• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Medical Marijuana - What to Feds know but are afraid to admit

ayabe

Diamond Member
"Senator Ted Kennedy is putting forward a brave face following his recent surgery but the sad reality remains. Even with successful surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy treatment, gliomas -- a highly aggressive form of brain cancer that strikes approximately 10,000 Americans annually -- tragically claim the lives of 75 percent of its victims within two years and virtually all within five years.

But what if there was an alternative treatment for gliomas that could selectively target the cancer while leaving healthy cells intact? And what if federal bureaucrats were aware of this treatment, but deliberately withheld this information from the public?

Sadly, the questions posed above are not entirely hypothetical. Let me explain.

In 2007, I reviewed over 150 published preclinical and clinical studies assessing the therapeutic potential of marijuana and several of its active compounds, known as cannabinoids. I summarized these numerous studies in a book, now in its third edition, entitled Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids: A Review of the Scientific Literature. (NORML Foundation, 2008) One chapter in this book, which summarized the findings of more than 30 separate trials and literature reviews, was dedicated to the use of cannabinoids as potential anti-cancer agents, particularly in the treatment of gliomas.

Not familiar with this scientific research? Your government is.

In fact, the first experiment documenting pot's potent anti-cancer effects took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest federal bureaucrats. The results of that study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were that marijuana's primary psychoactive component, THC, "slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."

Despite these favorable preliminary findings (eventually published the following year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute), U.S. government officials refused to authorize any follow-up research until conducting a similar -- though secret -- preclinical trial in the mid-1990s. That study, conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program to the tune of $2 million, concluded that mice and rats administered high doses of THC over long periods had greater protection against malignant tumors than untreated controls.

However, rather than publicize their findings, the U.S. government shelved the results, which only became public after a draft copy of its findings were leaked to the medical journal AIDS Treatment News, which in turn forwarded the story to the national media.

In the years since the completion of the National Toxicology trial, the U.S. government has yet to authorize a single additional study examining the drug's potential anti-cancer properties. (Federal permission is necessary in order to conduct clinical research on marijuana because of its illegal status as a schedule I controlled substance.)

Fortunately, in the past 10 years scientists overseas have generously picked up where U.S. researchers so abruptly left off, reporting that cannabinoids can halt the spread of numerous cancer cells -- including prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and brain cancer. (An excellent paper summarizing much of this research, "Cannabinoids for Cancer Treatment: Progress and Promise," appears in the January 2008 edition of the journal Cancer Research.) A 2006 patient trial published in the British Journal of Cancer even reported that the intracranial administration of THC was associated with reduced tumor cell proliferation in humans with advanced glioblastoma.

Writing earlier this year in the scientific journal Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, Italian researchers reiterated, "(C)annabinoids have displayed a great potency in reducing glioma tumor growth. (They) appear to be selective antitumoral agents as they kill glioma cells without affecting the viability of nontransformed counterparts." Not one mainstream media outlet reported their findings. Perhaps now they'll pay better attention.

What possible advancements in the treatment of cancer may have been achieved over the past 34 years had U.S. government officials chosen to advance -- rather than suppress -- clinical research into the anti-cancer effects of cannabis? It's a shame we have to speculate; it's even more tragic that the families of Senator Kennedy and thousands of others must suffer while we do."

HuffPo

A lot of us on here already know this but I thought it would be worth posting for those that don't.

The marijuana boogeyman should have been retired years ago and lack of common sense is retarding medical research and potentially costing people their lives/degrading their quality of life.

 
And what about the fact that Mj also impairs ones judgement.

Keep it for medical purposes, not for recreational.
 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
And what about the fact that Mj also impairs ones judgement.

Keep it for medical purposes, not for recreational.

Alcohol impairs one's judgment, and that's legal.
 
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
And what about the fact that Mj also impairs ones judgement.

Keep it for medical purposes, not for recreational.

Alcohol impairs one's judgment, and that's legal.

So does Xanax, lunesta, and thousands of perfectly legal drugs that are physically addictive, something MJ is not.
 
in other words, the government could credibly claim to have found a
partial cure for cancer.

but they're too busy with other things. like prosecuting Barry Bonds.

BUT - if marijuana is a partial cure for cancer, wouldn't you see lower
cancer rates in areas where it's part of the local culture, e.g. Mendocino
or BC. ?
 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
And what about the fact that Mj also impairs ones judgement.

Keep it for medical purposes, not for recreational.

LOL...

you dont want people waiting for the stop sign to turn green courtesy?!?!?!

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
And what about the fact that Mj also impairs ones judgement.

Keep it for medical purposes, not for recreational.

Alcohol impairs one's judgment, and that's legal.

They tried to ban alcohol. And it turned out to be an even bigger mess.
Prohibition remember? 😛

Originally posted by: wwswimming
in other words, the government could credibly claim to have found a
partial cure for cancer.

but they're too busy with other things. like prosecuting Barry Bonds.

BUT - if marijuana is a partial cure for cancer, wouldn't you see lower
cancer rates in areas where it's part of the local culture, e.g. Mendocino
or BC. ?

Theres just too much bad rep about MJ that its gonna take a while for us to rid its stereo type.

Personally medically, i think anything is fair game. As long as it keeps you pain free and living, a drug is a drug.

Recreation... i have to draw my line here. theres other ways to have fun, and MJ isnt the only solution.
 
Originally posted by: aigomorla
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
And what about the fact that Mj also impairs ones judgement.

Keep it for medical purposes, not for recreational.

