A study claiming that pot cures cancer sounds likely to be spurious, but on closer examination this one actually seems legit.
Two researchers at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco have discovered that a compound found in cannabis can stop aggressive cancers spreading through the body.
The two scientists, Pierre Desprez and Sean McAllister, found that Cannabidiol turns off the gene, ID-1, that causes cancers to metastatize. They've tested the compound in vitro and in animals, and they're waiting for clearance to begin human clinical trials. Their initial findings related to breast cancer but they now believe other cancers can be arrested by the compound, including prostate and brain cancer.
The current research isn't yet published, but you can see their published 2007 paper on marijuana and breast cancer.
The reason we think the study is legitimate science? The two scientists are based at a respectable medical research center, and their research group publishes in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, signaling that their work is widely accepted by the scientific community.
Note that you can't achieve anti-cancer benefits with recreational paraphernalia aka smoking a joint. To get enough Cannabidiol into your system to treat cancer, you need high concentrations injected into your bloodstream.
From the article - "Note that you can't achieve anti-cancer benefits with recreational paraphernalia aka smoking a joint. To get enough Cannabidiol into your system to treat cancer, you need high concentrations injected into your bloodstream."
@chadlew if pot is a leading mind altering substance, then it changes it for the better. i've known many brilliant scholars who have gotten their advanced degrees and made many magnificent advances while totally wasted.
Do you also think people shouldn't consume alcohol to get drunk? I'm trying to understand why you feel the government should have the right to control what people grow and consume for recreational purposes.
@TheLoneRanger Well I don't believe in your god, so I shouldn't have to abide by any of his/her/its rules. As long as my rights do not breech your rights, then there shouldn't be a problem. Many Islamic nations suffer from a country's breech of separation of church and state. Don't start thinking that christian law would be any less oppressive than islamic law. If I want to overdose on cocaine, I should have the freedom to do so. If I get high on bath salts or meth and wander out into public and start affecting the safety and freedom of others, then I would be breaking the law. Willfully consuming any product should not be illegal. Selling a product known to cause serious addiction and adverse health affects should be illegal (ex. meth, bath salts, cocaine, etc.). However, marijuana and alcohol are no more addictive than chocolate, and in appropriate doses have been proven to alleviate problems. Its not up to the government to insure nobody takes more than a "recomended dose" of a legal substance.
@TheLoneRanger Part of being free is the ability to make bad decisions. If my bad decisions intrude on someone else's rights, then I am breaking the law. Until that time, my bad decisions are my freedom and liberty. You telling me that I have to abide by some law your prophet(s) wrote in a book some 2000 years ago is an intrusion on my liberties. Plain and simple.
NOPE. Have believed for 25+ years it should be legal. Believe the government doesn't want it legalized because, unlike alcohol, pot can be produced by the masses without much effort (they don't call it WEED for nothing). That kind of cuts into their (the feds) tax liens on the stuff....
@Fishbone345 Yeah, I know. My oncology experience was about the same time the Laetrile scam on terminally ill patients. It's better, I think, to temper expectations early on than to see a dying person and their tortured family squander their last days together in a hopeless, increasingly desperate search for a miracle.
@DARSB I agree, but sadly I don't think people would be in a position to squander hope if the gov would get out of the way of legitimate study and allow the masses to be informed. Instead it remains cloaked in mystery because no one can take a serious look at it without putting their career on the line.
No. First of all, as Mary points out, this has nothing to do with smoking marijuana, for medicinal purposes or otherwise. This has to do with the use of one of the compounds found in cannabis as a concentrated medication.
Second, this is not new. Scientists have known about the impact of Cannabidiol in halting the growth and spread of cancer cells for more than 5 years now, and articles about it have been available online for about the same amount of time.
I don't know too many people that object to the use of cannabis-derived pharmaceuticals where medical research shows them to be effective. We already use compounds derived from all sorts of poisonous and illegal substances, which are not harmful when separated from their natural substances.
My state has a medical marijuana proposal on the ballot in November. I am going to oppose it after seeing how rampantly a similar system has been abused in California.
@Stratton I'm far too busy counting the thousands and and thousands and thousands of innocents who have been murdered at the hands of unregulated gangs, over zealous paramilitary law enforcement, and the many other social diseases that run rampant through a society corrupted by attempting to dictate morality. So you feel sorry for the junkies who refuse to take personal responsibility for their own actions. Im trying to reinstate the U.S. Constitution.
