If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Scientists find that marijuana can stop aggressive cancers, once-motivated college students   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 22
    More: Spiffy, Pierre Desprez, molecular biology, metastasis, animal testing, common practice, marijuana, breast cancer, prison cells  
•       •       •

6454 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Sep 2012 at 12:47 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-21 01:07:42 AM
3 votes:

sendtodave: Scientists find that marijuana can stop aggressive cancers

The cancers mellow out?


Cancer Cell 1
"Whoa. What if we're all like, small, and in the body of some even bigger living thing"

Cancer Cell 2
"Duuuude, that's heavy. Maybe we all are, like, parts of god. And how we live our lives, and how we treat our surroundings, either helps of harms him"

Cancer Cell 1
"Or her"

Cancer Cell 2
"Wow, i don't even know what a her is but that's trippy."

Cancer Cell 1
"I'm not so sure anymore we should keep expanding the way we have. I mean, what if all that stuff we're thinking of invading is important to god?"

Cancer Cell 2
"Yeah, man. Lets just chill here."
2012-09-20 07:36:42 PM
3 votes:
"We used injections in the animal testing and are also testing pills," he said. "But you could never get enough Cannabidiol for it to be effective just from smoking."

Challenge accepted.
2012-09-21 01:40:54 AM
2 votes:
Why hasn't pot been legalized? MONEY. Few existing large industries see any money in it and most governments believe it will reduce their overall tax revenue. They believe legalized pot would be revenue negative due to the alcohol and tobacco sales it would displace. Governments will have to be dragged into accepting its complete legality. Referendums are probably the only way, because even the most liberal of politicos knows the huge hit it will make on tax revenue.

Cannabis is expensive now, even decriminalized weed, but only because of the huge costs of keeping it hidden. Even decriminalized weed needs illicit production and transportation, that is all very expensive. Were it legal, it would be ridiculously inexpensive to grow at industrial scales. It would certainly be no more expensive to grow than tobacco. A cannabis joint should be far cheaper to make than tobacco cigarettes made of complex ingredients and additives. Even with the tremendous complexity and expensive additives used in tobacco cigarettes, the production cost of a single tobacco cigarette is less than 5 cents.

Five farking cents - an industrially produced joint should cost even less. Even if the government added a massive FOUR THOUSAND percent tax, the retail price of a chemical-free, high-quality, reliable, consistent, joint would be $2. Two farking dollars. Cheaper than beer, cheaper than whiskey and because a good high could be had for that $2, providing a lot less tax revenue. (And yes, fully legalized $2 joints would put just about ever current dealer, medical dispensary and independent grower completely out of business, forever.)

The established tobacco and alcohol industries have done the numbers. They're smart people, they're not lobbying for legality. If it starts to near reality, they'll lobby heavily against it. They don't want any part of legalized cannabis. There's no money in it. Most of the world's governments are on the same page, it would reduce their tax revenue, they'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming towards legalized pot.

/fully in favor of legalized, taxed pot
//fully opposed to decriminalized, untaxed pot (there's absolutely no way to tax decriminalized products)
2012-09-21 01:04:48 AM
2 votes:

PhiloeBedoe: uh...wrong thread


No way, man. I get it. The black car represents cancer, you know? And the chick, see, she's the one who's got the cancer, man. Probably some stage-four super aggressive stuff, man. She looks terrified! And the white car, you know, is marijuana, right? Saving the day and shiat, fark yeah it is, man!

I totally get it.

// what?
2012-09-20 11:33:12 PM
2 votes:

GAT_00: King Something: Well, there's THAT, there's the fact that legalized cannabis would mean people would start buying books and newspapers printed on hemp paper instead of wood paper, and the devil weed makes colored folks play jazz music and look at white women.

