Marijuana cuts lung cancer tumor growth in half...

[Reason]

http://current.com/news/89799784_marijuana-cuts-lung-cancer-tumor-growth-in-half-harvard-study-shows.htm

[Kludge]

Actually, the study was on THC. THC pills (Marinol) are already legal (so long as you have a prescription). They're generally used to help Chemo patients.

This is not a valid argument in favor of marijuana legalization for medicinal purposes. (assuming this wasn't posted simply as general information)

[Reason]

Actually, the study was on THC. THC pills (Marinol) are already legal (so long as you have a prescription). They're generally used to help Chemo patients.

This is not a valid argument in favor of marijuana legalization for medicinal purposes. (assuming this wasn't posted simply as general information)

Seems like I have seen plenty of videos where patients talk about how the pills don't seem to work for them in comparison to some old fashioned weed & a vaporizer.

[Kludge]

Seems like I have seen plenty of videos where patients talk about how the pills don't seem to work for them in comparison to some old fashioned weed & a vaporizer.

For Chemo side-effect treatment, I do think it would be a valid argument, since studies have shown the additional cannabinoids in marijuana help.

[Bruno]

Actually, the study was on THC. THC pills (Marinol) are already legal (so long as you have a prescription). They're generally used to help Chemo patients.

This is not a valid argument in favor of marijuana legalization for medicinal purposes. (assuming this wasn't posted simply as general information)

Well, it's a good thing then that the pharmaceutical industry was able to lobby to keep marijuana illegal for so long, saying it had no medicinal value, while they developed a pill containing the same active ingredient that works for less effectively.


Seems like I have seen plenty of videos where patients talk about how the pills don't seem to work for them in comparison to some old fashioned weed & a vaporizer.

Indeed. Hard to keep a pill for nausea when you are vomiting.

[specsaregood]

They're generally used to help Chemo patients.

And for AIDS patients.

[jmhudak17]

This would at least help even further to make an argument that marijuana is nowhere near as bad for you as anyone says it is.

[FunkBuddha]

Yeah but if you legalized pot then society would fall apart because its a gateway drug. And what about the children for crying out loud?

[dannno]

Actually, the study was on THC. THC pills (Marinol) are already legal (so long as you have a prescription). They're generally used to help Chemo patients.

This is not a valid argument in favor of marijuana legalization for medicinal purposes. (assuming this wasn't posted simply as general information)

I have heard that marinol is terrible, it's just synthesized THC and all it does is make you dizzy.

The true benefits from cannabis are found in the cannabinoids, the THC is just sorta like some icing on the cake.. like having a shot of alcohol with your vicodin or something.

Also, if somebody is applying the THC directly to their lungs it would make more sense that it would help cut lung tumor growth. I'm convinced the only (or main) reason tobacco gives people cancer is because of the radiation on the chemical fertilizers they use.

[liberalnurse]

The true benefits from cannabis are found in the cannabinoids, the THC is just sorta like some icing on the cake.. like having a shot of alcohol with your vicodin or something.


:D

[amonasro]

Actually, the study was on THC. THC pills (Marinol) are already legal (so long as you have a prescription). They're generally used to help Chemo patients.

This is not a valid argument in favor of marijuana legalization for medicinal purposes. (assuming this wasn't posted simply as general information)

Actually, the article is not clear on what they used. I assume they used the plant since Marinol is synthetic.

Marinol is THC produced in a lab and is just one cannibinoid contained in marijuana. Real marijuana is incredibly complex, containing hundreds of strain-specific cannibinoids and cannot be reproduced chemically.

Big difference. Might want to read up on the endocannibinoid system.

[Kludge]

Actually, the article is not clear on what they used. I assume they used the plant since Marinol is synthetic.

Marinol is THC produced in a lab and is just one cannibinoid contained in marijuana. Real marijuana is incredibly complex, containing hundreds of strain-specific cannibinoids and cannot be reproduced chemically.

Big difference. Might want to read up on the endocannibinoid system.

"The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy."

[dannno]

^That's true, THC may be the only (or main) active ingredient to suppress cancer growth in cannabis, my post was mostly about chemo patients taking marinol.. taking marinol for hunger is completely pointless for nausea as it is certainly the other cannabinoids reacting in the body's natural endocannabinoid system that help regulate the hormones that makes people hungry.

[AFPVet]

I'm convinced the only (or main) reason tobacco gives people cancer is because of the radiation on the chemical fertilizers they use.

Well, the synthetic compounds they use for fertilizer probably don't help things; however, the real reason why using tobacco is harmful is due to the nature of the plant. Tobacco likes to suck up waste from the ground. That is why it contains so much waste chemicals. Conversely, smoking anything puts carbon and particulate matter in your lungs.

Now, putting the proper amount of cannabis in brownies, cookies, or hot chocolate would be beneficial.

