Reuters: Pot Kills Cancer But Don’t Even Think About Using It!

Reuters: Pot Kills Cancer But Don’t Even Think About Using It!
August 18th, 2009 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
Share this Article

UPDATE!!! UPDATE!!!

The MSM may be starting to pay attention. I just got off the phone with CBS News radio, who will be covering this story imminently.

It was just yesterday that I was lamenting about the mainstream media’s failure to report on the anti-cancer properties of cannabis. And then along comes Reuters with this:



Well, well, well, leave it to the MSM to misrepresent the facts and miss the real story. First, the chemicals assessed in this study, R(+)-Methanandamide and JWH-015, are neither “cannabinoids” nor are they “chemicals in cannabis.” Rather, they are synthetic, selective CB2 receptor agonists. In short, they are chemicals created in a lab to mimic certain elements in marijuana, and to bind to specifically to those cannabinoid receptors that are not located in the brain. After all, we can’t possibly have the terminally ill feeling ‘better’, now can we?

Second, US federal researchers have known for some 35 years that the naturally occurring chemicals in cannabis — not just synthesized agonists — can halt the proliferation of multiple types of cancer, including including brain cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, and pancreatic cancer. We even know how.


http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/18/reuters-pot-kills-cancer-but-dont-even-think-about-using-it/

We really need to start pushing for laws to jail people who create laws against personal freedom and control over one's health. The laws in the war on drugs are such an affront to human rights and our constitution.

It's uses are endless, yet we are prohibited from taking advantage of this valuable resource because of a bunch of lying assholes. :banghead:

old men.

Also, many are alcohol abusers.

angry older white evangelical Christian conservative men who live in rural areas and in the South, love guns, Rush, and the Bible, and hate anyone different from them. These are the people that are dragging this country down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
Here is a link to the WIKI short version, it gives the main points and how the individual justices ruled.

Tyranny is an equal opportunity thing. The lust for power knows no bounds, it is not limited to any particular age, race, or religion.

The most liberal members were by far the most disappointing.
Scalia tried to cover his ass in siding with power hungry.

O'Connor and Rehnquist come off looking like humble servants of the people compared to the power mad majority, and Thomas's dissent was what one might hope for from a truly "liberal" justice.

stop trying to convince the rest of us that your activities are nothing more than that.

and stop with your bullshit studies that have nothing to do with smoking pot.

Also, your post is a grammatical nightmare.

but don't try to pass off "studies" where highly concentrated doses of one particular chemical (that just happens to appear in pot, as well as other places), administered in ways that could never be achieved via smoking, have anything to do with your getting fucked up on that shit.

smoke your brains out, pal.

i know why you smoke. so do you.

it's funny when you try to make more of it than it is.

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

By Marc Kaufman, Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.

They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."

While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

are you high?

or can you just not read and comprehend...

... that used different research methods but arrived at the same conclusions, that cannabis contains potent anti-cancer properties. I am stating the obvious here since you can't seem to follow the science of the OP or of my response to you.

We have known about the chemotherapeutic potential for cannabinoids since the Medical College of Virginia studies in the mid 70s, research that was replicated in the early 90s elsewhere, both studies squelched by the US government for flat-earth (and self-serving) reasons.

No, I'm not high. Are you stupid?

And just because some trace chemicals found in pot may have an effect in cancer cells in some lab somewheres doesn't mean smoking it will cure/prevent cancer.

Funny how DU'ers go rabid on those of us who prefer to take whole herbs for medical issues but crap like this crops up from time to time and it actually flies.

If you can't see the relationship between the OP conclusions and the Tashkin study conclusions, this forum might just be a bit too advanced for you. I'd wonder about the education you received in your home state, but like most trolls here, you don't post that information on your profile.

Fits the flat-earther profile, now doesn't it.

See ya', bye.

Cannabinoids selectively inhibit proliferation and induce death of cultured human glioblastoma multiforme cells.

McAllister SD, Chan C, Taft RJ, Luu T, Abood ME, Moore DH, Aldape K, Yount G.