You don't legalize a drug for it's side effects.


nor, apparently, do you legalize a drug for it's benefits. look, the entire reason for cannabis being Schedule I is because it has 'no valid medical uses'. well - here's a valid medical use: treating cancer. ergo - cannabis does not qualify as Schedule I. so do you think the DEA is going to take cannabis off the Schedule I list now? f*ck no. which implies there are other reasons for cannabis remaining Schedule I. reasons OTHER than those stated by the Powers That Be in this country.
2012-09-20 10:25:48 PM
2 votes:

GAT_00: Desprez, a molecular biologist, spent decades studying ID-1, the gene that causes cancer to spread. Meanwhile, fellow researcher Sean McAllister was studying the effects of Cannabidiol, or CBD, a non-toxic, non-psychoactive chemical compound found in the cannabis plant. Finally, the pair collaborated, combining CBD and cells containing high levels of ID-1 in a petri dish.

"What we found was that his Cannabidiol could essentially 'turn off' the ID-1," Desprez told HuffPost. The cells stopped spreading and returned to normal.

So, the Cannabidiol can be synthesized I assume? Cool. But to people who are inevitably going to come in here and demanding we legalize pot, I would point out that nobody has proved that smoking pot stops cancer. Use the actual medicine, not the excuse.


why create a synthetic when you could easily grow and extract what you need from the plant itself? cheaply too, not to mention that the plant itself is relatively easy to breed into useful strains.

of course, once you admit that cannabis DOES have useful medical properties, the ENTIRE argument against legalization falls apart. And that's why we'd rather let people die a horrible painful death than legalize the meds that would save their lives.
2012-09-20 07:35:52 PM
2 votes:
now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.
2012-09-21 07:39:58 PM
1 votes:

Mr. Eugenides: Except that in this case you're comparing a drug that farks you up mentally with one that keeps you clear headed. So if you have a drug that doesn't work as well and has side effects I'd say use the good stuff. The good stuff isn't pot.

Are you suggesting that the various drugs given for cancer are without side effects? Or that it's somehow unacceptable to have a drug that alters your baseline state?


I'm speaking as someone who has had to deal with chemotherapy more times in the past 30 years than I hope you ever have to. I've seen the side therapys change and while pot may have had a place 20 years ago, it has been far surpassed.

Appeal to authority much?
2012-09-21 02:12:51 PM
1 votes:

MrHelpful: Lligeret: MrHelpful: Weaver95: now remember - it is the OFFICIAL policy of the US government that cannibis has NO valid medical properties. if you use cannabis in ANY way for ANY reason, the US federal government WILL find you, they will arrest you and they will put you in jail. No exceptions, no excuses, zero...tolerance.

enjoy your slow and painful death from cancer, and be comforted by the knowledge that cannabis will never be used to save your life.

I guess you missed the part of the article which said you cant smoke enough pot to get the healing effect. In other words, there's no connection between smoking pot and stopping the ravages of cancer. But, you're a zealot and that's what zealots do - conveniently ignore things which don't fit their narrative.


No but you know what smoking pot does do for cancer patients? It makes eating bearable for patients on chemotherapy. This reason along is good enough one to legalize it.
Nothing flips someone from being opposed to marijuana to pro marijuana like seeing the affects of it on friends and family that are having issues with their chemotherapy.


As a non-user, I don't give a shiat wtf stoners do. I have never been negatively impacted by a stoner. Legalizing it would simply get them all out of everyone faces. It does not actually impact me in any way shape or form whether they smoke or not, and our country could stop spending a stupid amount of money on enforcing policies that do not actually provide any benefit to society, outside of a topic that everyone can get their panties in a bunch over because everyone likes complaining about things, and a bunch of money to a defective prison industry.



Point is if you oppose medicinal marijuana I hope you get cancer (no I really do, if you feel like pointlessly increasing the suffering of others and there are no negative impacts on you then just fark off and die (of cancer)), and find yourself unable to eat, we will see how quick you change your tune about legali ...


Actually what you did was say he ignored the article. When you actually ignored what was in his post

He simply stated that once again the science shows that the plant has medicinal properties and has been shown to have medical benefits. That by definition means that the plant referred to as marijuana should not be listed as schedule 1 in the US. By the very definition of schedule 1 provided above, anything with medical benefits should not be listed there.

