Cannabis Research Studies
Israel is the marijuana research capital of the world. The man who started it all, the grandfather of the marijuana research, is Professor Raphael Mechoulam. He is a chemist and he became interested in marijuana in the 1960s. Morphine had been isolated from opium in the early 19th century, cocaine had been isolated from coca leaves in the mid 19th century and yet in the mid 20th century the chemistry of the cannabis was not known.
It looked like an interesting project but not an easy one because in Israel, like almost everywhere else, marijuana was illegal. So how did Professor Raphael Mechoulam get the marijuana for his work? He went to the police and took five kilos of hashish. He didn't have a car at that time so he used public transport for carrying the hashish, while people were complaining of the strange smell. They tested the "merchandize" on few volunteers including themselves.
It might seem like a simple experiment but the results were revolutionary. They were the first to isolate THC and CBD decades ago - two ingredients in marijuana that might have powerful abilities to treat disease. In Israel today marijuana is an accepted part of medical care - for pain, for cancer patients, for sleep problems, epilepsy, and digestive problems. They're even looking at Parkinson's and Tourette's. The list is expanding but there hasn't been too much research in patients because it's very difficult to do that... especially in the United States which classifies marijuana as a dangerous Schedule 1 drug.
In the US researchers have to jump through extra hoops to work with it. It's expensive and time consuming but the grandfather of this science says he is proof it can be done. Over the last forty years his work has been supported by the National Institute of Health. And now the country's ministry of health licensed 10,000 patients to use marijuana medicinally and has approved more than a dozen studies to treat illnesses like PTSD, pain, Crohn's disease, and even cancer.
Vanz
I read half of the whole conversation here and am left with one question or point to make. CBD oil can and should be used proactively like a vitamin to prevent cancer from ever occurring.
Yaa man that's good question ...hemp seed are used in various disease ..But how can use it ..
Watch the series "The Sacred Plant" to get a comprehensive view of research and applications. Being that there is little oversight of its manufacture because it is still federally illegal, it also presents how to find truly clean, organically grown and processed cannabis, dosing, methods of delivery, how to find your correct balance of CBD and THC, and much more.
A_no_n your absolutely bat **** crazy, when marijuana is injected into kids with severe epilepsy and makes seizures go away you dont think their is hidden potiential? Pretty sure, you just do not like weed haha. Or the fact that its a better CURE then pills. Or any other substance big pharma throws in your mouth. How old is willie nelson and he has been smoking since when? Marijuana is the leaat harmful substance on this planet. Alcohol, tobacco, planes, cars, cellphones kill more people then marijuana. So, i really think you have done 0 research or talked to anyone with an actual disease that uses it. Your the quack here not other dude.
Very disappointing documentary. If you're looking for legitimate information you may want to look for a more science-focused documentary. This one is full of the kind of language one comes to expect from propaganda docs.
While the information is, on its surface, interesting, it's followed up by absolute bunk riding on the coattails of legitimacy. If you're familiar with documentaries you'll notice contradictory statements, the use of voice changes and editing to attempt to provide legitimacy to statements that are, in reality, weak or unproven. Sad that this is what is up for offer in defense of what is a remarkable but often propagandized drug. Some of the scientists make conclusive statements that are blatant speculation. There is only one real scientific mind in this entire doc and his words are cut and pasted between flowery and pampered hacks.
It is the flawed presentation of information, the inability to admit weakness or lack of knowledge, which - I believe - is what leads to many religious people likening science to religion. Some so-called 'scientists' create a religion out of science, and so lose the perspective that makes them scientists in the first place.
If you're a scientist or a doctor, I recommend padding your desk. The frustration you get from some of these scientists' conclusions about human biology may lead to brain injury.
I really don't see the point why some people keep on researching for treatment for something when marijuana has been laying all the evidences that it works amazingly with many types of diseases. The problem here is not marijuana but the government and the people who thinks negatively of marijuana even if they really have no idea how much this plant has been helping the sick people.
I had cancer and I have many more Parkinson, Rheumatoid arthritis, and low bone mass. Michael J Fox had some good information on hemp oil. Ok I have 7 doctors,I am talk to 4 of them and they do recommend the hemp oil with low THC. They believe in this treatment
This is a fantastic documentary!!! I watched this many many times and am always enthralled! Up there with The Union for sure. This is a must watch for my pro-cannabis brothers and sisters.
Thanks to Health Canada I too can use my medicinal marijuana
Good, I am Canadian too and if you don't mind saying, which medical condition requires you to use medical marijuana? What are the benefits of Marijuana compared to other available medicines?
Arthritis. MJ can be smoked or ingested. I prefer using herbal methods as opposed to pharmaceutical. Taking 2 oxycodone for pain makes me appear intoxicated, MJ does not have that effect in small quantities.
Good alternative to opioids then and surely less addictive than these opiate derived meds.
I can guarantee you their is a lot of people using marijuana for medicinal benefits, and they are not looking to health Canada for their approval!
Why is there some belief that cannabis cures cancer ?
It's not Cannabis but molecules in Cannabis. As I understand it, there are cannabinoids receptors in cells that trigger early death in cancer cells.
It looks somewhat promising. However, just to be clear before someone goes: " oh, you have cancer? Just drop that chemo, mate...here, have a toke of this." , there is no proven cure yet. To many unknown variables.
Agreed, it would be foolish to try to cure cancer with anything that isn't directly recommended by an oncologist. But since Cannabis is already used to alleviate nausea and pain, I doubt a serious oncologist will tell a current cannabis smoker to stop using it.
Actually, i'm not quite sure. To alleviate, is smoking recommended or is it administered as purified THC? Does burning not produce carcinogens?
I've seen it smoked in an hospital in Israel in a documentary. Burning does produce carcinogens, the benefits probably outweight the harm for a patient that already has cancer and is already under chemo or radio therapy.
That might be true. But personally, if i ever have cancer i would go for an alternative way of intake, just to be on the safe side. Like my preferred route of administration these days, a good cup of tea :)
Inhaling smoke or vapor is probably the best way for people with severe nausea that can't eat or drink much. When my mom was on chemo, she couldn't even hold water very long. If I had known at the time that it could help her, I would have at least suggested it instead of watching her suffer 24/7 for weeks.
(Edited to add personal experience)
Suddenly, i am thinking of room vaporizers :)
lol, if you want a bunch of stoned nurses and doctors to watch after you, sure ;)
Just to add to this thread and especially for the sake of those looking to use cannabis oil as a cancer treatment. Cannabis must be cooked to complete full decarboxylation. Whether it is CBD or THC you are looking to utilise you must cook it. In it's raw form cannabis contains mainly cannabinoid acids like THCA and CBDA, which convert to THC and CBD through decarboxylation.
This is important because while raw cannabinoid acids are beneficial to health it is the decarboxylated cannabinoids that have been proven to kill cancer cells.
Cannabis can kill cancer and eating it is the most effective way to get the ideal doses but those doses need to be the right cannabinoids and ALL the clinical data supports the activated cannabinoids over the raw cannabinoid acids, specifically THC and CBD.
Smoking marijuana does help with pain however it's not the best method of delivery for the healing benefits of THC and cannabinoids. Marijuana oil is the best. The cannabis buds (not hemp which doesn't contain THC) are crushed and mixed with a special alcohol that strips the THC from the buds. It is strained, then boiled down in a rice cooker (for safety) until it turns to oil.
Google Rick Simpson for more information. Most people say they don't get a head stone at all, rather feel their body is relaxed.
The oil dosage is about the size of a grain of rice or a drop 4 times a day.
This is the medicinal way to get the full benefits of marijuana.
Smoking it burns and heats the THC which is why they get stoned.
I have cancer and have decided to grow my own cannabis and make the oil. I have done my research. I know plenty of people with cancer who use the oil to manage the pain and say their cancer is not spreading, and kept under control.
I am also using nutrition and a holistic lifestyle to treat this disease.
Hopefully, you informed your oncologist of what you are doing "on the side" of your main treatment.