California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, 475 Brannan St., Suite 220, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA. mcallis@sutterhealth.org

Normal tissue toxicity limits the efficacy of current treatment modalities for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). We evaluated the influence of cannabinoids on cell proliferation, death, and morphology of human GBM cell lines and in primary human glial cultures, the normal cells from which GBM tumors arise. The influence of a plant derived cannabinoid agonist, Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol Delta(9)-THC), and a potent synthetic cannabinoid agonist, WIN 55,212-2, were compared using time lapse microscopy. We discovered that Delta(9)-THC decreases cell proliferation and increases cell death of human GBM cells more rapidly than WIN 55,212-2. Delta(9)-THC was also more potent at inhibiting the proliferation of GBM cells compared to WIN 55,212-2. The effects of Delta(9)-THC and WIN 55,212-2 on the GBM cells were partially the result of cannabinoid receptor activation. The same concentration of Delta(9)-THC that significantly inhibits proliferation and increases death of human GBM cells has no significant impact on human primary glial cultures. Evidence of selective efficacy with WIN 55,212-2 was also observed but the selectivity was less profound, and the synthetic agonist produced a greater disruption of normal cell morphology compared to Delta(9)-THC.

---

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16250836?ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum



:hi:

Peace,

Ghost

hey, i don't expect you to understand... smoking pot like you do...

ignoring the fact you were not paying attention to the ongoing conversation... those two studies are worlds apart, chemotherapeutic potential for cannabinoids aside, you fucking moron.

to be as simple as possible for you...

see, your lungs are up here... and your prostate is down there. and smoking is not the same as the specific application of high concentrations of chemicals south of your taint. does any of this register? does any of this signal even the slightest thought in your smoke addled brain?


i love dopers. y'all make no sense...

ROFL! You can't write a fucking sentence! Yet you say smokers are idiots?

You don't have any empirical data to back that up, do you? If you are even aware of what that means, the answer should be very enlightening.

y'all...?

:wtf:

Perhaps the stupidest post ever.

If a painkiller is administered orally, how does it relieve the pain in your broken foot?

What are you, a fucking narco agent or something?

You sure sound like one. You don't know shit about pot. :rofl:

tell the other Republicans we say hi.

"But don't try to pass off "studies" where highly concentrated doses of one particular chemical (that just happens to appear in pot, as well as other places), administered in ways that could never be achieved via smoking, have anything to do with your getting fucked up on that shit."

Are there any plants not in the cannabis genus that manufacture cannabinoids? As far as I knew the only place related chemicals had been found were in animals (including humans, but it took them years to identify compounds that were active at the CB receptors besides ones that came from cannabis). But I guess you are correct that animal bodies are other places.

I believe that things that grow are safer, in general, for humans to use in raw or dried form than things that we make in labs or extract/process from plants (cocaine, heroin, etc). Why, when belladonna can kill you a hell of a lot easier than the synthesized chemical dicyclomine which has similar actions to belladonna alkaloids and is one I'm prescribed for irritable bowel syndrome? Well... humans are pretty well aware that belladonna can kill, we've learned from experience. We've had a much longer time to learn what various plants do than we have for lab-synthesized chemicals. Controlled studies are a bit like beta testing, but as any programmer knows, you don't find everything during beta testing -- some bugs have to be found by the end-user (many call those snarks). Cannabis has had a more than 3000 year documented history of human use. Sure they weren't using the scientific method, and it is always possible and I encourage applying the scientific method to expanding our knowledge of the chemicals in the plant, but if cannabis use was likely to be a teratogen, for example, we would be a lot more likely to find it in 3000 years of use than we would in even the best scientific testing for less than a generation. That doesn't mean people should go run off in the woods and eat whatever they find. "Safer" does not mean "safe".

In that more than 3000 years of documented human use, one fact was obvious -- yes, people can get "fucked up" by using it. Most of the documentation of use was as an entheogen. Some in our culture are morally against getting "fucked up" to the point of throwing away the baby with the bathwater, however. Opiates have a long documented history of use as entheogens, but they also have a demonstrated medical use. It saddens me to see chronic pain patients denied pain treatment because of such moral absolutism. Even if you believe that getting "fucked up" is the goal and anti-nausea and pain relieving actions are simply secondary benefits in the minds of most cannabis smokers, that leads to the question of whether getting "fucked up" can ever be therapeutic. I don't know if you've ever indulged in a drink at the end of the day and been better off for it, but if you have... I rest my case. I'm sure there were lots of people who found all sorts of dubious medical uses for alcohol during Prohibition, too.

And before you accuse me as you accused the two other people you replied to on this thread of posting bogus studies, I like the quote Mark Twain used -- "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

quote:

"the chemicals assessed in this study, R(+)-Methanandamide and JWH-015, are neither “cannabinoids” nor are they “chemicals in cannabis.” Rather, they are synthetic, selective CB2 receptor agonists. In short, they are chemicals created in a lab to mimic certain elements in marijuana..."



and i will stand by my assertion that the vast, vast majority of those that smoke pot do so to get high. the vast majority.