It is pretty simple. If the plant was not listed as schedule 1 it would not have all the restrictions on it for research purposes. I'm all for legalization but the real issue is that scientific research is being stymied by arguments the government knows are BS and have been proven FALSE.

Even if one is against legalization for personal use, having the government restrict legitimate research on marijuana because of political reasons not helth and safety is bogus
2012-09-21 02:08:52 PM
1 votes:

willyfreddy: Related: Fiona Apple arrested for having 0.010 pounds of marijuana and 0.010 pounds of hashish.

/your government is an embarrassment
//but your scientists are ace
///good singers too


This zero-tolerance border bullshiat apparently went into effect under the Shrub administration, and based on the timing, it's been my suspicion all along that it was done to punish Canada for deciding to lighten up on weed. A year after the policy went into effect, I picked up a hitchhiker in New Brunswick who told me that because of a minimal possession charge he'd gotten in Nova Scotia a couple years earlier, he was banned FOR LIFE from entering the U.S. The kid was 21. Banned for life for having a joint on him. Can you believe it? Yes, I was and still am ashamed.
2012-09-21 02:00:28 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: WhyteRaven74: GAT_00: You don't legalize a drug for it's side effects.

BTW the medicinal benefits of pot were well understood when it was made illegal. Indeed many doctors were opposed to it being made illegal. The only reason pot was ever made illegal has to do with racism and the head of the AMA lying through this teeth to Congress. And the race issue was a far bigger deal than one man's lies.

there is NO reason to keep cannabis illegal. nothing valid anyways. whole lot of corrupt reasons...but nothing valid or logical. By our own standards, cannabis should be at most Schedule IV. And you could probably argue for Schedule V if you wanted to push if further.


I completely agree. It's unclear to me why it remains at Schedule I, but I assume it's mostly political; I find it hard even to find any economic reasons. From that, I surmise it's almost entirely a cultural fable, like the thing about Korean fan death -- a completely wrongheaded notion that persists only because it's so widely repeated.

I think it won't change until we get a lot more politicians who stand up and say, "Yeah, I toked up, and you know what? It was very enjoyable and didn't hurt me. I'm not embarrassed, I'm definitely not sorry, and absolutely will not apologise for my well-reasoned adult choices. More, I'm working towards decriminalisation because I don't want tomorrow's children to grow up in a nation as misguided as the one I did. We can tax it and make money, instead of pouring gobs of money down a rathole trying to control a harmless damn weed that grows, like, *everywhere,* while diverting our law enforcement from duties actually worth their time and our money. And at the same time, lift cruel and unnecessary government sanctions on vital research into marijuana's very positive medical benefits. If you can't handle all that, then either grow up or move to a country willing to coddle your ignorance, because I'm going to do my best to see that this one no longer does. Next question."

But I don't believe any politician (other than Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, maybe) will do anything like that until a large number of Americans openly, forcefully, and very vocally voice their own disapproval of current policy. To that end, I encourage people to openly flaut the law, even at the risk of prosecution, if you can afford the consequences. (In many jurisdictions these days, not much, if your infraction is minimal. In some, possibly none at all.) Massive, visible, widespread, and sustained civil disobedience is likely the shortest road to decriminalisation, in my view. That, and what I hope will be a growing trend in law enforcement and justice to just not take these laws seriously anymore, the same way we ignore countless other outdated laws still on the books.
2012-09-21 01:23:16 PM
1 votes:
I am hoping that (if) Obama wins and becomes a "Lame Duck President" he can finally change Cannabis from Schedule 1. If not, 3 states have legalization on the ballot so we may finally reach the turning point on this utter farce that is Federal Prohibition - Of a Plant!!. Until then, jury nullification, and making sure we get rid of the politicians who are for this "War on Plants" and also pushing to get even more states to enact medical cannabis laws will remain the only recourse of the will of the people! It is the only way for Americans to overcome the powerful lobbying interests trying to keep the "$tatus Quo" of Private Pri$ion$, Big Pharma, DEA A$$et siezures and the liquor and tobacco and timber industries. "HEMP FOR VICTORY!!!"
2012-09-21 12:54:36 PM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: GAT_00: You don't legalize a drug for it's side effects.

