How Marijuana Kills

Cancer cells.





Cannabinoids: Potential Anticancer Agents: LINK

Validation Of Novel Therapeutic Target Molecules In Pediatric Sarcomas: LINK

Inhibition Of Skin Tumor Growth And Angiogenesis In Vivo By Activation Of Cannabinoid Receptors: LINK

Cannabinoids For Cancer Treatment: Progress and Promise: LINK

Antineoplastic Activity Of Cannabinoids: LINK

Cannabis Extract Makes Brain Tumors Shrink, Halts Growth Of Blood Vessels: LINK


ALERT: Treating Swine and Avian Flu by Down-Regulating the Inflammatory Response: LINK

Why else would Big Pharma and Big Gov be fighting legalization of such a benign drug?

Hi Juni!! :toast:

on something everyone can grow in their gardens.

That's the exact same reason they don't sell tomatoes, peppers, corn, onions and other fruits and vegetables in stores... oh, wait...

Take it from someone who has been smoking for over 35 years.. even if marijuana was made completely legal tomorrow, I'd still rather just go buy some than to have to wait 3 to 6 months to harvest my own....


Peace,

Ghost

debate tactic... other than that, what point did you have? I pointed out the fallacy in your statement:




Has "home brewing" kits hurt the beer industry? How about homemade wines or liquor?

I'm a strong advocate of legalization, but there can really be no discussion of it without also advocating taxation and regulation. "Making money" is simple enough. All you need to do is require people who want to possess and/or sell marijuana to purchase a tax stamp. The cost of these stamps can be made available on a sliding scale basis. Anyone caught with untaxed marijuana could face the same penalties as "bootleggers" selling untaxed alcohol.

There are many ways to make legalization work, but none will work without taxation and regulation...


Peace,

Ghost

I think that the conservative mindset latches on to vulnerable, key concepts and objects. And by conservative, I am including many liberals. Just because someone votes for, and thinks like, even the most staunch liberal ideas and progressives, doesn't mean they hold on to only liberal thoughts. I encounter people daily who are liberal in almost all ways, but then have a tiny offshoot of conservative value. It's kind of hard to put into words without blabbing on about it. It concerns me greatly. In fact the best way I can explain it is by simply saying global warming. I know that's probably totally confusing. So I'll just shut up.

Money. Cannabis. Money, as in the catering industry that provides food for prisons. Attorneys.

Also, I believe that the drug war was enacted so that conservatives could hide their crimes behind it.


I'm not awake. So pardon me. :)



edit- I think what I meant to say here was that liberals were duped into voting in these cruel laws regarding cannabis, along with conservatives. And it does revolve around money. Argh, I'm not awake!

You seem to be implying in your first paragraph that any and all conservative thought is somehow bad(1). Which really is more akin to a viewpoint of Rush Limbaugh(2). I think the really important thing for anyone is to be open to new ideas and be willing to weigh the issues objectively and accordingly. More and more I see a polarisation of the American populace, unable to confront or consider any idea which has any chance of threatening their world view. To use an extreeme example, the Iraq war, could you be convinced that it had a benefit, or would you simply dismiss any and all attempts at discussion on the matter because you simply know it is wrong(3). If you're not willing to consider the oppossing viewpoint, then are you really that much differant from a conservative?

Disclaimers: (1) I am not saying this is your current belief, simply something I read from your post. (2) I'm not calling you Rush Limbaugh, merely pointing out similarities. (3) While I personally believe that the Iraq war had a net negative cost/benefit, I'm still open to thing that could sway my calculation and force me to re-evaluate my position on the subject.

Yes. It is all bad. One correction. It is not new. Conservative ideas have been around for a long, long time. Remember Barry Goldwater Jr in 1964, William F. Buckley Jr., same era? The only difference is they discussed conservatism politely and with respect for their audience. The philosophy began long before then, for that matter. It is not new. It has nothing to offer except the same hot air and misery we have endured for the Nixon years, the Reagan years and the Bush years.

So no, I don't want to listen to the same old crap anymore. I've had enough to sicken me for a lifetime. The only new thing that has been added is an escalated level of spite, threats and potential violence.