*awaiting a study to prove that statement wrong*

The point of the original poster's article, especially that part of your quote which was directly from NORML's blog, was that it was wrongheaded in that person's opinion to spend as much money to get a patentable synthetic when that person alleges that natural cannabinoids do they same thing. I believe there were also speculations on motivation, NORML's speculation being that moral absolutism was causing them to throw the baby out with the bathwater and waste money. Hence, why I addressed those concerns in response to your post, which seemed to be a very good demonstration of their point. (Edit to add: I suggest a much more likely motivation, the fact that a patentable synthetic can make the company money, but hey...)

Are you trying to tell me pot is some mood changing substance that alters perception? Like, alcohol, cocaine, chocolate, sex, power, exercise, caffeine, heroin, intense revelatory conversations, religious experiences, scientific revelations? Like people do THOSE things to get high?

Thanks for schooling us.

... quite likely so.

Just as the vast majority of people who drink do so for an altered mental status, which is why I referenced Prohibition. How many quack nostrums were sold during that time with a heavy alcohol base? (And to be fair to "quack nostrums", tincturing a plant substance in various percentages of ethanol can extract beneficial chemicals.... but many were extremely more potent than necessary.)

I don't know about the vast majority. I would agree that it is a vast minority of people that utilize marijuana strictly for physical pain and nausea -- although I believe that ratio would change if the legal status of marijuana changed, lots of people who are suffering don't want to suffer legal trouble on top of it -- but IMHO self-medication for anxiety, stress, and other mental health issues make up a good percentage of long-term marijuana users. (edit to clarify: the O in that stands more for observation than opinion.)

"IMHO self-medication for anxiety, stress, and other mental health issues make up a good percentage of long-term marijuana users."

I have spoken with a number of physicians in states with long-term medical marijuana (mmj) programs (e.g., Oregon, Washington), and a script for anxiety is not uncommon.

Stress relief seems a no-brainer.

As far as "other mental issues", marijuana has been a safe and effective substitute for alcohol (as encouraged by the Women's Christian Temperance Union in the late 1800s to wives of alcoholics). It use is so commonplace among recovering opiate and other hard drug addicts that the major outcome studies of government-funded treatment conducted every ten years for the past four decades have exempted marijuan use from its practical definition of "drug relapse" by the opiate and other hard drug addicts they studied.

Having said all of that, what is your professional opinion about the use of cannabis for any of the above conditions, compared with the costs and health risks of continuing the behaviors or using other pharmaceutical options?

Would love for others to chime in on this issue also, particularly patients or health practitioners in our midst. .

... that it is used to self-medicate for, but I do think that its legal status makes it difficult for patients to be honest with their doctors about taking it, which certainly affects their mental health negatively.

People have seen in research the correlation between alcohol abuse and depression. However, it is extremely common to see Bipolar I sufferers who self-medicate with alcohol to prevent mania. Yes, if they drink themselves into a stupor, they will go to sleep, and sleep will help stabilize their mood. It's not the best sleep. But it works. I've also seen cannabis use in people with diagnosed Bipolar II -- I'm not certain how effective it is, but it is a tranquilizing substance that might assist in getting enough sleep to manage hypomania.

If using these substances can treat those disorders, they can also mask some of the symptoms and make diagnosis more difficult. Few people seek psychiatric treatment when they need it in this country as it is -- it makes their job harder when the patient can't be honest, which makes it harder on the patient.

*awaiting a study to prove that statement wrong*

a dose of preventative medicine.

People smoke pot to get high? Well, there's a fucking news flash.

What is your problem? Just because people smoke pot to get high doesn't mean pot has no medicinal value.

Well . . . at least as we can escape the "UN's" . . . of life!

In our evolutionary relationship with psychoactive substances, I've often wondered whether the use of smoked opium ever caused death. I wouldn't expect that chewed coca leaves would ever bring any serious health risks for Andes residents, but since opium is a CNS depressant, I do wonder whether anyone could smoke enough raw opium to cause medical problems.

Certainly, we are killing many people from refined opium products (heroin, morphine) and synthesized cousins (oxycontin). But even in popular culture, I've always noted that opium dens were filled with people who were nodding out, making me think that sleep (or stupor preventing additional intake) would come before death.

