenics - even tho some people with a family history of schizophrenia should not, imo, try cannabis at all without a dr's supervision b/c such people are part of a population for whom this substance may be problematic. (That's also the position of the head pharmacologist in GB who spoke about this topic recently. - He said cannabis is not a danger to the general population but may be a danger to those who have a family or personal history of schizophrenia.) you can google this, too, or go look for articles on the subject yourself. I find that's far more useful than simply trying to debunk studies you haven't seen.

there are studies available that you can access that indicate cannabis has tumor-suppressing qualities in relation to a variety of cancers - so when someone like me defends this study, I do so with the knowledge that there have already been similar reports for brain cancer and lung cancer, for instance. this doesn't mean I don't think more studies should be done. it does mean that I am aware that there was a study in 2009 that demonstrated the mechanism by which cannabis induces cell death in cancerous cells.

The researchers found that "ER stress–evoked upregulation of the p8/TRB3 pathway induced autophagy via inhibition of the Akt/mTORC1 axis and that activation of autophagy promoted the apoptotic death of tumor cells. The uncovering of this pathway, which we believe is novel, for promoting tumor cell death may have therapeutic implications in the treatment of cancer."

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948

Now, who wouldn't be excited if they read about research that indicated a form of medicine that could induce cancer cell death without the tremendous harm of current forms of treatment? I recognize these studies are in the research phase - but the research indicates, across a variety of cancers, not just the study quoted above, this same capacity to reduce tumor cells.

my response is also predicated on the knowledge that, yes, there has been a long-term campaign to deny Americans information about cannabis and its uses. You may want to see this as reefer madness in reverse. I see this as advocacy for a substance that has been abused by the lies of a govt with seemingly no interest in truth b/c they have invested in lies for so many years. again, when a study in Spain was in preperation, the researcher attempted to access studies from the U.S. in the 1970s and ran into interference. The reason the study was made available at all is b/c activists obtained those studies and leaked them. you can google this information too.

back in the 1940s, Frank LaGuardia, mayor of NYC, wanted to test the scare claims made by the anti-drug warriors that created prohibition in the 1930s because he was skeptical. His large-scale study and report debunked the claims made by the prohibitionists. Nevetheless, LaGuardia was attacked. It turns out his report was one of a few done at the time that indicated there was no danger of physical addiction or physical or mental deterioration for those who smoked over a period of years. You can read LaGuardia's study and conclusion here.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/lag/lagmenu.htm

So, my statements about govt. suppression come from the knowledge that, since the LaGuardia Commission Report published in 1944, our govt has known that marijuana is nothing like the claims they have made against it to justify prohibition. In spite of this reality, the Boggs Act of 1951 created harsher penalties for possession than this nation had for serial killers and rapists.

When a sociology professor published research in the 1950s that debunked misinformation spread by our govt., his phone was tapped, the federal govt (FBN - federal bureau of narcotics) tried to suppress his work and they also tried to get the FBI to find a way to associate this professor with the communist scare of the time. When Canada created a public service documentary that indicated the FBN stereotypes of addicts and drug fiends were lies, this govt. org. sought to ban the film. This professor (of sociology at Indiana University, fwiw) spoke out about this abuse of govt power that sought to interfere with the medical treatment of people with addictions. Finally, the ACLU, the AMA (American Medical Asso.) and the American Bar Asso. spoke out in defense of this professor and this film - and against the govt. lies.

(Out of this experience, an independent org. began that was dedicated to issues of public heath and science, rather than scare campaigns and propaganda. That group eventually merged with the Drug Policy Foundation to create the current Drug Policy Alliance - a group that still works to provide information based upon research and science.)

On its website, the Drug Policy Alliance notes that: Numerous published studies suggest that marijuana has medical value in treating patients with serious illnesses such as AIDS, glaucoma, cancer, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and chronic pain.

I look at what you have to say about the validity of medical studies and then I look at studies themselves, at groups dedicated to good science, at the history of federal govt. organizations to stifle and suppress health information and I think that your animosity toward me is misplaced.

[caseymoz]

90. Even so, anybody can be swayed by propaganda.

You should go off of caffeine, that's a harsh drug, and it's also migraine inducing. Unfortunately, it's also tricky to quit. The withdrawals are nothing compared with the months of lost mental and physical energy afterward.

It's believable that marijuana's an effective analgesic. I've heard that enough from enough different people, and other things about it are intriguing.

I realize in the 1930s-90s that there was a suppression of research into marijuana. I honestly don't think that's any longer the case today. I'm reading about more and more studies into marijuana, many of them stateside. Politically, things have changed, it's no longer so identified with the counterculture Repubs loathed, and I think even a good percentage of the teaparty to be pro-legalization.

These days, I would be especially surprised and disheartened if cancer research will be effected by the legal status of marijuana. But I really think marijuana is on its way toward legality. Hope for it passing in California.

Of course, that could all revert. 11 states had decriminalized marijuana by 1976, and we see what happened from there.

[Baalath]

81. This is a long way from a cure

it doesn't link pot smoking in any way to curing cancer in the studies I looked out. The article you link to is interesting and all, but it isn't scientific and it is a little ...thin.

There are many cancer treatment drugs that derive from substances that are dangerous and lethal. So to infer that cannabis could maybe derive a drug that would slow Her2 marked aggressive BrCa does not create any logical jump that cannabis is good for you.

It doesn't mean it isn't. It just doesn't mean anything about cannabis in non-cancer cells.

http://www.molecular-cancer.com/content/9/1/196

[ecstatic]

59. So... we're replacing one cancer with another now?

Breast cancer --> lung cancer?

[RainDog]

67. not according to Dr. Donald Tashkin

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9409050&mesg_id=9409488

you know, this information has been shared on this forum for a while. yet people seem to choose to remain willfully ignorant. I think it has to do with stereotypes.

[caseymoz]

71. Maybe because of people who throw around terms like "willfully ignorant"

about those who don't use their favorite drug? I have to admit, your use of that term revolts me so much, I want to recoil as far away from your cause as possible, and yes, ignore anything else you say.

One study, BTW, means NOTHING. Right now, it's one guy's guess supported by a certain amount of statistical analysis on a small group (yes 2000 is small.) And anybody who would take a single study's immediate, unverified word on how breathing carcinogens into your lungs won't really cause cancer because there's magical THC in the smoke that gets you high too, is reckless.

[tridim]

68. "Pot Smoking Not Linked to Lung Cancer"

May 23, 2006 -- People who smoke marijuana do not appear to be at increased risk for developing lung cancerlung cancer, new research suggests.

While a clear increase in cancercancer risk was seen among cigarette smokers in the study, no such association was seen for regular cannabis users.

Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.

The findings surprised the study’s researchers, who expected to see an increase in cancer among people who smoked marijuana regularly in their youth.

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer

[HuckleB]

69. So far, studies aren't linking marijuana smoke to lung cancer.

There may be many reasons for that, and more research needs to be done, but...

Further, this research is not pushing the smoking of marijuana as a cure. It's looking at a part of the plant as a possible treatment. It's unlikely that treatment would include smoking, although a cancer patient may get benefits from smoking marijuana in regard to symptoms and side effect treatment. However, that's a separate matter.

[asdjrocky]

78. You are epicly wrong. nt

[and-justice-for-all]

83. Kick