@CitizenToker - Care to cite some proof of "thousands of innocents" murdered by "paramilitary law enforcement" in this country? Also, what would a "regulated" gang be exactly?
It seems like you enjoy spouting a lot of verbiage, but don't seem to worry too much about whether what you're saying actually means anything. That's usually the symptom of somebody who isn't used to having their views challenged.
The US Constitution, my friend, was not instituted for the purpose of protecting your ability to get high. And it certainly does not prevent the government from banning substances which are deemed to be dangerous to the public welfare. Or maybe you'd like to go on a crusade to make ricin legal?
@Stratton The thousands was mostly in regard to the 60,000+ that have died in Mexico over the past 5 years, but there are ample news articles online that point to instances where SWAT teams have killed innocent people because they had the wrong address or other bad information. If you'll actually read them I'll look a few up for you and post links, but to get you started google SWAT kills decorated marine, Swat kills pets, and elderly woman killed in botched drug raid. In addition to these examples there are also millions of Americans who have suffered undue punishment for simply choosing to use cannabis instead of alcohol (think of all the people who have died in prisons who shouldn't have been there to begin with), not to mention the families of all those in prison who are having to survive without a bread winner and the children who don't have parents at home to offer them needed guidance. And for your info, the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect my ability to pursue happiness however I see fit as long as I do no harm to others.. You are correct, however, in stating that it doesn't prevent the gov from banning things, though it should and was intended to. And to be honest, yes. If there's an idiot out there who wants to take ricin who are we to get in the way. Are you suggesting that the government should have the final say in how we leave this world in addition to how we live in it? Also, an example of a regulated gang would be, alcohol manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, tobacco companies, and virtually any other business that would have to resort to violence to secure a share of a market, but doesn't have to because we don't put them in the position where they have to go underground. They can settle grievances in court without machine guns.... Lol, and make no mistake, I'm plenty accustomed to having my views challenged because I choose to endorse liberty instead of the status quo, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
@MongoAPillager I'd like to see a single example of a cannabis- only related fatality. And auto accidents, or anything else that stems from irresponsible behavior doesn't count. Cannabis isn't to blame for that, poor decision making is. If you were driving down the road drinking water, hit a bump and lost focus on the road in an attempt to avoid a spill and crashed your car it wouldn't be the water's fault nor would you ban it.
@CitizenToker Dude,why do you think its called being stoned,your mental facilities are impaired,your reaction time is impaired,you have the concentration of a ferret when stoned,i know as i use to be a heavy smoker as were most of my friends,
@MongoAPillager I'm not disputing that it affects mental faculties. I'm saying that it doesn't kill. If you get so stoned you can't keep your eyes open and get behind the wheel it isn't cannabis that wrecks your car. It's all you.
@CitizenToker if you are going at this from a strictly,(does it poison the body)question,yes it does,our lungs were never designed to breath smoke,also it plays havoc with blood pressure,and other heart conditions,it has a lot more carcinogens than tobacco,it may help cure some cancer but just as likely to contribute to cancer also.i bet if there wouldn,t be half the defense of weed if it didn,t get ya high
@ACTSmom i think that you'd find that it's all relative. for example... when i was smoking pot regularly i'd hit maybe 1 to 2 joints a week at most. with cigarettes i was smoking up to 5 packs a day. even at that my lungs and heart have remained clear. in fact, my doctor called me a liar when i told him how much i had been smoking and that i'd smoked for nearly 50 years.
my heart exams showed absolutely no damage to my circulatory system, and there's not one mark on my lungs anywhere. luck... maybe.
The FDA and pharma companies have never endorsed marijuana's many medicinal properties because you cannot place a patent on a plant. Therefore, they can't make any real money off of it. They have tried for years to replicate it in the form of marinol and other chemically fabricated drugs but none have been as effective as the plant itself. Perhaps now if they find a way to extract the Cannabidiol for use in cancer patients they will finally start to acknowledge it's many other medicinal uses.
The war on drugs has been a big failure. It wastes our resources and jails people on petty crimes. It should not be listed with narcotics. I don't ever recall anyone dying from using it, nor anyone killing to support their habit. It sure does keep us protected by the law though. Why do we need a cop in every school is another good question? That is a big waste of resources as well. The money could be spent on education and not transparent encarceration. If we would legalize all the drugs and dispense them instead of putting people in jail for non violent crimes the problem would solve itself.