My oncologist isn't very open minded. My GP Dr is. I told my oncologist and Dr that I'm going to try it for several months. They both agree I need to try something else because I am running out of options.
Am taking hormone drugs for a hormone receptive breast cancer. It only keeps the cancer from spreading. I am on the last hormone drug available so it's only a matter of time.
The cannabis oil has far fewer side effects than pharmaceutical drugs. The hormone drugs I'm on...well all I can say is it's kept me alive but there are only 3 different ones and I'm on the last one.
Best of luck to you! I have no problem whatsoever with people trying alternative solutions when the scientifically proven ones don't work especially when it's an inexpensive treatment like homemade cannabis oil.
Thanks for that. I wish it was inexpensive. It definitely is not cheap
I live in Australia where it's illegal and unavailable on prescription. The cheapest way is to grow your own. Some states tolerate users to grow just enough for personal use only. I take that as a sign that things are slowly changing.
Documentaries like this and others help educate and change peoples perception about marijuana, removing the stigma that users aren't just in it for the high.
Ah, I showed a guy how to make cuttings once, he told me he grew 100 plants at a total cost of 500$. I am pretty sure it's easier to grow than most plants in my garden center. Too bad it's illegal, I could grow thousands here easily.
how many of those people are also undergoing Chemotherapy?
Most of the people I know elected not to do chemotherapy. Mainly because their cancers have metatisised and chemo isn't a cure. They want quality of life over quantity.
They didn't want to smoke marijuana so they tried the oil for pain management, rather than rely solely on opioids.
Out of this group I am involved with, 1 person has gone into remission and 3 of them have found their quality of life has improved and the cancer is stable, or hasn't got any worse.
The ones who are on chemo I know smoke pot to help their symptoms such as nausea etc. They say they couldn't do without it.
One thing I forgot to mention was -
If you're lucky enough to live where medical marijuana is legal, can ask for a strain high in CBD and low in THC. Then you won't get stoned and it can be given to children.
You're right Chemotherapy isn't a cure, it's a treatment. One that has brought cancer from being a death sentence to a livable condition. No doctor anywhere ever claimed Chemo was a cure for anything...so i don't quite understand why you would say that.
Sorry, didn't mean it like that. Chemo has certainly helped a lot of people with cancer.
What I meant was that because it isn't a cure and is only a treatment, people look for other options to treat cancer, pain and chemo side effects, to mention a few.
Marijuana seems to be helping do just that.
I met 4 people at the oncology rooms who chose not to do chemo and seem to be doing quite well. A few others doing chemo smoking pot say it alleviates the side effects. Their appetite has increased, less nausea and not as much pain.
Personally I will try the oil as I prefer not to get high.
unfortunatly there is no such thing as a cure for cancer, and there is never likely to be because Cancer isn't like a virus or a sprained ankle. Each one is different, they all have different causes and lifespans, they are mutations and mutations are by their nature unpredictable, so a cure is quite literally impossible.
The best thing we can do is treat it, sometimes we can treat it to the point where we can cut it out, or it melts away. But even then a doctor would never tell you that you were "cured".
perhaps we should wait and see what happens to the four who decided against treatment before we decide how well they're doing?
(unless they've opted out specifically because they don't have long left and want quality over quantity...in which case, fair enough, i have nothing but respect for people who make that choice.)
i've met several people myself who have opted out of chemotherapy because they think "Nutrition" or the baby jesus might save them...Unfortunately they're all dead now, and i believe with treatment they might have survived.
On a brighter note though in relation to your attempts to experiment with oil Might i suggest to you that you search for "Pat Tabrams recipes". she has been cooking cannabis to consume medicinally as a painkiller for her arthritis for quite a few years now. she's a respectable grandmother who also doesn't have much truck with getting high and makes quite a delightful painkiller cookie,
I don't believe that cancer can be cured with marijuana. I believe we can use it for palliative care such as pain relief for cancer, nausea and increasing a persons appetite but a cure?
Dr Frankel, a physician who prescribes medical marijuana in the US says he doesn't believe with our current knowledge of cannabinoids that it can cure cancer.
However he has seen amazing things with the correct use of medical pot. He has seen cancer go into remission, then come back years later.
And if you're wondering what he means by correct use, it's having a Dr like Dr Frankel who understands which strains to use for various medical conditions. Otherwise it's very much hit and miss.
I've heard a lot anecdotal evidence with people saying their cancer was cured with CBD's found in pot. Until it can be replicated with clinical trials, we can't be sure what really happened.
I agree with absolutly everything that you've said, it's a well balanced and reasonable response that i can find no fault in...right up until Dr Frankel.
I'd never heard of him before you mentioned him, so i read up on Frankel and i must admit i'm left skeptical of his supposed knowledge.
The first words of his that i read were a claim on his greenbridgemed blog that cbd has almost been bred out of cannabis...this is wrong. I've been growing weed for a number of years and i use plants with 50/50 ratio thc/cbds because i like the body stone of cbd's. THC has gotten higher most certainly (no pun intended)...but his claims that cbd's are nearly impossible to find is laugable. MOST seeds on the market are 50/50 satvia/indica hybrids with 50/50 thc/cbd levels...he's either lying or he's misinformed...for a doctor experimenting in medecine to be lying or misinformed rings every alarm bell in my head.
He also attributes the body stone to THC...He had a fifty fifty chance of getting that right but alas he is again wrong. as i've explained CBD's give you the body stone, THC gives you the head high.
This granted is only one quote...but when the first quote i find from the mans own blog is full of sh1t, that doesn't give me much hope toward the rest of his ideas.
You have a very good point. If he has this wrong, it makes you wonder if he's right on other information.
I listened to an interview on you tube and when I heard him mention that CBDs were breed out,(on purpose? No idea) I thought he was talking about marijuana 20-30 years ago, about the time Dr Raphael Mashuela's research on the medicinal use of cannabinoids became popular again. (Cannabis medicinals were commonly used and freely sold up until they criminalised it)
It doesn't make sense that he would say that because in the interview he was making a point that self medicating with medicinal cannabis is 'hit and miss' unless you use the correct strains & ratios of CBDs & THCs.
He went on to say he is trying to educate as many Doctors as possible to help prescribe
Yeah...sorry to be the Negative Nancy but Unfortunatly the vast majority of people who say that only they know something, tend to be lying or deluded.
If the good doctor was to explain it as THC and CBD 'levels' in plants that would probably have given a better indication of what he means.
He is correct when he says that high CBD levels are good as painkillers. This is the awkward thing because he's kinda right about the important stuff, but the way he got to those claims are all wrong. And on top of that cannabis is cannabis, it either all works with varying degrees of efficacy based on thc/cbd levels or it doesn't work at all...it's not a hit or miss thing as he suggests.
Thank you for pointing him out to me though, it made for very interesting reading!
Pt2 of reply - sorry I didn't get to finish my sentence. I couldn't edit it either)
...he wants doctors to not only give a script for medicinal marijuana but to be more specific and to educate themselves further so people aren't left to figure out treatment plans alone.
As for Dr Frankel, he seemed credible, but I was probably biased because he is an MD.
I'm relatively new to this. I did tons of research and decided to grow my own marijuana so I can make a paste. Not the Rick Simpson oil, just a paste. I try not to rely on testimonials as anecdotes are not evidence to me.
What really gets me is so many conflicting views. If you have any links or advice on medicinal cannabis, and growing since you've been doing it for awhile, it would be much appreciated.
the best advice i can give you is stay on this site, find a documentary in the drugs section called "ultimate grow". the maker Jorge is a well respected grower, that's my go to source and it goes through every step of the process in detail.
For your own supply a good type of seed to go for is a dwarf type seed. only grow up to two feet tall, are quite tough and take 8 weeks to grow from seed to harvest.
Also flourescent CFS bulbs are great. A hell of a lot cheaper to buy and run, and nowhere near as hot as halogens so less air conditioning is needed.