LOL...

you dont want people waiting for the stop sign to turn green courtesy?!?!?!

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
And what about the fact that Mj also impairs ones judgement.

Keep it for medical purposes, not for recreational.

Alcohol impairs one's judgment, and that's legal.

They tried to ban alcohol. And it turned out to be an even bigger mess.
Prohibition remember? 😛

Each to their own poison.

I have seen people wait for a moving van to clear an intersection while toking away.

The van was on a billboard.
Impaired judgement.

Now they may have been just plain stupid, but who could tell.

 
I don't understand why it isn't legal anyway, its your body. Why must the government feel the need to regulate what you do to your person?
 
Originally posted by: DeliciousTacos
I don't understand why it isn't legal anyway, its your body. Why must the government feel the need to regulate what you do to your person?

It's still illegal simply because Americans continue to support politicians who wish to keep it illegal.
 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: aigomorla
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
And what about the fact that Mj also impairs ones judgement.

Keep it for medical purposes, not for recreational.

LOL...

you dont want people waiting for the stop sign to turn green courtesy?!?!?!

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
And what about the fact that Mj also impairs ones judgement.

Keep it for medical purposes, not for recreational.

Alcohol impairs one's judgment, and that's legal.

They tried to ban alcohol. And it turned out to be an even bigger mess.
Prohibition remember? 😛

Each to their own poison.

I have seen people wait for a moving van to clear an intersection while toking away.

The van was on a billboard.
Impaired judgement.

Now they may have been jsut palin stupid, but who could tell.

I'm going to have to go with plain stupid on that one.
 
I recently spoke to two police officers about their job. I asked them

Me: "Is alcohol involved with most of your calls?"

Police: "Yes, that and dope. But mostly alcohol related."

Me: "I quit drinking, makes me act stupid."

Police: "Alcohol makes people...."

Me: "Combative?"

Police: "Yes. They will fight you over the smallest thing. Now take someone who has been smoking marijuana. When we talk to them they are very cooperative. They don't resist arrest and are like <shrugs shoulders> 'whatever man'."

Me: "So your not opposed to marijuana?"

Police: "No. But it is against the law that I have to enforce"


This is a conversation with one officer but I had a similar talk with another. The thing is though, I never brought up marijuana in either instance. They brought it up which means they are thinking about it. Both of them also agreed that personal liberty also should be the law. Smoke at home no big deal kind of thing.
 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
And what about the fact that Mj also impairs ones judgement.

Keep it for medical purposes, not for recreational.

Beer and wine don?t? Keep them for medical purposes, too, then if that be the litmus test.

I care for lung cancer patients everyday and many of them have been enjoying the benefits of their illegal pot smoking since being diagnosed. Hell we even have some rogue doctors who outright suggest patients smoke it for many different afflictions/side effects.
 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Each to their own poison.

I have seen people wait for a moving van to clear an intersection while toking away.

The van was on a billboard.
Impaired judgement.

Now they may have been just plain stupid, but who could tell.

They have laws about drinking and driving. You don't think they could enact similar laws about smoking marijuana and driving?
 
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Each to their own poison.

I have seen people wait for a moving van to clear an intersection while toking away.

The van was on a billboard.
Impaired judgement.

Now they may have been just plain stupid, but who could tell.

They have laws about drinking and driving. You don't think they could enact similar laws about smoking marijuana and driving?

It would be hard to enforce roadside I imagine as someone who smoked a joint days/weeks ago would test positive. AFAIK, they can still not distinguish a joint smoked 2 hours ago from a joint smoked 2 weeks ago.
 
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Each to their own poison.

I have seen people wait for a moving van to clear an intersection while toking away.

The van was on a billboard.
Impaired judgement.

Now they may have been just plain stupid, but who could tell.

They have laws about drinking and driving. You don't think they could enact similar laws about smoking marijuana and driving?

It would be hard to enforce roadside I imagine as someone who smoked a joint days/weeks ago would test positive. AFAIK, they can still not distinguish a joint smoked 2 hours ago from a joint smoked 2 weeks ago.

The cops generally pull over drunk drivers because they are driving erratically. They don't just pull over random people and do a breathalyzer. If you pull over someone driving erratically and they test positive for marijuana, that meets the burden of proof to suspect they are driving under the influence. Hell, that would make everything peachy; you'd have a whole bunch of potheads driving VERY carefully out of paranoia. Net result: fewer accidents.
 
Marijuana is "bad" because it's illegal, and illegal because it's "bad". That, and the fact that few politicians are willing to risk being perceived by middle America as "soft on drugs".

So everyone can debate the pros and cons of marijuana all day, but it won't matter.
 
Originally posted by: XZeroII
OH here we go freaking again. MJ threads draw out all the idiots.

i usually avoid P&N. You guys are scary.

But boredom was even more scarier at the moment. 😛
 
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Alcohol prohibition was a failure, and drug prohibition is a failure. Some people never learn.

Works great in countries like Saudi Arabia. I guess that they will eventually see the error in their ways and realize that it was all a huge failure.
 
Originally posted by: DeliciousTacos
I don't understand why it isn't legal anyway, its your body. Why must the government feel the need to regulate what you do to your person?

there's a lot of money in prison labor. that is, for the companies
where the prisoners work.

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Originally posted by: XZeroII
OH here we go freaking again. MJ threads draw out all the idiots.

i usually avoid P&N. You guys are scary.

and we just had a thread about how well mannered ATOT is !
 
Back
Top