Jump to content

Marijuana Cures


Kranis

Recommended Posts

His links are saying different things, they say they do cause cancer faster, and that they do not. Yes there are people who smoke lots of cigarettes a day so it can be worse, but also when you take a hit of marijuana it stays in your lungs longer because you are holding it in longer then cigarettes. I have not found one source of information that states that a person has gotten cancer Only by smoking marijuana.

I have never seen any case of cancer where anyone could say with certainty what it was caused by. It's certainly very unusual for a direct cause to be known.

 

However we do know that people who smoke tend to get lung cancer a lot more frequently than people who don't.

We know that there are chemicals like benz alpha pyrene (BaP) in smoke/ soot/ tar that cause cancer in lab animals and we know how that chemical leads to cancer.

And we know that BaP is present in cannabis smoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

CBD not THC is the cancer inhibitor, according to wiki and bazillion leads to what i will only assume are reliable sources show the research and evidence. Though not a cure, it can inhibit and help with side effects from other treatments; in the UK i think we use it as a spray and selectively breed for CBD not THC which means if were to smoke the dried plant, it wouldnt get you very *high*

 

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Cannabidiol

 

enjoy, seems like quite a wonder drug

Edited by KatzAndMice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I heard it was widely used medically throughout the world for over 3,000yrs.Then the government started reefer madness out of the blue lol.I believe current society thinks a miracle drug is a pill made of highly genetically modified organisms that carries great risk in the body,usually causing need of other pills added for caused problem(s).And no longer believe any natural foods & herbs can heal & protect the body

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
<br />I think those people misunderstand.  Anytime we inhale smoke, it is carcinogenic.  This is true of cigarettes,

 

So why do people who use chewing tobacco get cancer if it's the smoke that causes cancer?  There is no smoke in chewing tobacco.

Edited by Flatland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any smoke contains carcinogens. Tobacco of any kind also contains carcinogens. Chewing tobacco simply means you're more likely to get oral cancer, esophageal cancer and pancreatic cancer from chewing as opposed to lung cancer from smoking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why do people who use chewing tobacco get cancer if it's the smoke that causes cancer?  There is no smoke in chewing tobacco.

As Phi already mentioned, there's more than one cause of cancer in the world. Smoke of any sort is one. Tobacco itself is another. My original point was that smoking pot can ALSO cause cancer, as can standing over a barbecue pit for lots of hours or living beside a coal burning power plant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone point to a specific disease that Marijuana cures? It does alleviate certain types of chronic pain and bring back people who are chemo's appetite but cure is pushing it pretty hard... If it was legal you could ingest it orally and bypass the smoking of it. but as long as it is illegal it is too expensive to use like that.

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was legal you could ingest it orally and bypass the smoking of it. but as long as it is illegal it is too expensive to use like that.

We have medical marijuana outlets in Denver, and from what I gather, it's actually more expensive than buying it illegally off the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Do people really claim it fights cancer? Like you mention, I've heard that it helps offset the nausea caused by cancer treatments like chemotherapy, but not that it actually fights cancer. If people are claiming such a thing, then they are suffering from a misunderstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do people really claim it fights cancer? Like you mention, I've heard that it helps offset the nausea caused by cancer treatments like chemotherapy, but not that it actually fights cancer. If people are claiming such a thing, then they are suffering from a misunderstanding.

 

Would you really be surprised if people did think that? In fact, it's a long standing item amongst the conspiracy theory crowd. Dem' governments suppressing all the cures and all that. The main offender in the popularity of the notion is a guy named Rick Simpson, who published a series of videos called, 'Run from the Cure.'

 

IIRC, you're correct in saying that it is given to people undergoing treatment for cancer as an antiemetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are ambition and a good memory "diseases?"

I started to write a book about this, but I forgot where I put my notes and then just lost interest. :D

 

 

 

 

 

I'm very interested to see if recent legalization attempts can produce more legitimate studies on the effects of marijuana as a medicine, as well as how it compares recreationally with alcohol, and how hemp products will effect commerce. One aspect that will be crucial, imo, is the effect on a patient who needs to operate a vehicle. Is there a testable amount of cannabis that can be used that provides the known medical effects but doesn't exceed a limit recognized by law enforcement as unsafe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

Also, even if we assume that THC can minimize tumor growth (it probably makes the tumor apathetic and too focused on sitting on the couch to grow at a regular rate), most people smoke it, and the negatives of smoking almost certainly outweigh any potential benefit of the compound itself. As a reminder, that's a big IF that I placed there... as this only matters IF the finding can be relied upon as accurate.

 

I'm open to the possibility that this is true. The evidence offered me so far, however, doesn't incline me to accept that it is.

 

I believe that any proper medical study investigating the links between THC and carcinogenesis would provide patients with pill-form THC... not a bushel of plant material to smoke.