As far as medecine goes i can't tell you anything really. It's accepted as fact that cannabis is good as a painkiller, especially for MS/ME, but also arthritis, gloucoma and similar age related ailments.
Where cancer is concerned we know that cannabis is a really good treatment for the side effects of chemotherapy...that is ALL we know. there are some studies suggesting other things, but they are so far from being conclusive or anywhere near extensive enough to make any definite claims one way or the other. study of cannabis is in it's infancy, it'll probably be another twenty years before any long term studies can be completed.
Chemo and radiation are NOT cures and they WILL cause more cancer within 20 years of treatment with them. RSO appears to be a real cure.
There's no such thing...cancer isn't something that can be "cured"
Cancer is a mutation. By it's very nature each on is unpredictable and unique. Cancer isn't even just one thing, it's an umbrella term for a whole host of diseases with different causes, and effects.
Saying you have a one stop cure for cancer is like saying you have a one stop cure for car trouble...it makes the assumption that you can fix a snapped piston with the same parts you use to replace a cracked driveshaft...
I think you misunderstand. Full extract cannabis oil causes cancer cells to die by apoptosis. The trouble with cancer cells is they don't die when they are supposed to, they keep growing; RSO makes them do what cells are supposed to do when they get old, die. And it does so without harming normal cells. So yes, that IS a cure.
it's been SUGGESTED that that is what it does for SOME cancers.
Suggested and proved are two very different states of being, and the idea that there could be a one stop cure for all cancers is the kind of thing suggested by people who do not have a realistic idea of what Cancer actually is.
Cancer is not one thing, the word cancer is an umbrella term that incorporates thousands of different diseases that all have different causes effects and treatments.
If you think that the same thing which might cure a lung tumor is also going to cure Lukemia or a brain tumour then i'm sorry but you really need to read up on the subject before you give advice to someone that will kill them!
Do go do some research on the human endocannabinoid system, which regulates every other system of the body. You will learn WHY cannabis oil cures cancer and many other illnesses.
Be wary of Cannabis oil, some is made with Naphtalene which has an oral LD50 of 490mg/kg and is toxic to blood, kidneys, the nervous system, the reproductive system, liver, mucous membranes, gastrointestinal tract and upper respiratory tract.
Make sure it was made with a less dangerous solvent if you absolutely want to use it.
Because many people who had cancer cured it with full extract cannabis oil, also known as RSO -- Rick Simpson Oil, do go to YouTube and look him up, you'll see for yourself that it DOES work in about 90 days at a cost of approximately $1000.
Thanks I'm going to save this article to my computer. I'd forgotten this conversation.
Government websites other than the FDA, DEA, and NIDA are beginning to talk about medical cannabis. The following information can be accessed at the National Cancer Institute, as part of the National Institute of Health. Click on the link at the end of the post to go to their information.
“Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis invasion and metastasis. Two reviews summarize the molecular mechanisms of action of cannabinoids as antitumor agents. Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. For example, these compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis inglioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats, while they protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.
The effects of delta-9-THC and a synthetic agonist of the CB2 receptor were investigated in HCC. Both agents reduced the viability of HCC cells in vitro and demonstrated antitumor effects in HCC subcutaneous xenografts in nude mice. The investigations documented that the anti-HCC effects are mediated by way of the CB2 receptor. Similar to findings in glioma cells, the cannabinoids were shown to trigger cell death through stimulation of an endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway that activates autophagy and promotes apoptosis. Other investigations have confirmed that CB1 and CB2 receptors may be potential targets in non-small cell lung carcinoma and breast cancer.”
It's hard to call this a documentary when they just took parts of other documentaries and spliced them together. More of a "best of" cannabis information.
A lot of the same old info, with some new stuff. :(
The documentary is called Cannabis Research Studies so they have 'spliced' or put together different interviews on the subject.
I saw a really good documentary on youtube by CNN called Weed by Dr Sunjay Gupta (hope I spelt his name right)
Part 2 is good as it follows families, one in particular, who have moved to Colorado to treat family members and their children because it's illegal where they live. Their daughter kept getting seizures brought on by light and over stimulation.
They found marijuana oil low in THC (so she won't get stoned) has stopped most of her 100 daily seizures where regular medication didn't.
I believe it's a good medicine to several medical conditions, and it should be available to patients worldwide. Somehow a lot of backward country's make this substance illegal while allowing a far more dangerous substance like alcohol and tabac. Unfortunately , like many other medicine (morphine, ritalin , etc..) this substance is also abused by a lot of people. In my country (the netherlands) where you can buy cannabis legally, there is about the same number of people in treatment for cannabis addiction as there is in treatment for heroin.
Cannabis can for sure destroy people' s life. At the same time it can improve people' s life greatly. So both the pro and anti cannabis people got a legit point.
The problem is, everywhere where cannabis is illegal it is available anyway at higher prices and/or possibly bad quality. including the crimes associated with dealing and addicts.
Legalizing seems to be the best option. if governments feel responsible for the wellbeing of their citizens , they better make alcohol and tobacco illegal, because they serve no other purpose but "enjoyment"
To my mind the benefits of legalization and decriminalization far and away out weigh the negatives.
It is possible to abuse cannabis, but it's possible to abuse almost anything.
People should be free to decide what they want with their own minds and bodies, as long as it doesn't hurt any one else.
"free to decide what they want with their own minds and bodies, as long as it doesn't hurt any one else."... Those were my sentiments exactly. So for 56 years I smoked cigarettes, a "legal" substance, and very rarely, but occasionally, cannabis did also pass my lips.
Have been in therapy now, chemo and radiation, for the last 9 months. I'm rethinking the advisability of the decision I made to ignore the warnings that were everywhere. I inhaled all sorts of deadly carcinogens in the smoke of those cigarettes, and the weed, which I'm told has much more potent chemicals contained within. (Four joints are the equivalent of a whole pack of regular full strength cigarettes.)
But, you're right. The decision is yours!
PS. Chemotherapy and Radiation therapy ain't no fun! I'm just starting to be able to eat real food again, and I'm hoping to grow my hair back by the end of the summer. I'm one of the lucky ones. I'm still above ground! ..... for now!
There are indeed more carcinogens in cannabis smoke due to the higher burn temperature. However, and scientists still haven't figured out why, you do not get that "crap" in your body when smoking cannabis. There have been zero documented cases of cancer or other illnesses directly linked to smoking cannabis.
Tobacco has been known to cause cancer and other deadly illnesses for a long time, and people were (and are) stupid enough to keep smoking anyways. This isn't the case with decades of cannabis usage. There are no warning signs for cannabis to ignore.
The volume of cannabis use was never close to the volume of tobacco use. With the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in many places now, we will see what that brings as far as health effects. For sure,the smoke itself is an irritant and has to be raising hell with the cilia in the lungs and all through the bronchial system. Certainly COPD is in the cards for long term heavy users.
My days of experimenting with anything along those lines are now LONG over! I won't lecture or preach. I'll just point to myself as the fool who thought he could beat the odds. Nicotine is a very powerful addictive drug. The most addictive in the entire world. The jury is still out on cannabis, or THC, which is used around the world by some 20 million people daily!
Common sense says it can't be good for you. Question is; how bad is it for the pleasure derived, and is it worth it?
I hear what you are saying. However not everyone uses cannabis for pleasure.
Those I know with cancer who smoke it to help alleviate the side effects of chemo..the nausea and pain, seem to think the benefits, and the good, outweigh the bad so to speak.
I also have cancer, 7 years now. I'm choosing to try the cannabis oil which I don't smoke.
The cannabinoids and THC have been stripped off the plant with an alcohol and boiled down. One drop at a time, 4 times a day.
I get all the benefits of the healing compounds without getting high because I'm not smoking it. In addition to all the reading and research I have done, I've also spoke to women with cancer online who have been using the oil in conjunction with a healthy lifestyle, and getting great results!
As a medicinal herb, or for any medicinal use, ALL BETS ARE OFF. Cancer patients in particular.
