Marijuana Fights Cancer
- Thread starter turbolapp
- Start date
ZuzanaDesigns
All Your Design Needs
Good read. I'm not a big fan of getting stoned but think Marijuana should be legal with a medical card. It has so many benefits.
I like to think I'm right-winger (maybe I'm delusional, you tell me) until it comes to marijuana legalization and all of sudden I'm a communist.
I mean, I hang around with my right wing friends, we bash Obie, we bash higher taxes, we all agree we should bomb Iran for shit and giggles and then I say "And yeah, let's get the government off our backs and legalize pot."
Then there is... awkward silence.
I don't get it.
I mean, I hang around with my right wing friends, we bash Obie, we bash higher taxes, we all agree we should bomb Iran for shit and giggles and then I say "And yeah, let's get the government off our backs and legalize pot."
Then there is... awkward silence.
I don't get it.
Meanwhile here in seattle: 23 Seattle Marijuana Dispensaries Get DEA Notification Letters - Toke of the Town - cannabis news, views, rumor and humor.
Our medical mj system is pretty fucked though. No central registry, no official card, many dispensaries won't sell to anyone who doesn't have their specific card.
The one I was a member of charged $200/year to keep the card active, then they still charged $10-$15/gram, the only decent thing about it was they had a large variety as well as edible products(even gold fish crackers baked in oil fuckin amazing), butter for cooking, hash, and nice strains of clones, etc
Our law lets us grow 15 plants(not openly has to be indoors), or have 1.5 lbs of dried bud. But 15 plants indoors doesn't supply much very fast. I grew some:
but now I just buy it.....
Our medical mj system is pretty fucked though. No central registry, no official card, many dispensaries won't sell to anyone who doesn't have their specific card.
The one I was a member of charged $200/year to keep the card active, then they still charged $10-$15/gram, the only decent thing about it was they had a large variety as well as edible products(even gold fish crackers baked in oil fuckin amazing), butter for cooking, hash, and nice strains of clones, etc
Our law lets us grow 15 plants(not openly has to be indoors), or have 1.5 lbs of dried bud. But 15 plants indoors doesn't supply much very fast. I grew some:
but now I just buy it.....
This has been known for years. It's also been known that cannabinoids have a protective effect against developing certain types of cancerous tumors.
Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute
I can't find it right now, but there was a multi-year study performed on rats back in the 70's that showed high-levels of thc and other cannabinoids were able to shrink, and in some cases kill, cancerous tumors.
In a real scientific atmosphere, research would have progressed further and thc would have ultimately been tested on humans with cancer. But further research was denied because all Schedule I drug research has to be approved by federal authorities. In reality, it's easier to get approval to run cocaine studies than it is to conduct research on marijuana.
All of these studies have continued to be buried for various reasons, be they they war on drugs, the desire to keep marijuana and therefore hemp timber from threatening the lumber and combustible fuel industries, or big pharma throwing money around to keep the studies buried.
As someone who spent the better part of a decade helping to develop big pharma drugs, I can say for certain that this happens and marijuana legalization/reclassification is a large concern for drug companies, primarily because you can't patent a naturally occurring plant.
I support legalizing, but unlike others, I'm not inclined to believe it will happen for at least a few decades, if ever. What I have an absolute problem with is how marijuana is classified as a drug with no medicinal benefits when virtually every piece of research that uses an empirical approach to the scientific method says otherwise.
I'm not one of the crackpots around here that thinks the FDA needs to be done away with (still love you crackpots though, you guys know who you are :action-smiley-027
. I've seen firsthand the effects that most drugs in development have, and it isn't pretty (things like necrotic skin, enlarged and necrotic organs, hallucinations, floating limb syndrome, self-injurious behaviors, etc.). Luckily, the vast majority of them are shelved relatively early in development because the manufacturers know the results from the toxicology testing in animals will lead to the FDA rejecting the drugs.
But by the time drugs get to the first round of FDA approval and prior to moving to clinical trials, the drug company has already spent hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars developing and testing. A few unwanted side-effects in a small percentage of the population isn't going to stop them from taking it to market if it wasn't for the FDA denying approval. The possibility of a couple of wrongful death lawsuits where they have to pay out maybe hundreds of millions of dollars isn't enough to outweigh the profits they'll make during the time they hold an exclusive patent on a popular drug*.
That being said, there is corruption of the highest levels within that organization and from outside pressures that make a complete overhaul of the FDA necessary. That corruption is one of the reasons that a drug like Paxil gets approved when it probably should have been killed off by the time it made it to testing in non-human primates (typically the last step before initial trials in humans).
Corruption and political pressure is also why something like marijuana is classified as being just as harmful and addictive as heroin, as well as having no medicinal value. Even though virtually all legitimate scientific research says otherwise.
/:angrysoapbox_sml:
* Might as well get this out of the way before the "free market" and "it was their choice to take it" bullshit.
This is not an free market issue. It's a truth in advertising/public safety issue.
