-
You probably know someone affected
An extremely cool result from a medical study in California.
Cannibinoids from THC in Marijuana has shown to be useful in reversing tumor growth of aggressive breast cancer.
Here are links to the Fox news blurb and the studyauthor.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312132,00.html
http://www.cpmc.org/professionals/re...ence/sean.html
Politics should not be stopping researchers everywhere from investigating further use of Marijuana for medical good.
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
diseminator
Politics should not be stopping researchers everywhere from investigating further use of Marijuana for medical good.
I'm directly opposed to MARIJUANA being used for ANY purpose right now. If, however, the authorities see fit to harness any potentially active ingredients therein, test their usefulness adequately and then distrubute them throughout the proper pharmaceutical channels, THEN I might be inclined to sympathize with its use.
That said, I certainly see no harm in scientifically investigating what positive effects the active ingredients may cause.
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Oops Skater... *looks sheepish as she lites er joint settlin bak 2 wotch the Huns on telly*:tong:
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
I completely agree with the testing of that drug against aggresive breast cancer (especially as recently that has seriously affected my family). Any potential treatment for this cancer is a positive thing. It affects so many families across the globe, why shouldn't the government be allowed to test and prove if it can be used as a treatment?!
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkeyes
Oops Skater... *looks sheepish as she lites er joint settlin bak 2 wotch the Huns on telly*:tong:
lol... been there, done that, bought the t-shirt! There's nowt wrong with a little recreational use of certain drugs as long as you're fully in control and fully aware of the potential consequences. But personally, I try and limit ANY intake of mind-altering substances, if I can help it. If not out of safety, then just out of principle.
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkeyes
Oops Skater... *looks sheepish as she lites er joint settlin bak 2 wotch the Huns on telly*:tong:
Humm de dummm...don't bogart that joint my friend...pass it over to meee:stoned:
Right on..farout.and ............solid
Ambi:)
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skater Boy
lol... been there, done that, bought the t-shirt! There's nowt wrong with a little recreational use of certain drugs as long as you're fully in control and fully aware of the potential consequences. But personally, I try and limit ANY intake of mind-altering substances, if I can help it. If not out of safety, then just out of principle.
I liked the recreational mind altering part but not the respiratory destruction part. So, none for me since long, long ago.
JEM
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Yep, and Californee (already hot about state's-rights-over-federal issue) will unknowingly raise the confederate flag!
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
I think that Cannabis should be legal for medicinal purposes since not everyone takes prescription medication that works for them, not everyone can afford prescription drugs, and the smoke from Cannabis is harmful, full of tars, and is carcinogenic but you can always vaporise it or eat it and avoid the negative aspects of it, or just not smoke it very often.
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
The facts are that there are no cancer causing agents in marijuana, smoked or otherwise used.
Do you really think that prestigious universities would be using it in ANTI cancer studies if there were any negative agents in it.
The "Tar" you speak of is a generic term for the resin issued from smoking.
The nicotine in the resin is the cancerous agent. There is none in weed. This is KNOWN.
In fact a study done years ago showed that a person who only smoked weed had a slightly less likely hood of developing lung cancer than a NON smoker,
Never mind a ciggy smoker, that is what led down the road to this current study.
Canadian doctors (and others) supervise the use of weed in the ill, they would not do so if it were cancerous.
Get the facts. I will not do it for you. I will challenge crap.
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
While I am opposed to the recreational use of marijuana, I am all for the medicinal and other legal/legitimate (hemp rope, clothes, etc.) uses for it.
I am all for any medicines and responsibly managed research to further advance the medical profession.
There are cures out there for so many of the world's diseases and anything that unreasonably restricts access to these cures is a crime against humanity.
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the mage
The facts are that there are no cancer causing agents in marijuana, smoked or otherwise used.
Do you really think that prestigious universities would be using it in ANTI cancer studies if there were any negative agents in it.
The "Tar" you speak of is a generic term for the resin issued from smoking.
