work this out...

[kpete]

[nonperson]

1. A HUGE K&R

Cannabis is a panacea being prohibited by big pharma, the prison industrial complex, and all those other assholes who are making a fortune by keeping it illegal.

[liberalmike27]

99. Look

I'm completely for the decriminalization of drugs, treatment when needed, and the sale and taxation of weed. It's insane to keep arresting people, sacrificing the money we lose on taxes, and imprisoning people and cluttering up our court systems. But seriously, some of the attributes you've got for weed just aren't right.

It is addictive. I've quit doing a lot of bad things, but weed was the hardest to quit. It is true that it saps motivation. Curing cancer, zero deaths, and growing brain cells are pretty questionable too.

Been there done that--fully support legalization, and yes I do think it's a better drug for Americans in particular than alcohol. That one is easy. But let's not do it based on lies. It has a down side, and the fact that it is such a "mild" drug is perhaps its most sinister quality. I might add, like cigs, it has carcinogens, some say many more. They should give returning soldiers a pound of it. Maybe it'd help the TSD.

[nonperson]

111. Addictive? LOL

I've been with and without for long periods of time in my life. Not only did I never have a problem without but I never had even a HINT of a problem.

Now the medications my doctor can legally prescribe and indeed offers me every time I see him are addictive, proven deadly, proven to cause damage to hearing, heart, liver (as a matter of fact an FDA panel called for all synthetic narcotic pain medications to be removed from the market because they are the single greatest cause of liver problems in the USA).

I went through withdrawal from prescription pain medications FOUR TIMES over the years, each time after using pain medication after surgery. This I know for sure. I KNOW people who have died from prescription pain medication. I know NO ONE who ever died from cannabis and indeed there are NO deaths attributed to the effects of the drug ever recorded. If you're skeptical why don't you show some proof of addiction other than apocryphal tales of your personal addiction and some proof of ONE death attributable to the use of Cannabis.

Some of the most productive, creative, brilliant people who ever lived smoked pot regularly. You offer NO proof for your claim that it "saps motivation".

Cannabis is non-addictive and non-lethal. You, my friend, are obviously more susceptible to problems with Cannabis than others and obviously more susceptible to brainwashing as well. I wonder if the two are related.

[Occulus]

135. I don't think the poster is susceptible to jack shit.

I think he's acting like Recursion is- claiming he doesn't want cannabis illegal, but then turning directly around and slamming it for all he's worth.

That's disingenuous as all fuck, and the mods should be onto this tactic and dealing with it appropriately. They're both lying, in boldface, and I think they bloody well know it.

[nonperson]

137. I agree with you but I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt

Hoping maybe the truth will outweigh the brainwashing.

[Occulus]

140. Can the truth outweigh a paycheck?

These kinds of posts happen every single time a thread about cannabis shows up on DU, and the claims from the naysayers are all the same, and from the same sources. I've trapped two of them in their own bullshit so far, and it's funny- it's the same people as last time, saying the exact same things.

I smell an agenda, and it smells like money.

[nonperson]

147. Thanks

You're a sleuth for the truth.

I'll keep an eye for those two in future Cannabis-related posts.

[Recursion]

197. Yes, people are being paid to talk down pot on fringe message boards

:eyes:

I won't even make the obvious paranoia joke.

[Fly by night]

199. Yes, coke-heads are always ready with the "paranoia" charge.

Probably comes from experience.

Anyone who prefers cocaine to cannabis has a serious chemical imbalance. Back when I did cocaine (more than two decades ago), it almost immediately made me a new man.

And all that new man wanted was MORE COCAINE.

Glad it's you who prefers brain (and soul) freezes, and not me. Good luck with that.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

188. George Carlin said years ago...

..."when I decided to get off the weed, I found the hardest part was getting over the ritual of loading up". Just like rolling your own cigarettes, it is relaxing in itself, and I have found that true myself when loading my pipe or one hitter. Often after loading up, I lose the desire to even smoke for that time being.