Without the FDA approval regulations and procedures, even most of you smart motherfuckers wouldn't have a clue how to determine the safety or effectiveness of a drug. And I do mean that about the smart mo-fos here, because quite a few of you are highly intelligent, or can at least seem to be.
Even if you were able to accurately decipher the reports, and therefore the safety and potential risks of the drugs, the only way you could tell with relative certainty would be to look at toxicology and efficacy reports from all stages of development. Most early stage research is proprietary and not available to the public, and not something these companies would ever divulge because results from one drug study often give clues to future development plans.
Clinical trials in humans are easier to get your hands on, but even then there is the risk that the cohorts involved in the clinical trials weren't representative of at-risk populations.
In short, anytime you put a drug into your body it's a crap shoot, but FDA regulations, and the equivalent bodies in other countries, are the best chance that you have of not taking something for a headache that ends up giving you a heart attack.
And no, you're doctor probably doesn't know much more than you do about any of it. Doctors that write prescriptions are not scientists and they aren't scientific researchers; they're healers and diagnosticians. Yes, they'll have a better understanding of how the drug works within your body, but for the most part, they rely on the information provided by the drug companies and pharma reps that get them to use the drugs.
Without FDA regulations there is no reason for a drug company, specifically a new one that needs to turn a quick profit, to perform the research and testing needed to prove efficacy and safety. And there's even less of a reason for them to market their product in an ethical manner. It's hard enough getting them to do that now.
Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute
I can't find it right now, but there was a multi-year study performed on rats back in the 70's that showed high-levels of thc and other cannabinoids were able to shrink, and in some cases kill, cancerous tumors.
In a real scientific atmosphere, research would have progressed further and thc would have ultimately been tested on humans with cancer. But further research was denied because all Schedule I drug research has to be approved by federal authorities. In reality, it's easier to get approval to run cocaine studies than it is to conduct research on marijuana.
All of these studies have continued to be buried for various reasons, be they they war on drugs, the desire to keep marijuana and therefore hemp timber from threatening the lumber and combustible fuel industries, or big pharma throwing money around to keep the studies buried.
As someone who spent the better part of a decade helping to develop big pharma drugs, I can say for certain that this happens and marijuana legalization/reclassification is a large concern for drug companies, primarily because you can't patent a naturally occurring plant.
I support legalizing, but unlike others, I'm not inclined to believe it will happen for at least a few decades, if ever. What I have an absolute problem with is how marijuana is classified as a drug with no medicinal benefits when virtually every piece of research that uses an empirical approach to the scientific method says otherwise.
I'm not one of the crackpots around here that thinks the FDA needs to be done away with (still love you crackpots though, you guys know who you are :action-smiley-027
. I've seen firsthand the effects that most drugs in development have, and it isn't pretty (things like necrotic skin, enlarged and necrotic organs, hallucinations, floating limb syndrome, self-injurious behaviors, etc.). Luckily, the vast majority of them are shelved relatively early in development because the manufacturers know the results from the toxicology testing in animals will lead to the FDA rejecting the drugs. But by the time drugs get to the first round of FDA approval and prior to moving to clinical trials, the drug company has already spent hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars developing and testing. A few unwanted side-effects in a small percentage of the population isn't going to stop them from taking it to market if it wasn't for the FDA denying approval. The possibility of a couple of wrongful death lawsuits where they have to pay out maybe hundreds of millions of dollars isn't enough to outweigh the profits they'll make during the time they hold an exclusive patent on a popular drug*.
That being said, there is corruption of the highest levels within that organization and from outside pressures that make a complete overhaul of the FDA necessary. That corruption is one of the reasons that a drug like Paxil gets approved when it probably should have been killed off by the time it made it to testing in non-human primates (typically the last step before initial trials in humans).
Corruption and political pressure is also why something like marijuana is classified as being just as harmful and addictive as heroin, as well as having no medicinal value. Even though virtually all legitimate scientific research says otherwise.
/:angrysoapbox_sml:
* Might as well get this out of the way before the "free market" and "it was their choice to take it" bullshit.
This is not an free market issue. It's a truth in advertising/public safety issue.
Without the FDA approval regulations and procedures, even most of you smart motherfuckers wouldn't have a clue how to determine the safety or effectiveness of a drug. And I do mean that about the smart mo-fos here, because quite a few of you are highly intelligent, or can at least seem to be.
Even if you were able to accurately decipher the reports, and therefore the safety and potential risks of the drugs, the only way you could tell with relative certainty would be to look at toxicology and efficacy reports from all stages of development. Most early stage research is proprietary and not available to the public, and not something these companies would ever divulge because results from one drug study often give clues to future development plans.
Clinical trials in humans are easier to get your hands on, but even then there is the risk that the cohorts involved in the clinical trials weren't representative of at-risk populations.
In short, anytime you put a drug into your body it's a crap shoot, but FDA regulations, and the equivalent bodies in other countries, are the best chance that you have of not taking something for a headache that ends up giving you a heart attack.