I recently wrote something about Tilapia, the fish that seems to have suddenly appeared everywhere I look. (I've been a fisherman all my life!) A friend wrote back that it's possibly the result of GMO and that I should be very careful. I couldn't resist commenting back.
I'm 73 years old. I have lung cancer myself, and yes, I am going through chemo and radiation. The last thing in the world I would be worried about is what the effect of Genetically Modified foods would have on me over the next fifty years or so! If I'm alive five years from now I'd be tickled pink!
So to your point, if you're a cancer patient, and you've "got 'em, smoke 'em!" ..OR, by all means use the extracted medicinal chemicals from the cannabis plant.
You are very well read and have an insight which makes you wise beyond your tender years.
The bottom line to this whole discussion is that smoking, ANYTHING, can't be good for you. Any foreign substance inhaled into your lungs, has to do some damage! How much one smokes and how often one smokes and for how long one smokes, will determine when the damage will manifest itself in the form of some debilitating disease or other physical ailment.
If you die young you may never reach that point. If you live to be old and feeble like I am, the s*it you do when you're young catches up with you. This is not rocket science.
I wish you well. You can pretty much do anything you want in your life if you don't go overboard with it. Just do everything in moderation that you enjoy doing, that doesn't hurt anyone else, and you will live a long happy life.
(Notice I didn't put any limitation on what the legality is of what you might like to do. What's legal today will be outlawed tomorrow, and vice versa depending on the political winds. Even cocaine and heroin were 'over the counter' legal purchases at one time.... sold by the Bayer corporation. They are of course very dangerous mind altering drugs, with heroin being the true narcotic of course. I don't recommend them.)
Cannabis may well turn out to be another chemical in the war against cancer or some other disease. By all means clinical research should be done. As a "Home Remedy" not so much.
I absolutely agree that smoking anything (that involves a burning process) isn't good for you. But it seems that for some unknown reasons, a chemical in cannabis neutralizes all the carcinogens in it's smoke. I even read (can't remember where, was a Dutch news site) that people who smoke cannabis have a smaller chance of getting lung cancer compared to people who don't smoke at all. I mean, that is kind of funny!
In any case, this is why I have a vaporizer, so I don't have to smoke it. But smoking cannabis isn't going to give you any illnesses or diseases. Tobacco use may be more wide spread, cannabis is being used a whole lot longer!
I also agree with you that smoking anything isn't good for you and I concur with Nightfly about vaporizing the THC being the best solution for that issue when it comes to cannabis.
I'd agree with you that common sense suggests that smoking cannabis might not be that good for you, but I'm not so sure that it has much to say about the wisdom of ingesting the THC.
A lot of different substances particularly the class refereed to as "psychedelics" (active on the psyche) can be used in various beneficial ways.
I consider them to be tools, not always necessary and not always without their associated risks, but sometimes they can be useful and used beneficially under the right circumstances.
As for using cannabis as a home remedy, I agree that I wouldn't rely on it solely at this stage due to the lack of research etc.
I would consult a wide variety of information, weigh up all of the various risks/reward ratios and then decide which methods of treatment to incorporate.
Thanks for your words of wisdom about doing things in moderation and what you enjoy.
May you have many happy days ahead =)
Warning: a little lengthy, but sectioned by topic.
I hear you. Like a fool I took up cigarette smoking when I was around 13 because I was curious about why people did it and I mistakenly thought that it might help me fit into a cooler of crowd of people, which it didn't.
I finally quit when I was around 20 after 6-7 years of 10-15 cigs a day, by changing to milds and cutting down over a long time period after 3 failed attempts to quit cold turkey.
One of my parents has had cancer and undergone chemotherapy, thankfully they're now mostly free of it as they found it quite early.
I wouldn't pretend to know what you've experienced, but I can see where you're coming from and I think I can relate in a few ways.
Anyway, I'm 27 now, cigarette free for 7 years and thankful for it, the difference in breathing and fitness has been huge.
I first tried cannabis a few separate times in my teens and I have been smoking it casually, on and off, a few times a week when on.
You said: "I inhaled all sorts of deadly carcinogens in the smoke of those
cigarettes, and the weed, which I'm told has much more potent chemicals
contained within. (Four joints are the equivalent of a whole pack of
regular full strength cigarettes.)"
I'm not sure where this comes from or what information it's based on, but Nightfly is correct that there have been no documented cases of cannabis causing cancer.
Google themindunleashed 34 medical studies proving cannabis cures cancer.
I don't vouch for the site, but there are several links to real studies that show that cannabis has cancer
curing properties in it, which may help explain the absence of cancer cases among cannabis users.
Cigarettes and alcohol are both legal in a lot of countries today because we recognize that if they're illegal, it creates even more problems than if they're legal, and that people should be able to judge for themselves, whether or not they want to take on the risk of doing something that only effects themselves.
If alcohol causes someone to harm others, then that is seen as something that must be considered by the person before they take on the responsibilities and risks that comes with choosing to consume the alcohol.
The wide acceptance of all manor of sports and activities involving risk
is evidence to me that people are generally not accepting of the idea
that people need protecting from their own decisions.
The problem is that we're taking this "people are responsible for their own choices" approach to cigarettes and alcohol - which I think is the correct one - but then we're making all kinds of other substances against the law, we're sending the message that the legal ones are the good ones, and the illegal ones are the bad ones.
As a result we're getting a lot of consumption of cigarettes and alcohol, and when the people see the effects of this and how relatively harmless cannabis is, then they lose faith in the law as the arbiter of what's good and bad and then they wonder what other illegal substances might be good to try.
To my mind that is the only way that cannabis can be considered to be a gateway substance, any more than sugar, coffee or alcohol is; It's the benign introduction into the realm of illegal substances, a bit of a bait on a hook in my opinion.
If cannabis were legalized it would fix this.
HOW IS IT THAT "cannabis destroys peoples' lives" ? In itself, how - in overdoses ? But addiction - first of all, the definition of "addiction" needs to be rethought in reference to cannabis. For if it is a medicine, so are tens of other allopathic medicines addictive (oxycodone, for example). Those 'legal' prescribed medicines by doctors kill more than is actually known.
Those people aren't addicted to anything. Because they abused cannabis their brain makes them think they need it.
When people abuse cannabis, there comes a point where the brain stops producing it's own cannabinoids. So when that abuser stops, he gets sad and depressed since the natural cannabinoids give us joy. It takes about two weeks for the brain to start producing it's own cannaboinoids again. In this time the abuser will experience weird dreams, night sweats, lack of appetite and sometimes irritated bowels. i can understand that some people qualify this as an addiction, but by no means is it an addiction like any other (legal) drugs. People who need help with this, should never have used drugs in the first place because they are too weak to even go through two weeks of something little like that.
Chocolate is a more addictive product than cannabis is. A caffeine withdraw is worse than one from cannabis. Same goes for tobacco. Why aren't those people admitted into a clinic?
I don't know, but i feel you are going over the withdrawal effects of cannabis a bit to lightly. Basically you are saying, if you can't handle it you're a wimp?
And then again, you would like people addicted to chocolate being admitted into a clinic?
In my opinion, anyone who can't handle those minor side effects (which they get from abusing the substance in the first place) is indeed too weak to use any drugs.
I'm saying that chocolate is a more addictive substance than cannabis. Cannabis is on the same level of addiction as ansjovis. A sugar withdrawal is worse than a cannabis withdrawal, so why aren't there people in clinics for sugar addiction? Caffeine addiction? Tobacco addiction? I'm simply pointing out how stupid it is for people to get admitted into a clinic for a so called cannabis "addiction".
Well, i guess 'minor' is in the eye of the beholder. Some people do struggle about it, so i don't think it's stupid to being admitted into a clinic. Same should go for caffeine and tobacco, in my opinion.
I have no problems with people being admitted into a clinic for a cannabis addiction. I don't qualify it as an addiction, but I understand that others do. I just think it's hypocritical that a cannabis addiction is seen (by many) as something worse then, for example, a tobacco addiction.