BTW the medicinal benefits of pot were well understood when it was made illegal. Indeed many doctors were opposed to it being made illegal. The only reason pot was ever made illegal has to do with racism and the head of the AMA lying through this teeth to Congress. And the race issue was a far bigger deal than one man's lies.


The AMA was in full support of keeping weed legal, it was just that everything they said was completely ignored by congress, because you know, everyone in congress was a doctor back then....
2012-09-21 11:10:53 AM
1 votes:

Smackledorfer: Oh Ishould have included this: the 'main effect' of a drug is whatever it is you took it to do. It is not necessarily the strongest effect the drug has on you.

The side effects are every reported or measured effects in the testing of the drug.

Yes, that means a dual-purpose drug can be marketed and prescribed with different main effects.

I take aspirin for a headache. My dad takes it to thin his blood. Each is the drug's main effect for us while the other person's main effect is our side effect.

Finally, for the stupid Gats of the world, increased appetite is a great side effect for the cancer sufferer taking pot for the pain of chemo, as is the easy transition to sleep. It doesn't matter if it can cure cancer as it already has a medical use.

Unless gat would ban all pain killers except one (or x, should he be able to define exactly why only x types should be legal) of course. But that's a pretty stupid approach to medicine isn't it?


I have a genetic form of spinal arthritis (ankylosing spondylitis). One of the many reasons this sucks is that the medication I'm currently on interacts with most OTC analgesics, which means when I do something stupid like yesterday when I tweaked my knee doing squats, I can't take ibuprofen or anything to manage the pain and inflammation.

Except for weed. Cannabis is nonreactive both to my current medication and the toxic industrial strength medication that I'll need to be on if/when the arthritis progresses further.

Cannabis can't replace the main medication I'm on. But I have a condition where I need to exercise every day to prevent my spine from fusing to my pelvis, and I cannot legally acquire a non-reactive anti-inflammatory drug that increases appetite and helps me fall asleep. That seems stupid to me.
2012-09-21 08:06:38 AM
1 votes:
Can't wait for the baby boomers to all die off, so the gen X'ers can legalize pot... we've already started to legalize same sex marriages... our plan to create the fall of humanity has begun!! MWUAHAHAHAH!!

Actually, everyone would just chill out more and it would be a planet full of happy unicorns and teddy bears.... with cookies... lot's of cookies...

Dude, wait, what?
2012-09-21 02:06:53 AM
1 votes:
Patent #6630507


Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

Abstract
Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub.3, and COCH.sub.3. ##STR1##
2012-09-21 01:41:10 AM
1 votes:
grinnel

Paregoric is a tincture.

//

Anybody who can get worked up about weed at this late date needs a girlfriend.
2012-09-21 01:14:53 AM
1 votes:

Vitamin Pb: I love how the stoners can't read TFA and think that their addiction helps stop cancer.


Well, to be fair, there's lots of other research showing an inverse relationship between cannabis and cancer. The real derp is coming from the DEA, which says things like this on their website "Because marijuana contains toxins and carcinogens, marijuana smokers increase their risk of cancer of the head, neck, lungs and respiratory track." For the strangest reason though, they don't cite any studies (let alone peer-reviewed ones), in defense of that statement. How odd.
2012-09-21 01:02:06 AM
1 votes:
Related: Fiona Apple arrested for having 0.010 pounds of marijuana and 0.010 pounds of hashish.

/your government is an embarrassment
//but your scientists are ace
///good singers too
2012-09-21 12:59:31 AM
1 votes:
studio360.files.wordpress.com
2012-09-20 07:36:25 PM
1 votes:
Wait...wasn't it supposed to cause cancer last week? I feel like I'm watching a real bummer of a tennis match.

/Man.
2012-09-20 07:30:00 PM
1 votes:
still no cure for *cough* what was that again?
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report