And no, you're doctor probably doesn't know much more than you do about any of it. Doctors that write prescriptions are not scientists and they aren't scientific researchers; they're healers and diagnosticians. Yes, they'll have a better understanding of how the drug works within your body, but for the most part, they rely on the information provided by the drug companies and pharma reps that get them to use the drugs.
Without FDA regulations there is no reason for a drug company, specifically a new one that needs to turn a quick profit, to perform the research and testing needed to prove efficacy and safety. And there's even less of a reason for them to market their product in an ethical manner. It's hard enough getting them to do that now.
It's too bad nobody told this to Bob Marley before he died of cancer.
Or he could have just had his damned toe amputated like his doctors wanted him to have done, and poof the cancer would have been magically gone.
Like anything else, marijuana isn't going to eradicate every case of cancer.
In all likelihood, the best use of pot in cancer treatment is prior to radiation therapies to help shrink cancerous cells. Smaller tumors and pockets of cancer often mean less exposure to radiation during certain types of treatment. Reducing the amount of radiation exposure would allow the remaining tumor/cancerous cells to be killed without exposing as much healthy tissue to unnecessary damage caused by radiation.
Maybe read the article next time, or you could click on the link I provided a few posts up read it, and then any of the 20-odd studies it links to that dispute your belief.
But I mean, I'm sure you've spend plenty of time in the lab researching this yourself, right?
I agree, that article title is absolutely misleading.
If a single molecule may fight cancer this doesn't mean that smoking marijuana can have the same effects.
Whether it fights cancer or not, let's be consistent and either outlaw every substance that temporarily alters our minds, or legalize all of it. This whole alcohol is legal and weed isn't is fucking stupid.. er, unless you're profiting from it.
How Marijuana Became Illegal
How Marijuana Became Illegal
It's not just a single molecule that may fight cancer. In this article alone they discuss THC and Cannabidiol (CBD) as both showing promise/being effective.
Further, Cannabidiol acid, as lliams is talking about, isn't what they're even talking about in this article. The article is discussing Cannabidiol (CBD), a completely separate cannabinoid. CBDA hasn't even been proven to be biologically active at this point.
On top of that there's at least 10 other cannabinoids found in marijuana that have have show similar, if not better, outcomes, with straight up delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), being one of them. It's likely that others have similar effects as well.
Then add to the fact that there are various delivery methods and inhalation (smoking) is probably the most rudimentary of them all and it means that smoking marijuana isn't even necessarily the best delivery method.
Further, Cannabidiol acid, as lliams is talking about, isn't what they're even talking about in this article. The article is discussing Cannabidiol (CBD), a completely separate cannabinoid. CBDA hasn't even been proven to be biologically active at this point.
On top of that there's at least 10 other cannabinoids found in marijuana that have have show similar, if not better, outcomes, with straight up delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), being one of them. It's likely that others have similar effects as well.
Then add to the fact that there are various delivery methods and inhalation (smoking) is probably the most rudimentary of them all and it means that smoking marijuana isn't even necessarily the best delivery method.
Because you are proudly integrated into an indoctrinated system and then dare say non-indoctrinated phrases to other indoctrinated people. That is why you get the silence.
It is like someone explaining to you that having a small government and a large military presence around the world is illogical. You are far too indoctrinated to see why that doesn't make sense. So when you say something logical to other indoctrinated people, like 'government shouldn't tell me what I can smoke in the privacy of my own house which I paid for and pay taxes on while I'm not hurting no one' they won't get it. It is logical as fuck; but propaganda has already eroded their ability to be coherent. Very much in the same way as it has eroded your ability to be coherent on most topics.
If you had an independent way of thinking and hung out with other people who thought independently, you'd hear people having an opinion of their own, backed by something other than propaganda. But then again, you wouldn't get that cozy-warm feeling of belonging to a herd.
{none of this is directed at you, just a few general points}
The government has every right to tell you what to do on their property. You can never actually "own" your property (try not paying your property tax and see what happens to "your" land). So now that we've established that all property is government property it makes it easier for them to dictate what we can do on it.
While we're at it, now that the government has taken ownership of everyone's healthcare that gives them the right to dictate what we put in our bodies too.
lol freedom freedom lol
That is a pretty scary/negative outlook. Can you elaborate a bit? Have you seen firsthand the money/power the pharma lobby wields etc, I'd be curious to hear your perspective because of your background experiences. As someone living in the Bay Area of California I just don't see it NOT happening within a few years tops. It is honestly kind of hard to find people that DON'T smoke cannabis fairly regularly, from all demographics etc. My experience was similar in southern California. They are looking at revamping the medical system here, but I'd imagine legalization is right around the corner with three western states already giving it a go this election (I would think colorado probably has the best shot at passing). They are running out of time and different ways to dodge the "issue". Should be an interesting few years ahead for cannabis in general. I'd say the actual "implementation" of any type of of recreational sales system will be a clusterfuck though, can only imagine how long it would take and all the additional hurdles lol.