The nicotine in the resin is the cancerous agent. There is none in weed. This is KNOWN.
In fact a study done years ago showed that a person who only smoked weed had a slightly less likely hood of developing lung cancer than a NON smoker,
Never mind a ciggy smoker, that is what led down the road to this current study.
Canadian doctors (and others) supervise the use of weed in the ill, they would not do so if it were cancerous.
Get the facts. I will not do it for you. I will challenge crap.
Shouldn't you be perma banned paranoid troll?
You don't seem to understand how medical and scientific research is done.
Get the facts. I will not do it for you. I will challange crap. :rolleyes:
Just because a chemical/compound/drug is used in a research study or a medcinal study by doctors or scientists that does not mean that's 100% safe, free from harmful side effects, long term side effects, or that it's non-carcinogenic.
In studies done about the medicinal properties of Cannabis they will use isolated Cannabinoids, synthetic Cannabinoids like Marinol/other ones, vaporizers, or pot in food since these get rid of the carcinogens that are found in the smoke of cannabis.
Smoking ANYTHING is bad for your body's respitory system. The THC isn't bad for you but the smoke certainly is and that's a KNOWN fact.
Cannabis smoke has lots of tars, KNOWN carcinogens, and all smoked plant materials have this.
You don't need a scientific background to understand that.
The burning plant material and the smoke is what contains the tars/KNOWN carcinogens and like I've written before if you want to avoid that eat it, or use a vaporizer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...t=AbstractPlus
Quote:
Cannabinoids induce cancer cell proliferation via tumor necrosis factor alpha-converting enzyme (TACE/ADAM17)-mediated transactivation of the epidermal growth factor receptor.
Hart S, Fischer OM, Ullrich A.
Department of Molecular Biology, Max-Planck-Institute of Biochemistry, Am Klopferspitz 18A, D-82152 Martinsried, Germany.
Cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana and their endogenous counterparts were reported as useful analgetic agents to accompany primary cancer treatment by preventing nausea, vomiting, and pain and by stimulating appetite. Moreover, they have been shown to inhibit cell growth and to induce apoptosis in tumor cells. Here, we demonstrate that anandamide, Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), HU-210, and Win55,212-2 promote mitogenic kinase signaling in cancer cells. Treatment of the glioblastoma cell line U373-MG and the lung carcinoma cell line NCI-H292 with nanomolar concentrations of THC led to accelerated cell proliferation that was completely dependent on metalloprotease and epidermal growth factor
receptor (EGFR) activity. EGFR signal transactivation was identified as the mechanistic link between cannabinoid receptors and the activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinases extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 as well as prosurvival protein kinase B (Akt/PKB) signaling. Depending on the cellular context, signal cross-communication was mediated by shedding of proAmphiregulin (proAR) and/or proHeparin-binding epidermal growth factor-like growth factor (proHB-EGF) by tumor necrosis factor alpha converting enzyme (TACE/ADAM17).
Taken together, our data show that concentrations of THC comparable with those detected in the serum of patients after THC administration accelerate proliferation of cancer cells instead of apoptosis and thereby contribute to cancer progression in patients.
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DiamondDog
Shouldn't you be perma banned paranoid troll?
You don't seem to understand how medical and scientific research is done.
Get the facts. I will not do it for you. I will challange crap. :rolleyes:
Just because a chemical/compound/drug is used in a research study or a medcinal study by doctors or scientists that does not mean that's 100% safe, free from harmful side effects, long term side effects, or that it's non-carcinogenic.
In studies done about the medicinal properties of Cannabis they will use isolated Cannabinoids, synthetic Cannabinoids like Marinol/other ones, vaporizers, or pot in food since these get rid of the carcinogens that are found in the smoke of cannabis.
Smoking ANYTHING is bad for your body's respitory system. The THC isn't bad for you but the smoke certainly is and that's a KNOWN fact.
Cannabis smoke has lots of tars, KNOWN carcinogens, and all smoked plant materials have this.