What do you think? I think that sometimes what the Goddess gave us is just fine in its natural (un-concentrated and un-isolated) form for our needs.

Even fundies should be able to accept that, seeing as how there are things in the bible about being given herbs for a purpose ("And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.") There are countless things that have been fucked up whenever people try to synthesize what they perceive to be the useful portion of something (MSG anyone?)

As for stoners, I contend that it's a natural evolutionary drive to alter one's consciousness. You see it in kids, even--ever roll down a hill just to get dizzy? Surely, escapism isn't the only driving force behind every mind-altering substance we've ever come across. The problem always seems to come when people don't approach them in a respectful/spiritual fashion. I think it's a huge mistake to discount the credibility of studies just because one is biased against what are perceived as everyday stoners. For the pain relief and appetite boost alone, it seems asinine to continue this prohibition.

I've got a friend with Crohn's who admits that in her online support group (a huge range of ages and backgrounds), the consensus is almost unanimous that a joint is the medication of choice and beats any other therapy for relieving a flare and preventing new ones. Multiply this by how many diseases and it makes no sense--except that Big Pharma hasn't quite decided how to make a brand-name drug of it to maximize profits.

Cardiac glycosides are found in foxglove -- they save many CHF patients. But it's a hell of a lot safer to take them in a modified form, like in the medicine digoxin, so that dosage can be measured accurately. Belladonna was very dangerous to use as well. I'm happy to take my dicyclomine to fix it when I am having extreme bowel spasms instead of trying to get an accurate dose from berries. (That is not in conflict with the religious view you mention, many would see it as supporting evidence -- it's just knowing how to use it for that particular need, and not abusing.)

When it comes to opiates, the idea of consciousness being a limiting factor in overdose is part of the reason why patient-controlled analgesia is as safe as it is. Of the few deaths from the use of a PCA, the ones that weren't machine failure/human error in programming/loading the machine were from family members hitting the button for the patient when they were asleep. That doesn't mean a patient on a PCA can't end up with a pretty severe case of constipation or suffer other side effects. Smoking a substance does allow for more minute titrations of a dose -- another method of titration in the past has been the essential oil of a plant in a topical application -- but both methods can still cause medical problems I'm sure. I still believe that even manufactured opiates are reasonably safe if used properly. I do have some concerns about the newer generation of chemicals that have been found to have activity at opiate receptors, for several also have SSRI and SSNI effects.

Also never forget the currently accepted scientific reason why so many plants have chemicals that are bioactive -- they developed them as defense mechanisms over many years of evolution to keep from being eaten. When a strain produced a particular chemical that made J. Random Herbivore decide it wasn't in their best interests to browse on that particular tidbit again, it was more successful. In many ways, you can see it as them experimenting on animal subjects for much longer than our documented history. (Pardon the anthropomorphizing, but it's true.)

I pointed out the soullessness and lack of grammatical attention paid to your post.

And just how, exactly, would your "pal" smoking have ANY impact on you?

Why do you care?

Just like abortion - you don't want one, don't have one.
And cigarettes - I don't smoke them, but I don't care if someone else does.

No need to be nasty about it.

contributing absolutely nothing.
and they tell us "stoners" are waste-products . . .

HEMP is one of the most useful crops but we're chasing it in cookies and whatever
because Puritans believe it could still make someone high!

What's it all about . . . ??? You might begin to wonder about that.

What a fucking idiot! :eyes:

its one of a multitude - in 10 years and millions of dollars later we will see if it works at all outside of a tissue culture dish. Bad news but the human body is much more complicated than a cell line. What is its effectiveness on the cancer cell line vs human cell lines 1st of all?

Both political parties have such a vested interest in maintaining the abominable 'War on Drugs' that it'll take a major mandate from the people to reverse it. Just something else we can thank Nixon for.

I have the urge to spit on his grave.

The larger problem (from the POV of someone not ill and not needing or wanting to use pot) is that we are losing the war against the growing police state. The sphere of Government power continues to expand while the sphere of individual freedom is contracted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
Here is a link to the WIKI short version, it gives the main points and how the individual justices ruled.

This case demonstrates that tyranny is an equal opportunity thing. The lust for power knows no bounds, it is not limited to any particular sex, age, race, or religion.

The most "liberal" members were by far the most disappointing.

Scalia tried to cover his ass in siding with power hungry.

O'Connor and Rehnquist come off looking like humble servants of the people compared to the power mad majority, and Thomas's dissent was what one might hope for from a truly "liberal" justice.