If you want to be open to all of it, more power to you, but be sure to keep your hands on your ears or they'll cut those off to sell at a fundraiser.

The war in Iraq? Just plain evil period. That is all.

I've been trying to hear opinions and conservative views. One of my best friends has gone from liberal to conservative. It has been very difficult to discuss with him, many things. But since I still value him as a friend, I have found myself listening. I am conservative in some ways. And I don't think there is a pure conservative or a pure liberal. But in politics, I believe conservative has an extremely negative effect. I'm thinking of Grover Norquist's drive to crush government.

Honestly, I can't answer your question. And I can keep an open mind.

The bottom line for me is several things. One is the truth. And another one is caring. Apply that to Iraq, and you'll see that the truth was they posed absolutely no threat to anyone. And we cared so little for human life that we dropped bombs on them after a dozen years of deadly sanctions that left the children of that country in serious deprivation. And pollution from ammunition that has a half life of billions of years.

I equate conservatism with authoritarianism. And that is pretty much why we're seeing such polarization these days. You can never care too much. You can never have too much truth. But you can remove civil rights, and you can hurt people by denying them the very things they work and create governments for in the first place.

I'm not sure I can name anything good that has ever come from conservatism. But I'll keep my eyes and mind open. I like being wrong.

There's a long way between killing cancer cells and a drug that cures cancer.

:shrug:

making this interesting news that deserves further research. If someone could stop these cells by making them die without harming the "host", it would go a long way towards curing many people in some stages of cancer.

to death on a cheeto.

gunned down due to the massive illegal trafficking of the stuff. I should be legal, but it ain't and it sure does lead to a lot of deaths in my neighborhood.

use of the plant. Prohibition and other factors. In my neighborhood, everybody smokes and there is no violence whatsoever. None.

Not a MJ death

To protect the profits of big pharma.

it also raised her liver enzymes. Her doctor had a fit when he found out she was taking it. What is interesting is that he has prescribed a number of Big Pharma products to treat her high cholesterol. Every one of them also raises liver enzymes. So, go figure...

Uses of Hawthorn

Hawthorn is an important botanical cardiotonic (capable of producing and restoring the normal tone of the heart). Medications are made from the flowers and especially the berries of the hawthorn tree. Hawthorn's many chemical constituents include the flavonoids -- anthocyanidins and proanthocyanidins -- which reduce blood vessel sensitivity to and damage from oxidizing agents. Various chemicals in our environment -- pollutants, smoke, and chemicals in food -- can bind to and damage the lining of blood vessels.

Hawthorn improves the integrity of veins and arteries, enhancing circulation and nutrition to the heart, thus improving the function of the heart muscle itself. This action makes it useful for cases of angina (chest pain), atherosclerosis (a buildup of fat on the inside of artery walls), weakness and enlargement of the heart, high and low blood pressure, and elevated cholesterol levels.



http://health.howstuffworks.com/hawthorn-herbal-remedies.htm







Uses for Garlic

Garlic lowers blood pressure by relaxing vein and artery walls. This action helps keep platelets from clumping together and improves blood flow, thereby reducing the risk of stroke. Garlic also decreases the levels of cholesterol and triglycerides, substances that increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases.

Garlic's cardiovascular protective properties have been demonstrated in a number of studies, including a four-year clinical trial on people over 50 years old, who already had symptoms of atherosclerosis. Those who consumed at least 900 mg per day of a standardized garlic supplement had significant reduction of arterial plaque formation.



http://health.howstuffworks.com/garlic-herbal-remedies.htm

runs in my family. He wanted me to start garlic immediately. Didn't say anything about the hawthorn, but I'll look into that for both of us. I'm a vegetarian, but don't want to rely on that to stop it for me.

Love garlic anyway :) Then I head to the garden for some parsley to cut the, um, breath :)

...like muscle/joint pain and damage ~ think I'd stick with the red yeast rice.