And well, none of the "withdrawal" symptoms of abusing cannabis are serious. They are all minor. Night sweats, a few very weird dreams and infrequent bathroom visits. Anyone who needs to be admitted into a clinic for that has more serious problems. Many of them also mix it with tobacco, which only feeds into their easily addictive side.
There are also many "patients" who got admitted into a clinic because they got busted for possession in their respective country (the US especially), and they avoid jail time by going into rehab. The Anti-Cannabis lobby loves to abuse that statistic.
Alright, that's a more clear picture of what you mean. Thanks.
However, i still don't agree that none of the symptoms are serious. There can also be a psychological side to it. Of course, it all depends from person to person. But that is enough to not generalise the symptoms as 'not serious'. It really depends.
When the Controlled Substances Act was passed I was a graduate student in psychology at Northern Arizona University. Up to that time marijuana had not been considered to be addictive at ALL. Someone came through the department and spoke to the professors about “psychological addiction.” I remember thinking, at the time, so what, what makes this different from any other good or bad habit? It didn't make much sense. What I didn't understand at the time was that the federal government had to consider marijuana to be addictive for it to be on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather than to prove that marijuana was addictive like heroin or alcohol, which really could not be done, they changed the definition so that it could be banned by the language contained in the act.
National Cancer Institute at the (US federal) National Institute of Health:
“Because cannabinoid receptors, unlike opioid receptors, are not located in the brainstem areas controlling respiration, lethal overdoses from Cannabis and cannabinoids do not occur. However, cannabinoid receptors are present in other tissues throughout the body, not just in the central nervous system, and adverse effects include tachycardia, hypotension, conjunctival injection, bronchodilation, muscle relaxation, and decreased gastrointestinal motility.
Although cannabinoids are considered by some to be addictive drugs, their addictive potential is considerably lower than that of other prescribed agents or substances of abuse. The brain develops a tolerance to cannabinoids.
Withdrawal symptoms such as irritability, insomnia with sleep electroencephalogram disturbance, restlessness, hot flashes, and, rarely, nausea and cramping have been observed. However, these symptoms appear to be mild compared with withdrawal symptoms associated with opiates or benzodiazepines, and the symptoms usually dissipate after a few days.
Unlike other commonly used drugs, cannabinoids are stored in adipose tissue and excreted at a low rate (half-life 1–3 days), so even abrupt cessation of cannabinoid intake is not associated with rapid declines in plasma concentrations that would precipitate severe or abrupt withdrawal symptoms or drug cravings.
Since Cannabis smoke contains many of the same components as tobacco smoke, there are valid concerns about the adverse pulmonary effects of inhaled Cannabis. A longitudinal study in a noncancer population evaluated repeated measurements of pulmonary function over 20 years in 5,115 men and women whose smoking histories were known. While tobacco exposure was associated with decreased pulmonary function, the investigators concluded that occasional and low-cumulative Cannabis use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration [FEV1] and forced vital capacity [FVC]).”
I agree that tobacco has no health benefit whatsoever. Wine on the other hand is good for your health in a daily small dose.
It really makes little sense for states to delay legalization and regulation. Close to half of the states in our country already have experience with medical marijuana and our experience with this plant dates back to mankind’s earliest times. Before the development of the modern medical system, physicians used plants and herbs to treat patients. They created remedies from seeds, leaves, flowers, roots and bark. Now that U.S. physicians have access to laboratory-created drugs, they rely less on herbal remedies. Eastern medicine still employs herbs in cancer treatment plans, but Western medicine only recently began to accept the supportive role of herbs for cancer care. Clinical trials that incorporate herbal medicine with conventional cancer therapies are relatively new to the United States, while China has performed such trials since the early 1900s. Clinical trials and scientific studies prove that select herbs can inhibit tumor growth and metastasis, improve chemotherapy, ease the side effects of cancer treatment, reduce cancer symptoms, boost the immune system and support overall wellness.
Really Good Documentary on How this One NATURAL Herb Can be used to cure so many different illness's and from CNN to DR's and All sorts of different Organizations, they have discovered in controlled laboratory's, then, in rat, the amazing potential for Cannabis in the future. This may threaten many pharmaceutical industry's since Cannabis is Natural, and cannot be PATENTED in its Natural State ... so technically cant make money from it in the Pharmaceutical industry since they cannot legally own it.
sorry but tin foil hattery like this is what does the real damage.
People like you shut off legitimate debate by trivializing everything down into a conspiracy theory. It makes people think you're just another quack and then they start associating Cannabis with homeopath and faith healing, because you're using all of the same rhetoric that quacks use.
Asprin is made from the bark of a willow tree, and it's one of the highest profiting medicines they make.
Cannabis is incredibly easy, but time consuming to grow, not everyone has the time or the resources to do it so there would still be a substantial market for both medical and recreational users if it were legal.
Dealers make upward of a Billion pounds a year in the UK off the sale of Cannabis alone, so the idea that there is no money behind it is just plain wrong.
A_no_n, to my mind, there's nothing with what Chaz Smith wrote.
In the first half of what he wrote, he's just saying that he thinks this is a good documentary for showing the potential medical uses for cannabis.
I see nothing wrong there so far.
In the second half of what he wrote, he is only speculating that the legalization of cannabis may be a threat to the profits of pharmaceutical industries, because of it's medical benefits combined with the fact that it can't be patented and controlled.
I see nothing wrong with this either.
There isn't anything in what he actually wrote to suggest that he was implying the existence of a conspiracy, as you seem to have inferred.
Also, he said that there was no money in it for the pharmaceutical industry, not that there is no money in it at all.
When cannabis is legalized, the profits shift away from places like organized criminal groups, and go instead to places like the government via tax, and the legitimate businesses that pop up and provide jobs etc.
A_no_n, to my mind, there's nothing with what Chaz Smith wrote.
i'm glad we agree.
Just because you may see nothing wrong with it...that doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
I find your justifications to be lacking.
The reason Cannabis is illiegal today is purely down to bad politics...by putting on your tin foil hat and blaming "Big Pharma" all you're doing is diverting attention and responsibility away from the real culprits, the politicians.
The thing is though, neither of us ever blamed or even implied that "Big Pharma" was responsible or even had anything to do with cannabis being illegal.
It looks like you jumped to a conclusion and inferred something that wasn't actually implied.
I highly suggest you read the other guys comments again. because he lays the responsibility for it's illegal status pretty much solely at the door of 'big Pharma'.
i almost feel as though we're arguing about two different things...we're talking about this Nightfly guy right?
I'm pretty sure this is about @disqus_L0OeuPqMSk:disqus
original comment.
In any case, I not once implied that the pharmaceutical companies are responsible for it being illegal. You are absolutely incapable of having an actual discussion on what is being said. You think you're smart reading between the lines, when in fact it makes you look like a fool.
for once you are entirely correct...though only about the original comment, everything else you've said thus far is utter tripe.
tell you what mate, rather than telling me i'm a fool, do the intellectual thing and explain why, and please provide sources for all of your obviously bullsh1t claims because i'd like to know where this nonsense is all coming from!
This is not about the cannabis debate, this is about you failing to understand what is being said. I, not once, said that the pharmaceutical companies are responsible for cannabis being illegal. For some reason you seem to think so, and that is a failure on your part. Respond to that, and don't drag another discussion into it.
While we're at it, why don't you do the intellectual thing and explain why, and provide sources for all your obvious bogus claims? (I have, and you have been proven to be dead wrong) Hypocrite.
No you never said that "Big Pharma" keeps cannabis legal, just that it's illiegal because big pharma can't makle any money out of it.
(if you can explain how these are not exactly the same thing then i would love to hear how)
lol i'll tell you what mate, when you can provide a link to an actual scientific study as opposed to an obviously biased blog or newspaper article THEN you might have a reason to start having a pop at me and calling me a bogus hypocrite.
No, we're obviously not talking about Nightfly.