You don't need a scientific background to understand that.
The burning plant material and the smoke is what contains the tars/KNOWN carcinogens and like I've written before if you want to avoid that eat it, or use a vaporizer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...t=AbstractPlus
I agree totally.
Reseach is done on all sorts of toxic and non-toxic stuff.
JEM
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
As an occasional user.. me knows like ne thin else we takes inta our body ther r dangers in 'avin lil recreational smokey... ther is no free ride .. an me dus it wiv the knowledge an accepted those dangers.. wy me wud neva dreama overusin.. few lil joints a month gud enuff for me...
Magie..as eva livin in cloud cuckoo land if e thinks ther is nowt in cannabis 2 do us harm.. its jus as bad 2 plead innocence asta ova dramatise as the anti brigade dus.
Now ere is a lil poser foryas... its ther..aint gonna go way.. jus as harder shit is ther an aint gonna go way long as recreational drugs 2 illegal// big money gonna b made by nasty crooked bastards rounnd the planet.. peeps r gonna take huge risks for the massive rewards wich producin runnin an supplyin heroin crack ecstacy etc etc etc.. criminal cartels an nasty bastards r gonna kill ne 1 who gets in ther way..pees r gonna get hooked by the million ..peeps r gonna die cosa ther addiction, an families r gonna suffer... otha formsa crime blossom so addicted users of hard drugs..an users of the softer variety such as cannibis... can finance ther fix... huge resources of almos every country on planet r diverted 2 fite or treat the consequences of hard drugs espesh..
Ere's me lil poser.. aint it time 2 bow 2 inevitable an acceptin that shit aint gonna disappear wile its so lucrative 2 the crim fraternity.. ainnit time 2 legalise, license an produce em so that they r more pure an hav legal safety standards an control as best we can ther distribution an supply thus eliminatin many of the worst effects of ther illegality, much in the same way as we do baccie an booze? R we not jus simply divertin badly needed resources in a battle gainst drugs wich can neva b won???
Am not a user of hard drugs an don eva intend 2 b.. but by bannin em wot purpose has it served cept 2 make loadsa nasty bastards very rich..an millions of poor sods very miserable..an very dead???
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkeyes
Ere's me lil poser.. aint it time 2 bow 2 inevitable an acceptin that shit aint gonna disappear wile its so lucrative 2 the crim fraternity.. ainnit time 2 legalise, license an produce em so that they r more pure an hav legal safety standards an control as best we can ther distribution an supply thus eliminatin many of the worst effects of ther illegality, much in the same way as we do baccie an booze? R we not jus simply divertin badly needed resources in a battle gainst drugs wich can neva b won???
Am not a user of hard drugs an don eva intend 2 b.. but by bannin em wot purpose has it served cept 2 make loadsa nasty bastards very rich..an millions of poor sods very miserable..an very dead???
Ah, Frances Elliot... ever the idealist. The truth is that I just don't think that society is ready for "true freedom". Rules and regulations are sometimes there for our own benefit, whether we like them or not. We do have to consider whether legalising all drugs (and I'm particularly concerned with HARD drugs here) would be beneficial to everyone in the long-term. After all, tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, but look how widespread their use has become, and who knows the extent of the damage (physiological AND financial) that these two alone cause? On the other hand, if it is our aim to be a responsible society, perhaps we should legalise these drugs in order that society learns about them (initially the hard way, if necessary). But sadly, I suspect that the pitfalls of drug use could continue to be learned the hard way with each coming generation. and therefore I see little point in legalising them until we (as a society) have all developed beyond our current state. :2cents:
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
http://cannabinoidsociety.org/
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6376
http://www.rxmarihuana.com/exchange.htm
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/
* International Association for Cannabis as Medicine (IACM)
* Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base
* Medical Marijuana Information
* Roseburg & Southern Oregon Medical Marijuana Program Certification
* Marijuana Uses
* Safe Access Now
* O'Shaughnessy's
* The International Cannabinoid Research Society
* MedicalMJ.org
* Health Canada - Information for the Patient - Marihuana (Cannabis)
* Health Canada - Applicant's Guide - Medical Use of Marihuana
* Health Canada - Application For Authorization To Possess Dried Marihuana
* Health Canada - Marihuana Medical Access Regulations - Daily Amount Fact Sheet (Dosage)
* Always the latest on medical marijuana research
* Medical Marijuana - Master Reference
* Drug War Facts on medical marijuana
* Medical marijuana on the vaults of erowid
* The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS)
* Italian medical cannabis association
* Canada Medical Marihuana
* Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D.