Featured a stock trader that was part of a program in the 1970s (continuing today) for receiving free marijuana to help with his medical condition (I don't recall what it was but basically, it would kill him painfully). The study was wildly successful but of course covered up, but he'll get the free weed until he dies. He smokes it in the car while driving, smokes it during breaks at his job, etc. They filmed him smoking out side the White House and Capitol Building to have fun with it too.

Penn and Teller are the original straight-edgers - never had alcohol, don't do drugs, only smoke when a magic trick requires it - so if they're touting marijuana use for medical reasons...

TlalocW

from a plant that can be grown anywhere. I think we all know that.

we might see a sudden change in attitude in Congress towards the use of certain new strains of marijuana, as campaign contributions flow into their pockets. It's all about profitability.

I mean, cancer is very expensive to treat, or so I've heard. Insurance for something so potentially bankrupting seems a major insurance selling point.

Further, we've all heard of the contributions pollution of various kinds makes to cancer. More pollution at the same time as less natural weed to offset the increased cancer risk. Come on, that can't be a coinkidink, can it?

:kick:

:smoke:

:kick:

how would the pharmaceutical corporations stay in business?

They've sunk billions of free government grant dollars into cancer research. I remember billboards in the 1960's: "We're almost there, please donate - American Cancer Society" It's been a real cash cow for them.

I'm no fan of casual pot smoking, as far as I'm concerned, if you smoke pot or drink regularly (I did both), you've got some rewiring to do in your head, but as an effective medicine, it shouldn't be overlooked or prohibited.

thank you for all of the links and info.

Marijuana is a drug.
It is an addicting drug - not necessarily highly physicaly addictive ... but certainly psychologically for many people.

If you do pot on a regular basis then you are an addict in exactly the same way that someone who uses alcohol on a regular basis is a drunk or someone who smokes all the time is an addict.

I personally am in favor of it's legalization, with sensible controls, because I feel it is obviously less damaging than alcohol and , if used responsibly, is no problem to most individuals or to society.

But let's not fool ourselves or try to fool anyone else.
It's a drug.

And a certain number of people will abuse the drug just like people abuse cigarettes or abuse alcohol. That's just going to happen. I personally have two friends now only acquaintances because I watched them throw away their lives to smoking pot. Pretty much every day. They wasted their talents and they forgot their friends because all they cared about was getting high. Just like any other drunk. Both people are jobless. One of them lives on a disability check and the other lives in a basement for free. He has no job but gets high most every day. His teeth are falling out. He looks 10 years older than he actually is. His toilet doesn't flush. - both are in their 50's.

Marijuana is a drug. And some people, because of psychological, physical or possibly genetic makeup are going to abuse recreational drugs.

And that's the reality.

GAC

You neglected to mention which part you disagreed with?
Was it that Marijuana is a drug?
Was it that some people abuse drugs and waste their lives?
Or was it that some people abuse marijuana?

It would probably help to understand which part you disagreed with.

Now, METH-heads - yeah, it sounds just like that.

so they all have the same effect: shame and degredation.

I was once associated with an institution that had a high number of addicts (of various types) and hence had a number od treatment programs for them. During that time I learned a great deal about the psychology of addiction and addicts themselves. I even attended some AA meetings because I was curious.

One of the interesting things I learned that unrecovered addicts do (and saw them doing) is a kind of "false pride" that they are not in fact addicted to something far worse. Alcoholics would look down upon cocaine addicts as being out of control and cocaine addicts would shamefully scorn all those crackheads in the street and point out how they were so much more in control. You would see such thinking frequently in people who were not along a path t recovery.

The thing is though that whether it be alcohol, pot , meth or cocaine - it's all the same thing. If you're out of control then you're out of control and it doesn't matter what substance you are using. Someone addicted to marijuana is just a drain on family friends and society as any speed freak or crack head out there. No difference. No difference at all. Not one.

Again, I am NOT against the prohibition of alcohol or marajuana (although I do support prohibition of stronger recreational drugs). The thing is - if you NEED a substance to get along in life then you are out of control.

Altered states of consciousness is as much a part of being human as sexuality, personal independents, child rearing, etc. These are the things scripted into us as opportunities for exercising our phenomenon of being.