I said "A_no_n, to my mind, there's nothing with what Chaz Smith wrote."
And then I broke down exactly why I thought Chaz never implied that the pharmaceutical industry had anything to do with the legal status of cannabis.
You (A_no_n) then replied with:
'A_no_n, to my mind, there's nothing with what Chaz Smith wrote.'
i'm glad we agree.
Just because you may see nothing wrong with it...that doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
I find your justifications to be lacking.
The reason Cannabis is illiegal today is purely down to bad politics...by
putting on your tin foil hat and blaming "Big Pharma" all you're doing
is diverting attention and responsibility away from the real culprits,
the politicians."
So considering we both specifically indicated that we were talking about Chaz, I think it's safe to say that no, we're not talking about Nightfly.
You also wrote: "Just because you may see nothing wrong with it...that doesn't mean it isn't wrong.I find your justifications to be lacking."
Please point out exactly what you think is "wrong" with what Chaz wrote, and how you think he was implying big pharma's involvement in cannabis's legal status, or at least admit that you made a mistake by jumping the gun and inferring something that was never implied.
Also, I can't see where Nightfly, or anyone for that matter, ever implied big pharmas involvement in cannabis's legal status, so again If you could either point out the instances of where they did what you're saying they did, or at least admit that you made a mistake.
i got a bit confused, it happens when i'm getting bullsh1t flung at me from all directions.
a_no_n. i think you may be the reason people are such dicks to each other on the internet. you have no evidence that Chaz smith is one of those idiots who think up conspiracy theories, as he never said anything close to a conspiracy. he simply said that cannabis can be used for medicinal purposes, and that pharmaceutical companies cant make money from owning an entire species of plant.
just because i am one of those d1cks, doesn't mean i'm the sole cause.
I suggest you google the word conspiracy and find out what it actually means because blaming Big Pharma for keeping weed illegal is absolutely a conspiracy theory...a well established one.
I explain why he's wrong...i suggest you read my comment again.
wow! another person taking what someone says too literally on the internet! hurray!
Now, down to the non-joke part.
He didn't actually say pharmaceutical companies were keeping pot illegal, just that it would threaten business, maybe you need to work on you comprehension a little bit, because it seems obvious that he didn't say anything about pharma keeping pot illegal or any other conspiracies you think he did.
He did, however, make the mistake of saying "One NATURAL Herb Can be used to cure so many different illness's" , which it hasn't been proven to and i suspect never will, because it really can't. i also suspect that was what got your faulty "conspiracy radar" on high alert, leading you to make a fool of yourself on the internet.
yup and that "one natural herb can cure everything" line has been used by every quack and snake oil salesman looking to make a quick buck out of desperate people since the year dot.
It's also wrong because that's not how medicinal cannabis works. It isn't a cure all for anything, it's a treatment, which are two completely different things.
That's what i mean, just seeing the word "cure" up there tells me that this person doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
it all adds to the ever growing pot of misinformation about the uses and effects of cannabis, and this hurts the movement to get it legalised.
i'll tell you what has been proven about cannabis.
It is unmatched in it's ability to counter the negative side effects of Chemotherapy.
It brings stress levels tumbling down and drasticly increases the efficacy of the treatment.
My big problem is with people who run around talking about cancer cures...it's an evil and shallow thing to do, because it gives very desperate people false hope, and may convince them to waste their money and time on something that isn't going to work.
That may very well not have been the intention behind the comment, but that was how it came across and i knew it was only a matter of time before someone (Thank you Nightfly) made the claim.
The way i see it, just because he didn't name it, that doesn't mean that's not what he was alluding to...either way it helps no-one.
"one of those idiots who think up conspiracy theories"
You're calling everyone who simply "theorizes" about "conspiracies" an idiot.
Conspiracies by definition are a fact of everyday life and merely making theories related to them doesn't make you an idiot, it only makes you a thinker.
Believing every theory you come across to be the absolute truth, now that would make you foolish, but simply theorizing about a particular aspect of reality? Not so much.
do you actually know the definition of conspiracy? i'll quote google here, "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." thats not a part of everyday life any more than mass murders in the streets are.
Yes, I do know the definition of a conspiracy, and I fail to see how the existence of "groups of people planning to do something unlawful or harmful" is not a fact of everyday life?
If you see a dodgy looking group of people suspiciously eying something up, and you say to yourself "I wonder if they're going to..." is that not theorizing about a conspiracy?
The media seems to have people thinking that there
is such a thing as a "conspiracy theorist" and it apparently means
something other than what the words actually mean.
Conspiracies on various scales exist, so how is theorizing about them a bad thing?
As I said earlier, there's a difference between theorizing about conspiracies and believing theories to be fact without sufficient evidence. The former is an intellectual exercise inquiring into a genuine aspect of reality, the latter is unscientific.
They're not synonymous and to say that they are is unscientific and prejudice.
Someone who entertains theories and makes hypothesis about conspiracies, is inherently no different than someone who theorizes and makes hypothesis about quantum physics, economics, politics or any other subject.
Regardless of how many "i*iots" there are in any of those fields, the "i*iot" and the theorist is not one and the same thing.
what exactly are you defending/arguing for, here?
You said "one of those i*iots who think up conspiracy theories"
You're saying that if you "think
up conspiracy theories" (theorize about conspiracies), you're an i*iot.
I'm saying that simply coming up with theories ab*ut conspiracies doesn't automatically make you an idiot, for reasons given.
most of the time though, the people who most others classify as "conspiracy theorists" are, in fact, complete id**ts. it stands to reason that someone who thinks the government is out to get them and that there is a secret organization, for example, is out to get everyone and that we are all sheep, is an id**t... thats what i mean when i say conspiracy, the actual definition doesn't really matter, because nobody cares, they will call something a conspiracy and another thing not for no reason in particular.
Hi there,
"most of the time though, the people who most others classify as "conspiracy theorists" are, in fact, complete id**ts."
I completely agree with this.
It's the reasoning behind why I said "The media seems to have people thinking that there is such a thing as a "conspiracy theorist" and it apparently means something other than what the words actually mean."
I blamed the media, but what ever the causes were, the result has been the same.
People using the term "conspiracy theorist" as you have, to loosely describe something similar to "people who tend to believe in conspiracies without adhering to the rules of evidence".
The words "conspiracy theorist" on their are neutral, own don't have an
implication that the person is unreasonable and unscientific.
What do you call someone who "theorizes" about "conspiracies" but who keeps an open mind about all possibilities and chooses not to believe anything without conclusive evidence? Is that person an i*iot?
You could call this person a "conspiracy theorist" just as much as you could call a s*upid one, could you not?
The invented term "conspiracy theorist" as it's used commonly today points to both of these people and says "i*iot" as you have.
"it stands to reason that someone who thinks the government is out to get
them and that there is a secret organization, for example, is out to
get everyone and that we are all sheep, is an id**t..."
The use of the "is" implies to me belief, as in "thinks that there _is_ a secret a organization".
Correct me if I'm wrong because I don't mean to put any words in your mouth, but you're saying in essence that "If you believe that the government is out to get you or that there is a secret organization out to get people then you're an id*ot".
But there is no mention of the critical factor of what evidence they were going by to support their belief.
If they had sufficient evidence to support their belief, then they wouldn't be an i*iot.
"when i say conspiracy, the actual definition doesn't really matter,
because nobody cares, they will call something a conspiracy and another
thing not for no reason in particular."
The definitions of words is often the only thing we have to know what it is we're talking about.
The fact that a percentage of the population "doesn't care" about the definitions of words and can't decide on what is a conspiracy and what isn't as a result, doesn't mean that we should join them in their delusion of using invented terms like "Conspiracy Theorist" with ambiguous meanings that have little to do with the words used.
Common colloquialism is one thing, but we can't
just declare things like all "car enthusiasts" are juvinille inmature
hooligans who kill people racing on public roads, why?