* Marijuana: the forbidden medice - by Dr. Grinspoon
* Therapeutic Help from Cannabis for Multiple Sclerosis
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
DD... you really need to park your ego and stop thinking everything references you.
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skater Boy
Ah, Frances Elliot... ever the idealist. The truth is that I just don't think that society is ready for "true freedom". Rules and regulations are sometimes there for our own benefit, whether we like them or not. We do have to consider whether legalising all drugs (and I'm particularly concerned with HARD drugs here) would be beneficial to everyone in the long-term. After all, tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, but look how widespread their use has become, and who knows the extent of the damage (physiological AND financial) that these two alone cause? On the other hand, if it is our aim to be a responsible society, perhaps we should legalise these drugs in order that society learns about them (initially the hard way, if necessary). But sadly, I suspect that the pitfalls of drug use could continue to be learned the hard way with each coming generation. and therefore I see little point in legalising them until we (as a society) have all developed beyond our current state. :2cents:
Don think society is reddy yet eitha hun.. but it shud b discussin it an seriously too.... how many more lives havta b ruined..how many more peeps havta die.. how much more dus the shitbags who supply and deal in drugs havta make by providin dangerous badly cut shite, spliced wiv dangerous shit before we reely begin 2 get 2 grips wiv the problem. Them bein banned aint workin ...more an more kids..an more an more peeps r gettin hooked an killin themselves cos they r illegal... illegality aint workin cept for the bastards who flood the streets wiv crap... time 2 seriously consider the alternative..don like it ne more than u dus prob Skater...scares me an hates the thot..but not so scared as not 2 know the drug prob is gonna get much much worse, the bad guys r gonna get much much richer, more an more lives will b ruined and deaths caused cos society jus cant c the alternative is a much much lesser evil than the 1 we have now.
Mayb wen science develops a pill 2 get shotta addiction an prevent the kik of drugs, we can get ova it..but it aint..not for a long time ne way... till then we havta discuss the alternative of state run legalisation an control....
Not sayin it wud b gr8..but am sayin it hasta b betta than we hav now...
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
here my fact v/s your facts...
AS I said be your own judge...
http://www.medicalmarijuanainformati...longtermfx.php
for the non link jumpers this site debunks the cancer crap.
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
darkeyes
Don think society is reddy yet eitha hun.. but it shud b discussin it an seriously too.... how many more lives havta b ruined..how many more peeps havta die.. how much more dus the shitbags who supply and deal in drugs havta make by providin dangerous badly cut shite, spliced wiv dangerous shit before we reely begin 2 get 2 grips wiv the problem. Them bein banned aint workin ...more an more kids..an more an more peeps r gettin hooked an killin themselves cos they r illegal... illegality aint workin cept for the bastards who flood the streets wiv crap... time 2 seriously consider the alternative..don like it ne more than u dus prob Skater...scares me an hates the thot..but not so scared as not 2 know the drug prob is gonna get much much worse, the bad guys r gonna get much much richer, more an more lives will b ruined and deaths caused cos society jus cant c the alternative is a much much lesser evil than the 1 we have now.
Mayb wen science develops a pill 2 get shotta addiction an prevent the kik of drugs, we can get ova it..but it aint..not for a long time ne way... till then we havta discuss the alternative of state run legalisation an control....