A society which would deny (or discourage) any of that is a society with an agenda toward the infantilization of its citizens. If we are not capable of dealing with these things, then who is? And are the people who made the rules, did they carefully, conscientiously and at dept explore these dimensions and decide they were unfit for human consumption? Or was it done more hastily, more mindlessly and with more fear. Obviously its the later.

One of the side effects from heavy doses of psychedelics on a society is the boundary dissolving aspects which comes from its dissolving of the ego. The ego is suppressed and with it the dominator culture is suppressed. This promotes a societal model which is more liberal since it will far less tolerate a model of haves and have not 's.

-- Original author Terence McKenna



Thanks everybody for your replies and recommends.


Now blaze one up against them naughty cancer cells.


:smoke:

>>One of the side effects from heavy doses of psychedelics on a society is the boundary dissolving aspects which comes from its
>>dissolving of the ego. The ego is suppressed and with it the dominator culture is suppressed. This promotes a societal model
>> which is more liberal since it will far less tolerate a model of haves and have not 's.

Mr McKenna's opinion, as you quoted above, seems to me to be a bit of a stretch. He is claiming that psychedelics are a cure-all to the unfortunate basic and base human nature of greed. To me that seems a bit of a stretch.

What isn't a stretch is the number of people who abuse drugs of any kind - another unfortunate aspect of human nature. When marijuana is legalized we can probably expect a somewhat larger number of people to become abusers than there are now. What exactly that figure would be I haveno idea but it seems sensible that it will be larger. I do not mention this as an argument against the legalization of marijuana (with similar restrictions and prohibitions as alcohol ) but rather to point out that legalization of anything is not a bed of roses. Everything will not all be good. There will be problems just as there are with cigarettes and alcohol and painkillers.

AUDIO. If after listening you're interested in listening to the rest of it. Here are the remaining parts.

Parts: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Thank you , I'll certainly take a peek at them and see if is something I find interesting. Thanks again.

:hug:

I presume you are responding to the part of my post that said "we can probably expect the number of abusers to increase". Of course it's difficult to understand what you are responding to since you only chose to make a four word reply prior to cutting and pasting some statistics. Oh brave new web world that has such ideas of debate in it !

But of that was what you were replying to then I would say the following:

1. I still think it not unreasonable to expect that ,if an illegal substance is made legal, the number of people trying it and hence the number of people who eventually abuse it will increase. To support that assertion one would only have to look at the alcoholism statistics of Salt Lake City vs Reno Nevada. Once again I feel obligated to point out, due to the number of people who apparantly focus in on three or four words of a complete post and ignore he rest, that I make the assertion not as an argument against legalization (which I actually support) but rather to point out that legalization will come with an additional set of issues.

2. As to your statistics, which I presume were meant to show that the he lower crime rates of Holland vs the U.S. were somehow due to marijuana legalization (again difficult to tell what you meant since you only chose to make a four word reply) , I can only point out that it may be naive at best to make a comparison between a capitalistic corporate owned super-power with several hundred million nulti-ethnic people to a socially conscious small country with several tens of millions of people that are vastly of a single ethnic group and jump tto the conclusion that lowered crime statistics are somehow due to Saint Marijuana.

“They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference."

Thanks for all the great info. Big K&R for this thread.

Marijuana is a drug. - No, its an herb.

It is an addicting drug - No, it's not.

But let's not fool ourselves or try to fool anyone else. It's a drug. - Again, no it is not. It is a plant, like tobacco.

And that's the reality - Maybe in your bizarro, propaganda world it is, but here in the world where the rest of us live, that is NOT the reality.

>Marijuana is a drug. - No, its an herb.

It is indeed a plant. But plants can be drugs as well. Many life saving drugs the medical community uses derive from plants. It's not an either/or situation. Marijuana is correctly classified as an Hallucinogens. People take it to get high - to get an endorphin rush. There's nothing wrong with that if used sensibly and in moderation. Nicotine comes from tobacco leaf. It is a drug


>It is an addicting drug - No, it's not.

My two friends who cannot stop taking the drug would be a shining counter example. People abuse substances all the time. Anything with the capability of giving pleasure can be abused and be addicting to some people. Marijuana is not physically addicting but is as psychologically addicting as any other pleasure-giving drug.