Because the
words don't describe the invented meaning of the term, and it puts
"anyone who is enthusiastic about cars" into the same box as some of the
very worst of people who happen to fall into under that umbrella.
It just means that now more than ever there's a need to be more clear about the terms and words that we're using.
"most of the time though, the people who most others classify as "conspiracy theorists" are, in fact, complete id**ts."
I completely agree with this.
It's the reasoning behind why I said people think it means something other than what the words mean.
I blamed the media, but what ever the causes were, people are using the term "conspiracy theorist" as you have, to loosely describe "people who tend to believe in conspiracies without adhering to the rules of evidence".
What do you call someone who "theorizes" about "conspiracies" but who keeps an open mind about all possibilities and chooses not to believe anything without conclusive evidence? Is that person an idi*t?
"when i say conspiracy, the actual definition
doesn't really matter, because nobody cares, they will call something a conspiracy and another thing not for no reason in particular."
The definitions of words is often the only thing we have to know what it is we're talking about.
The fact that a percentage of the population "doesn't care" about the definitions and can't decide on what is a conspiracy and what isn't as a result, doesn't mean that we should join them in their delusion of using invented terms like "Conspiracy Theorist" with ambiguous meanings that have little to do with the words used.
It just means that there's a need to be more clear about the terms and words that we're using.
Note: edited to correct weird spacing issues.
When speaking of complete legalization of hemp (note. I say hemp, not just cannabis) many world leading industries are set to lose such giant sums of money, it's unbelievable (literally).
No more deforesting of our planet. Hemp can almost completely replace our "need" for wood. Hemp grows quicker, on a much smaller space, with a much higher yield than a tree. Paper and textile with better quality, hempcrete which is an amazing building martial.
I'm sure you can figure out why the oil and pharmaceutical giants don't want this plant legalized.
Ah...by talking about hemp you're changing the argument. I don't disagree with you about that, but that isn't the argument we're having here!
Anyway it doesn't make much of a difference, the truth is there is JUST as much money to be made from these products.
You're confusing healthcare with the oil industry. and heaping blame onto pharmacutical industries that should really be aimed at the politicians...the only people who actually boast about being hard on drugs.
Of course "Big Pharma" will still make money from it.
People aren't going to stop getting sick just because weed is legal.
Well, it wasn't my intention to change the argument! But just legalizing cannabis isn't the way to go if you ask me.
The thing is, these big corporations won't be able to make as much money off of it, because we can grow it easily anywhere we want, without them.
The oil industries would cry. The oil you can make out of hemp, excellent for fuel! Can you imagine, being able to make oil out of a plant you can grow in your back yard? See you later Exxon Mobil!
"Big Pharma" will realize that people will grow their medicine themselves, there wouldn't be a need for that stupid synthetic "cannabis" they are working on. Why do you think there are so many people who still believe in those obvious lies? Some guy who was into the wood industry came up with that bogus last century.
it doesn't matter how many ways i phrase it, you're going to insist on ignoring what i say aren't you?
twice now i've explained that there is just as much money in legalization as prohibition.
Twice you've ignored it and repeated yourself at me.
You seem to think that all illnesses are going to stop developing, and that suddenly perpetual motion will spring forth out of the ground as if we're all just suddenly going to stop needing stuff because of a slight change to the law.
Sorry, but you are the one who is unable to read what is being "said". This has happened to you in a previous conversation, and it has been pointed out clearly to you why this is the case, and still you do not get it.
I am not saying that there isn't a lot of money to make with legalization. There is, way more than with it being illegal. Only that money won't be made by those big companies. Big pharma can't make as much money on cannabis compared to highly addictive and harmful opiates, because they can't own the rights to it. We are already able to make an amazing medicinal oil, without the help of big pharma.
Anyways, keep reading what you want to read, I'm quite enjoying this.
but you're still making the assumption that people are suddenly going to stop getting cancer and Glaucoma etc if weed is legalised, because apparantly everybody has a greenhouse in their garden...people without the resources to grow their own don't exist in your world.
I'm not reading what i want to, i'm just pointing out the obvious flaw in your thinking.
We may be ready to make a marvelous medicinal oil...but do you have the first clue how to use it properly?
Strike three, you're out.
Once again, I never said anything remotely related that could have led you to believe that I assume people are going to stop getting seriously ill. So for the third time, you are reading what you want to read.
It's no secret that cannabis has the potential to cure cancer. It has such a big medicinal potential you can't deny that big pharma will lose giant amounts of money when it's legalized.
You also don't seem to understand what complete legalization would entail. It means it will be treated just like any other crop.
Why would I have to know how to use it? I said that we already know how to make an oil with amazing medicinal qualities... If we can already do that now, imagine what we can do when we're allowed to actually do legal research without limitations. There are still 60+ unknown cannabinoids in the cannabis plant.
Now please, stop being a troll and actually read what people are saying without applying your own flawed agenda to it. If you're unable/unwilling to do that, this debate is over.
I knew you were a quack, and now you've proved it!
Cannabis does NOT have the ability to cure cancer!
By talking about a cancer "Cure" you're displaying a severe misunderstanding of what the disease is.
Cannabis is a highly effective treatment for the negative effects of Chemotherapy.
No genuine researcher has ever claimed cannabis has the potential to cure!
Cannabis can be used to treat the nausea pain and loss of appetite brought on by Chemotherapy. It is NOT a replacement cure!
do you're research before spouting dangerous buil;lsh1t like this.
OR provide your sources for that claim!
From the website of the National Cancer Institute I present the following:
"Antitumor activity
Studies
in mice and rats have shown that cannabinoids may inhibit tumor growth
by causing cell death, blocking cell growth, and blocking the
development of blood vessels needed by tumors to grow. Laboratory and animal studies have shown that cannabinoids may be able to kill cancer cells while protecting normal cells.
A study in mice showed that cannabinoids may protect against inflammation of the colon and may have potential in reducing the risk of colon cancer, and possibly in its treatment.
A laboratory study of delta-9-THC in hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer) cells showed that it damaged or killed the cancer cells. The same study of delta-9-THC in mouse models of liver cancer showed that it had antitumor effects. Delta-9-THC has been shown to cause these effects by acting on molecules that may also be found in non-small cell lung cancer cells and breast cancer cells.
A laboratory study of cannabidiol in estrogen receptor positive and estrogen receptor negative breast cancer cells showed that it caused cancer cell death while having little effect on normal breast cells.
A laboratory study of cannabidiol in human glioma cells showed that when given along with chemotherapy, cannabidiol may make chemotherapy more effective and increase cancer cell death without harming normal cells."
ok fair enough...but there are problems right off the bat. Firstly that rat and mice studies have practically no relevance whatsoever to human biology.
No serious scientist makes a claim based solely off of a rat study.
and the fact that it reacts this way under chemical conditions bears little resemblance to how it may work outside the lab.
fair enough interesting things are suggested, but they are in no way shape or form any justification to the claim that cannabis cures cancer!
If cannabis cured cancer Bob Marley Wouldn't have died from it.
"fair enough interesting things are suggested, but they are in no way
shape or form any justification to the claim that cannabis cures cancer!"
Nightfly never really made the claim that it was the cure, he said only that it showed signs of having the potential to treat and cure it.
"If cannabis cured cancer Bob Marley Wouldn't have died from it."
Nightfly said that cannabis has the potential to treat and cure various cancers, but no one is suggesting that it's going to cure all forms of cancer regardless of how it's administered.
According to the interwebs, Bob Marley had skin cancer and smoked joints.
That may be like trying to cure hunger by putting food in your rectum and then saying "If food could cure hunger, then he would not have died, because he put a lot of food in his rectum".
hmm...are we reading the same comments here? Because he totally said that. He also never once used the word "treat" you've added that in and attributed it to him!
Fair enough my Bob Marley example is facetious but it still stands...If THC and CBDs are such wonderdrugs, it wouldn't matter how they got into your system.
You're holding mine and nightflys comments to two completly different standards and it's starting to get a bit irritating now...