Not sayin it wud b gr8..but am sayin it hasta b betta than we hav now...
Wow, a society where Crystal Meth and Freebase Crack are legal to buy over the counter at your local liquor store... That DOES sounds scary to me!
And IMO the main change would be that instead of the current drug-dealers making the money, it would be some fat old guy in a suit... just like the owners of the tobacco and alcohol industries do at present. tbh I'm not sure there's much difference between the two, other than that one is more strictly governed by regulations... so I suppose if it means tighter regulation, then there might be some hope for improvement.
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Skater hun..thinkin as me dus ere is as hard in sum ways for me as ne 1 else..cos me has a personal interest ere.. jus me c's the crackheads on the strets an gets bothad by em..c's the misery its caused..an the bastards that ecourage it tootle round as if they own the world...
Me partner is a heroin addict, clean tf for 7 years..an me gonna make sure she stays that way as best me can. But wen she talks 2 me bout er nitemare..an the nitemare of cleanin up er act..an wen me c's the misery an suffrin on the streets, an lissens 2 kids as young as 10 an 11 talkin bout wer they can get ther fix..summat gorra b dun.. way it is now jus is causin more misery than even me can imagine..me c's it but hav neva personally experienced it.. Kate has... an wot she has 2 say is a reel eye opener... an thats wy me c's no otha way than legalizin an grabbin control.. it aint the whole ansa..fuk knows wot is.. but its an ansa wich mite or mite not work...hasta b thot out rite..quality control hasta b rite.. supply hasta b regulated an as far as we can we havta ensure costs aint so frightenin asta fuk up peeps lives an force em inta the crime so many r forced inta now so they can feed ther habit.. ther so much 2 b considered, includin rehab.. an gettin it rite ant gonna b easy... but far as me can c..its betta off wiv havin supply legally controlled an regulated that the present mayhem wich exists now.
The world is shit wen it cums 2 drugs like so many otha things...keepin em illegal is jus exacerbatin the shite human beins r havin 2 endure... who mostly cops the long arm of the law?? the users...a few dealers..very very few of the big fat bastards who cause the misery...
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
As long as there is something to be had off the kick, mankind will always find something (dangerous or not) to get the kick off off. Some of the things folks do to get high amazes me, but then I never liked that feeling of being out of control. I suppose the anxiety from being trans(raised in a conservative family) is part of that.
I say legalize , tax the hell out of, and use the taxes to treat the problems (which we already have) that will come from drug use. I know folks will get addicted and ruin their lives chasing drugs, but at least this way perhaps we can control it a bit better than we do now.
Employers can (and should in some cases) use drug tests to convince their employees not to use drugs. Its not good to be operating dangerous equipment while high, or drunk for that matter.
This is just my two cents..
Note: for most of the history drug use has been legal, its only the last few years that we have tried to curtail drug use.
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Wow, thanks for sharing that, Fran... I do hope Kate gave you permission to tell us all this about her. I hear what you're saying. But I still just have lil' bit of concern in my mind about the consequences of legalizing all drugs. But I can see your point, and I hope that you're right.
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the mage
I wish that smoking any plant material didn't cause cancer, emphysema, smoking induced bronchitis, or damage to the respitory system with smoke/tars but if I were going to start use cannabis again I'd either use a vaporizer or I'd just eat it in food at very low doses.
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
If she wosnt open an honest bout it an sed it wos ok me wudn eva hav sed a word... me mite b a selfish lil cow but hope not 1 who betrays a confidence... an so can me c the consequences..an it aint that pretty..but can c the consequences of goin on like we r... an that even less pretty...
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MarieDelta
I say legalize , tax the hell out of, and use the taxes to treat the problems (which we already have) that will come from drug use. I know folks will get addicted and ruin their lives chasing drugs, but at least this way perhaps we can control it a bit better than we do now.