>And that's the reality - Maybe in your bizarro, propaganda world it is, but here in the world where the rest of us live,
>that is NOT the reality.

Your characterization of my post as being "propaganda" seems just a bit paranoid to me.

Drug - plant... lets split it 50/50 on this one


As for being addictive, your friends have bigger issues than pot. Pot has been PROVEN to not be addictive. One can stop smoking pot with no ill effects, no withdrawal. One may have made a "habit" of smoking pot, but its no more addictive than say, chocolate. Cigarettes and booze are addictive.

If they existed.

turn into what the big tobacco companies have? Will they add all kinds of addicitive stuff? Really I am just wondering out loud. I have no issue with pot. Have tried it on very many occasions. I do feel it is less threatening than liquor, etc. But what really happens when it does become legal? Will it just be plain ole pot you can buy along with your beer, or will we be buying the shit we buy now that is in cigs?

we are tired of it. You are repeating myths... addicting drug. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I assure you that I am not making things up and the facts are out there to anyone who wants to open their mind.
Firstly we have to agree on an what constitutes "addiction" , what I mean by the word may not be what you think I mean.

I agree that marijuana is not physically addicting. Did you know that cocaine is also not physically addicting? It's true. Neither drug will cause the body to crave more and neither drug will make one physically sick if amounts of the the drug aren't replenished.

Yet we all know that cocaine is one of the most addicting drugs out there.
Addiction does not have to be physical, like a heroin addiction is - or an alcohol or nicotine addiction is.

Marijuana does alter dopamine levels in the brain.
We all know people feel pleasure when smoking marijuana - in a similar manner to using cocaine, just not as intense.
We all also know that long term users who discontinue use experience feelings of anxiety among other symptoms when the drug is stopped. The intensity of these feelings vary from person to person. We all also know that there are people who have great difficulty in stopping use of the drug. Go to any Marijuana Anan or Narcotics Anon meeting to see the proof of that.

So it's obvious that marijuana is a problem for some people - just as nicotine and alcohol is a problem for some.
And we know that those who are addicted to something will almost always maintain some sort of excuse as to why what they are addicted to is either perfectly safe or it doesn't apply in their case. Talk to any chain smoker or alcoholic for proof of that.

In any case I've said more in this thread then I probably should have said. I'm sure it has given food for thought to some and for some it will always be viewed in a paranoid and confrontational context to their existing beliefs. So I'll say no more. And I thank the poster of this thread for the audio links. I'm listening to the first one now.

"So it's obvious that marijuana is a problem for some people - just as nicotine and alcohol is a problem for some" is correct only to a degree. I know people with issues with video games, gambling, church attendance. Much is social vs actual addiction.

So unless you live like monk, abstaining from any sort of worldly pleasure, you'd be a hypocrite in addition to just being foolish.

You are trying to scare folks by conflating the extremely addictive substances like cocaine and heroin with marijuana. Your intention is pretty obvious. Your attempt was just as bad as "Reefer Madness".

Cocaine and heroine Are physically and psychologically addicting. Marijuana is not physically addicting, but can be psychologically addicting, quite benign in contrast. Heroine and cocaine can kill by overdose, marijuana can't. Bad, bad comparison.

I'm not sure what it does for him as I had to stop smoking as I got older, but he can't seem to go more than a few hours without firing up a bone.

:rofl:

As otherwise that is one seriously stupid post.
As a stoner take on stupid arguments against legalization, it isn't half bad though.
And that's the reality.

p.s. define 'drug'.

Can't patent it. Therefore they will lose money. You are obviously against America. Sarcasm off.

I can see it now. If only my thumb was a little greener. Pot is not so easy to grow in my area.

n/t

We need to convince the snack-food corporate industry how much they'd benefit from a successful lobbying campaign for legalization of pot.

/grabs a bag of Doritos.


:smoke:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cannabinoids%20cancer

The biggest issue here is that THC suppresses cancer, but regularly smoking marijuana causes cancer.

A paper weighing the pros and cons:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1617062&tool=pmcentrez