[dannno]

Well, the synthetic compounds they use for fertilizer probably don't help things; however, the real reason why using tobacco is harmful is due to the nature of the plant. Tobacco likes to suck up waste from the ground. That is why it contains so much waste chemicals. Conversely, smoking anything puts carbon and particulate matter in your lungs.

Now, putting the proper amount of cannabis in brownies, cookies, or hot chocolate would be beneficial.

Well that is possible, and I also didn't mention all of the additives most of the companies put in..

It seems like if you grow tobacco in a relatively clean environment it wouldn't be that bad, though. Even in it's most pure state, it is much worse for you lungs than cannabis, I just don't think cancer being so rampant is simply due to the tobacco itself.

I don't see why people make the connection between smoking tobacco and smoking cannabis both being inherently bad. I smoke about 1 cigarette or so worth of cannabis a day because I have high quality cannabis, some people smoke 10-60 tobacco cigarettes a day. Sure, some people smoke maybe 5-10 cigarettes worth of descent to high quality cannabis, but that's still not even that bad. I'm not saying you should smoke it all day, but if you have high quality cannabis then you only need a little bit every once in a while.

I honestly think sitting around a camp fire or going into a major city is at least as bad if not much worse than taking a couple bong rips. Think about how many camp fires our ancestors sat around, you think our lungs aren't built to handle particulates? Not to mention we breathe in dust and pollen all day long..

[Bruno]

^^^ and smoking cannabis can help you actually clear out the particulates, as I'm sure you know very well.

[wizardwatson]

....Also, if somebody is applying the THC directly to their lungs it would make more sense that it would help cut lung tumor growth. I'm convinced the only (or main) reason tobacco gives people cancer is because of the radiation on the chemical fertilizers they use.

You damned conspiracy theorists and your paranoid delusions about poisoned consumables....

..oh wait.

http://www.webspawner.com/users/radioactivethreat/


Radioactive Polonium in Tobacco

For over 40 years, researchers and tobacco corporations have known that cigarettes contain radionuclides(1). The contamination is sourced in naturally occurring radioactive radon gas(2) which is absorbed and trapped in apatite rock(3). Apatite, or phosphate rock, is mined for the purpose of formulating the phosphate portion of most chemical fertilizers(4). Polonium releases ionizing alpha radiation which is 20 times more harmful than either beta or gamma radiation when exposed to internal organs(5).

Lung cancer rates increased significantly during most of the 1900's(6). It's no coincidence that between 1938 and 1960, the level of polonium 210 in American tobacco tripled commensurate with the increased use of chemical fertilizers and Persistant Organic Pollutant (POP) accumulation(7).

In 1982, tobacco researchers DiFranza and Winters concluded that smoking a pack and a half of cigarettes per day exposed a person to the same radiation as 300 chest x-rays per year(8). Due to improvements in X-ray technology and increasing levels of radionuclides in tobacco, the Institute of Medicine now estimates that a heavy smoker is exposed to the equivalent radiation as up to 2,000 chest X-rays every year(9). The National Institutes of Health state that tobacco is by far the largest source of radiation for the American public(10). Polonium is also present in chewing tobacco, benignly referred to as smokeless tobacco, and may contribute to the development of oral cancers(11).

Recently released tobacco corporation internal memos and reports indicate that they were well aware of radiation contamination as early as 1964(12), and discussed methods to remove polonium from tobacco in 1975(13). In 1977, Phillip Morris confirmed that superphosphate fertilizer was a source of polonium(14).

Indoor radon accumulation is a serious health risk that is responsible for approximately 21,000 American lung cancer fatalities annually(15). Smoking tobacco greatly magnifies the radon risk(16). The needless additional radiation delivered via fertilizer can be reduced through the use of alternative phosphate processing techniques(17) or organic fertilizers(18).

Yeah, I read this about the "Apatite" rocks they mine for use in fertilizer is probably the main cause of lung cancer. The tobacco plant naturally draws this from the soil (probably other plants as well, but we don't smoke those). Kinda scary when you think of it as x number of x-rays. Couple thousand a year though could be accurate.

Here's some Fight Club wisdom for those of you who think that Philip Morris/Kraft is going to do dick about it:


A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

These mega-corporations are nothing but financial entities, imo, unless litigation costs > cost of safety implementation, then little guy gets to die. Read up on how the tobacco companies negotiated with the states in what's called a Master Settlement Agreement, where cig companies have to pay a yearly allotment, in order to stop individual lawsuits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement

Now 46 states prohibit individual lawsuits against the cig companies in exchange for cig companies paying an annual liability to each of the 46 states.

It's all numbers. Nothing in the MSA makes less dead people, unless you believe the governments are using that money to save the smokers rather than build more roads and dish out more entitlements.

Sorry for thread hijack, but Danno's comment made me think about all this crap again.