Read what Nightfly said:
"In any case, it has been proven in 1978 (Yes, this is how uneducated you
are on this subject) that cannabinoids "kill" cancerous cells. More
recently they found out that it can be a potential cure for several
types of cancer (I've had ALL as youngster, so I know exactly what
cancer is)."
He said "cannabinoids "kill" cancerous cells" and that it's a "potential cure for several
types of cancer".
Notice neither of those is a "claim that cannabis cures cancer" as you put it.
You're putting words in peoples mouths, "reading what you want to read instead of what's actually there" as Nightfly put it.
You said: "If THC and CBDs are such wonderdrugs, it wouldn't matter how they got into your system."
Nobody is claiming that they are "wonderdrugs" (putting words in peoples mouths again) and I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure that the method and dosage of administering a medicinal substance actually does quite often matter.
"You're holding mine and nightflys comments to two completly different standards and it's starting to get a bit irritating now..."
Do you have any examples of me doing this or anything at all to back up this accusation?
I've only felt the need to correct you for clarity sake, because as we've shown you have a habit (and that's what I see it as) of twisting the truth by putting words in peoples mouths and addressing what you want to address instead of what is actually there.
If I saw Nightfly doing the same thing, or if I saw an opportunity to shed light by correcting something he/she said then I would have held them to the same standard that I'm now holding to you, namely truth and clarity.
Ok...first of all let's talk about putting words in peoples mouths.
he said: "It has the potential to cure cancer" Read it.
Not as you claim "It has the potential to cure several types of cancer"
so basicly what you just said there was a straight up lie.
why bother lying, i can scroll up and see it for myself.
Did you even read what I wrote before you wrote that?
I said:
Read what Nightfly said:
"In any case, it has been proven in 1978 (Yes, this is how uneducated you
are on this subject) that cannabinoids "kill" cancerous cells. More
recently they found out that it can be a potential cure for several
types of cancer (I've had ALL as youngster, so I know exactly what
cancer is)."
He said it right there, in the quote that I provided you in the previous post.
"potential cure for several
types of cancer"
That's a direct quote from Nightfly.
So no, it's not a lie that Nightfly said cannabis is a "potential cure for several types of cancer".
no he doesn't. You've taken his quote and added the words "Several types" so that it can better achieve the point you would like to make.
His exact quote from four days ago copy/pasted is:
"It's no secret that cannabis has the potential to cure cancer."
he doesn't say "Several types" at all!
I caught you out, either pack it in or go away because i'm not arguing against cynical lies.
Misinformation and honest mistakes i don't mind, but outright fiddling like that isn't worth the effort.
Here is the comment in it's entirety:
"Nightfly to a_no_n
3 days ago
I replied to this with a bunch of studies, even a link containing 700
marijuana studies so you can educate yourself on the subject matter.
However,
it's either (still) awaiting moderation, or it never got approved for
reasons unknown to me. But, theHolyMountain already gave you enough
information to proof to yourself that you are dead wrong, and a giant hypocritical troll.
[link]
And here is a link to 700 medical marijuana studies; [link]
In any case, it has been proven in 1978 (Yes, this is how uneducated you
are on this subject) that cannabinoids "kill" cancerous cells. More
recently they found out that it can be a potential cure for several
types of cancer (I've had ALL as youngster, so I know exactly what
cancer is)."
It clearly states "potential cure for several types of cancer".
So your claim that I "lied" is incorrect.
He may have used other wording in a previous comment, but the fact that he
did say "potential cure for several types of cancer" is evidently true,
thus meaning I didn't "lie" as you claimed I did, even though it could
have been a "mistake", which it evidently wasn't.
Your claim that Nightfly made a "claim that cannabis cures cancer" is also still incorrect.
ah i see so you're going off of that comment.
Fair enough, i'm going off the two or three others that we have before that one, where he quite clearly claims it cures cancer.
Either way though it's still wrong. because the evidence he posts to justify that claim (700 links) is all to newspaper articles and alternative health sites...literally the exact polar opposite of evidence.
All the studies those links reference only suggest that further study is needed. None make any claim as to the curative properties of cannabis!
so either way it's still a bullsh1t claim and i stand by everything i've said.
So, do you want to try reinterpreting it from another angle now? Or are you ready to drop it and talk about the actual issue?
"ah i see so you're going off of that comment.
Fair enough,i'm going off the two or three others that we have before that one, where he quite clearly claims it cures cancer."
I'll take that "fair enough" as you admitting that you were mistaken about me "lying"
Where does Nightfly ever "quite clearly claim it cures cancer"?
I could not find it, I could only find the words "potential" with it.
I've also seen Nightfly deny this claim of yours multiple times and recently said "My only claim is that cannabis has the potential to cure cancer, scientists agree with me."
Despite multiple cases of both the accusation on your part, and insistence to the contrary on Nightfly's part, I have yet to see you refute this and provide any quotes or anything else to support your clearly worded claim that "he quite clearly claims it cures cancer."
"Or are you ready to drop it and talk about the actual issue?"
We are on topic for what we're talking about, so far you've admitted to 1 out of 2 of your claims being incorrect, now I want to get to the heart of the other one.
If Nightfly only ever said that it has been shown that cannabis has the "potential" to cure cancer, then all it needs to be true is "having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future." by definition of the word potential.
Which I would argue has been shown.
If your issue is only that "he quite clearly claims it cures cancer." as you said, then please show where he said this so we can settle the debate.
Killing malignant cells is a form of cancer treatment. Telling those cells to stop multiplying, is a form of cancer treatment. You simply looking for the word "treat" proofs that you are in fact, unable to comprehensively read and/or have no idea what you are talking about.
No, I never said that "big pharma" is the reason for cannabis being illegal. No, I never said that cannabis cures cancer.
Smoking, eating, or consuming cannabis in any way, shape or form isn't going to do anything against cancer. You need the cannabinoid extract, known as cannabis oil. In an earlier comment you asked for links to scientific research, I have given you those (again). Are you going to give me links to unbiased, scientific research that claims the cannabinoids in cannabis don't have the potential to cure cancer? It's time for you to put up, or shut up, as the saying goes.
which would be fine if it weren't for the fact that the only thing you have to base that claim off of is a rat study!
Sorry mate but i copy/pasted the exact part where you claimed Cannabis cures cancer in another comment, please stop trying to convince me you didn't say it when i can quite easily scroll up and see it written in plain English.
You realise that smoking it still gets those chemicals into the bloodstream right?
Actually it's not time for me to put up or shut up. The Burden of proof always lies with the person making the claim.
This is the problem with arguing science/ precious few people actually understand how it works or the process involved in proving a claim.
I never mentioned that cannabis cures cancer. I only said that it has the potential to do so, which it does. If you could have been bothered to read the research I have provided you with, you could see that they have also tested it on humans, with the same result.
Scientist don't know if the carcinogens released due to the burning process of cannabis hits the bloodstream. What they do know is that it doesn't have a negative effect on the human body, because they think the cannabinoids somehow neutralize it. All you have to do is search for "carcinogens cannabis smoke" and you can read it for yourself. There is a reason why in thousands years of cannabis use, not a single cancer case has been linked to smoking cannabis.
I made the claim, I provided you with the proof. You made a claim that I was wrong, but I am still waiting on you to back up your claim.
If it becomes legalized, I don't see why companies won't be able to patent new cultivars just like it can be done for any legal plant. It's even debatable if the current varieties won't be possible to patent since they were never legally commercially available. I'd like the opinion of patents lawyers on that matter. In any case, the previous hybridizers will have a very hard case to prove they created the previous varieties since they will have absolutely no legal papers to prove it.
Sounds like the stage is set for Monsanto to be making an appearance! Sure would like to see a doc on those scumbags to see what they are up to in this cannabis research.
no doubt eh User_001
NATURAL? Yeah, like snakes, cancer, arsenic, and DEATH. I'm all for legalized marijuana but people like you don't help the cause at all. Natural is a useless word and doesn't mean anything.