If you legalize it and then tax the hell out of it, all that will happen is that a "black market" for drugs will develop, and then you're pretty much back to square one. Except now you've consented to allowing your citizens buy them, they'll feel they have the right to do so, one way or another. Plus, there are plenty of people who think that anything thats legal is cannot be such a bad thing.
I guess I'm all for stricter regulation, but even if legalized, it just doesn't seem enforceable without wasting even more money.
Anyway... maybe y'all are right... I'm just naturally pessimistic when it comes to these things.
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DiamondDog
I wish that smoking any plant material didn't cause cancer, emphysema, smoking induced bronchitis, or damage to the respitory system with smoke/tars but if I were going to start use cannabis again I'd either use a vaporizer or I'd just eat it in food at very low doses.
Not jus the kick ya gets from usin it DD hun is it? Its how ya enjoy the way ya use it...me enjoys a joint ..an thats me preferred option... way me uses it (very sparingly an a few times a month) minimises the harm but dus accept don eliminate it.
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skater Boy
If you legalize it and then tax the hell out of it, all that will happen is that a "black market" for drugs will develop, and then you're pretty much back to square one. Except now you've consented to allowing your citizens buy them, they'll feel they have the right to do so, one way or another. Plus, there are plenty of people who think that anything thats legal is cannot be such a bad thing.
I guess I'm all for stricter regulation, but even if legalized, it just doesn't seem enforceable without wasting even more money.
Anyway... maybe y'all are right... I'm just naturally pessimistic when it comes to these things.
Wudn b as bad as black market we hav now hun... an me noticed ya pessimism..me not optimistic bout it..jus tryin 2 b realistic... tax levels wud havta b rite so as 2 minimise ne black market..stop it?? very questionable... even me knows that... but wot cud b worse than wot we hav now?
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DiamondDog
I wish that smoking any plant material didn't cause cancer, emphysema, smoking induced bronchitis, or damage to the respitory system with smoke/tars but if I were going to start use cannabis again I'd either use a vaporizer or I'd just eat it in food at very low doses.
................... I use a vaporizer myself.. no smell!!
but heres the thing....the real world talking points are really straight forward.
Chewing tobacco causes cancer too.
Its the chemicals involved, not that its a plant material.
Think of all the "room air fresheners" that people buy to see the cute lil puff of smoke...
We are 30 years into the AIDS pandemic.
HIV sufferers are very susceptible to all forms of cancer.
HIV people are among the worlds heaviest users of weed, most is smoked.
HIV people who toke (NOT ciggies) are not dieing of lung cancer.
Real world stuff.
You just can't say that all smoked things are bad.
A.S.A. can be delivered thru smoke as can many drugs that are wanted to act fast. It will never happen due to obvious social issues about the "do this and not that" nature of it,.... but that is prohibition, that is what we have now.
-
Re: You probably know someone affected
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skater Boy
If you legalize it and then tax the hell out of it, all that will happen is that a "black market" for drugs will develop, and then you're pretty much back to square one. Except now you've consented to allowing your citizens buy them, they'll feel they have the right to do so, one way or another. Plus, there are plenty of people who think that anything thats legal is cannot be such a bad thing.
I guess I'm all for stricter regulation, but even if legalized, it just doesn't seem enforceable without wasting even more money.
Anyway... maybe y'all are right... I'm just naturally pessimistic when it comes to these things.
I'm not overly optimistic here either Skater, I have watched too many folks screw up their lives for a high. Burroughs , Ginsberg, and some other very fine folks all were users and addicts (none painted a real cheery picture of it btw).
The thing is unless we do something we are paying out on two fronts - police to stop usage, and care for addicts after they have screwed up their lives beyond recognition. We have all the problems we did before with none of the control.
FWIW I think we could put tobaco right in with these drugs, its dangerous, and addicting. Ever ask yourself why it's still legal?
Plus if we control the useage we will limit some of the exposure (not stop I am sure) of our youth.
But it would have to be controlled much better than Alcohol is currently IMO.