If they were investigating the effect of THC as well as other cannabinoids I assume that they would vaporize the plant material if testing an inhaled route of admistration. Oral administration is more likely, though, probably via an alcohol extracted product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that any proper medical study investigating the links between THC and carcinogenesis would provide patients with pill-form THC... not a bushel of plant material to smoke.

I agree. That's certainly a fair point, but that's also NOT how more than 99% of users interact with the chemical. It's puff puff pass, not pill pill swallow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. That's certainly a fair point, but that's also NOT how more than 99% of users interact with the chemical. It's puff puff pass, not pill pill swallow.

 

 

 

Changing RoA has effects on properties of the interaction, such as duration and intensity.

The science would still stand, though.

 

I think you're right about the current smoking culture of marijuana being prevalent - but could that change?

 

I think that in a culture that's shying away from tobacco use due to health concerns, marijuana users might evolve as well. Increased education (avoiding the whole "reefer-madness" hysteria) might see the shift from smoking to oral administration. That, in turn, would ensure less detrimental side effects and more focus on the positive health effects (stress-relief, possible anti-carcinogenesis). I'm sure the THC advocates would love to incorporate that into their dog&pony show.

[i'm not attacking pro-legalization movements, merely saying that I think they need to get their shit together!]

 

I'm no sociologist, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pills and smoking are not the only way, brownies and beer are also well established methods of administration...

 

not exactly conducive to a controlled medical study :P (chocolate and alcohol are psychoactive)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not exactly conducive to a controlled medical study tongue.png (chocolate and alcohol are psychoactive)

Good point, but are the pills going to contain all the active ingredients of MJ? Or just THC? sorting it out will not be an easy task, it's quite possible that all the ingredients are necessary or something other than THC is the real active agent...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, but are the pills going to contain all the active ingredients of MJ? Or just THC? sorting it out will not be an easy task, it's quite possible that all the ingredients are necessary or something other than THC is the real active agent...

 

It would depend on what the particular study is looking at.

A study looking at the anti-carcinogenic properties of CBD (which has been shown, in 2007, to inhibit growth of breast cancer in vitro) would provide subjects with that particular chemical. The advantage of pills is that specific chemicals can be extracted from the whole mess of compounds in marijuana.

Ideally, a large, controlled study would look at all possible combinations of compounds in a cannabis plant (cannabis sativa contains approx. 100 compounds) as well as each compound by itself as related to anti carcinogenesis.

The trouble is that a lot of these studies look at effects on cancer cells in vitro (in a test tube) rather than in vivo (within the living). Human trials come with a whole whack of restrictions and government guidelines, considering that this potential medicine is still illegal in many states in the USA, and federally illegal in most countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would depend on what the particular study is looking at.

A study looking at the anti-carcinogenic properties of CBD (which has been shown, in 2007, to inhibit growth of breast cancer in vitro) would provide subjects with that particular chemical. The advantage of pills is that specific chemicals can be extracted from the whole mess of compounds in marijuana.

Ideally, a large, controlled study would look at all possible combinations of compounds in a cannabis plant (cannabis sativa contains approx. 100 compounds) as well as each compound by itself as related to anti carcinogenesis.

The trouble is that a lot of these studies look at effects on cancer cells in vitro (in a test tube) rather than in vivo (within the living). Human trials come with a whole whack of restrictions and government guidelines, considering that this potential medicine is still illegal in many states in the USA, and federally illegal in most countries.

 

 

I am sorry sysD, i am not one of those people who think Cannabis sativa is a panacea, I suggest you give me a link to those studies and we can discuss them seriously...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said sativa potentially had medicinal value.

 

 

The study was on CBD. Pubmed link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025276

 

 

About halfway through:

 

cannabidiol (CBD), a cannabinoid with a low-toxicity profile, could down-regulate Id-1 expression in aggressive human breast cancer cells. The CBD concentrations effective at inhibiting Id-1 expression correlated with those used to inhibit the proliferative and invasive phenotype of breast cancer cells. CBD was able to inhibit Id-1 expression at the mRNA and protein level in a concentration-dependent fashion. These effects seemed to occur as the result of an inhibition of the Id-1 gene at the promoter level. Importantly, CBD did not inhibit invasiveness in cells that ectopically expressed Id-1. In conclusion, CBD represents the first nontoxic exogenous agent that can significantly decrease Id-1 expression in metastatic breast cancer cells leading to the down-regulation of tumor aggressiveness.

 



I am sorry sysD, i am not one of those people who think Cannabis sativa is a panacea, I suggest you give me a link to those studies and we can discuss them seriously...

 

What exactly are you arguing against? My only claims to the medicinal value of sativa were of stress relief and possible anti-carcinogenic compounds (specifically, CBD).

Are you saying that cannabis isn't a relaxant?

Edited by sysD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.