[slampoet]

205. sucessful concern troll congrats.

[RainDog]

207. Your experience isn't supported as the norm - experts on addiction say

How Experts Rate Problem Substances

Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National
Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L.
Benowitz of the University of California
at San Francisco ranked six substances...

1 = Most serious 6 = Least serious

Henningfield Ratings

Substance Withdrawal Dependence

Nicotine 3 1
Heroin 2 2
Cocaine 4 3
Alcohol 1 4
Caffeine 5 5
+ Marijuana ---> 6 ----> 6


Benowitz Ratings

Substance Withdrawal Dependence

Nicotine 3* 4
Heroin 2 2
Cocaine 3* 1
Alcohol 1 4
Caffeine 4 5
+ Marijuana ---> 5 ----> 6

The reason cannabis is not as addictive as other drugs is simply because the discontinuation of use results in only mild withdrawal symptoms, if any at all. In one study found in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences <16>, sudden withdrawal of THC resulted in mild withdrawal symptoms. The human subjects in that study were given oral doses of 180 to 210 mg of THC -- equivalent to upwards of 20 joints -- per day, then the doses were suddenly stopped.

The researchers observed that the resulting mild withdrawal symptoms, which included poor sleep and restlessness, might not manifest in cases were normal doses of THC are used.

Approximately 91% of cannabis users are NOT addicted to cannabis according to the SRI study in the journal SCIENCE <1>, which references extensive research <14> indicating that only "9% of cannabis users may meet criteria for substance dependence." In absolute contrast to cannabis, tobacco is ten times more addictive, with
a full 90% of all tobacco users using tobacco at a rate defined as dependent. <15>

Your inability to read studies and to accept the reality which indicates that there is NO known overdose amount for cannabis has as much to say about your experience as your claim that foregoing cannabis was the hardest thing you ever did since your experience seems to indicate a psychological issue, not a physical addiction, since, physiologically, it is impossible to have the same experience of withdrawal as that experienced by those who stop smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol - or other substances considered physically addictive - because of the way in which cannabinoids are removed from the body - the rate of metabolism for the molecules is what makes cannabis outside of the realm of physical addiction for, at the least, 91% of those who have used a lot of cannabis over a long time- no matter what your experience may have told you.

I would recommend that you read the studies that indicate the medicinal properties of cannabis, including the studies quoted at the bottom of this thread which note that, not only does cannabis help with spasticity in MS, it appears to stop progression of the disease! You will also find three studies regarding three different illnesses which report the growth of brain cells as part of the value of cannabis as medicine for people with alzheimers, MS and depression - again, in the post below with links to studies.

The cancer studies are ongoing and, when you demonstrate your qualifications as a research scientist who can dispute the studies indicating tumor suppression and a protective quality for cannabis regarding lung cancer, for instance, then what you say would matter. As it is, all you are doing is demonstrating that you are wedded to propaganda, not science.

Here are reports on studies that demonstrate researchers' interest in cannabis as a TREATMENT for cancer.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/RainDog/42

If you vaporize cannabis, you inhale it but the vaporization removes particulants. People who smoke cannabis moderately, say, would have the experience of smoking one cigarette per day, stretched out over the course of a day. No doubt that would introduce particulants into someone's lungs - I wonder how many particulants cannabis users and nonusers inhale by walking down a city street?

What's amazing is that all the people on this thread who dismiss the claims are unable to back up their skepticism with any facts.

[monmouth]

2. Alcohol use when abused brings loads of money to police, probation,

court fines, rehabs and the beat goes on. Cannabis brings money to grocery stores and drive-ins from what I hear...

[onethatcares]

14. cannabis when used and caught

brings in loads of money to police and probation officials. It also feeds the industrial prison industry with close to free labor


I'm watching a history channel thing about marijuana inc now, it's a load of horse manure but it does have some points.

btw, i think the enforcement of the cannibas laws is a bigger waste of money than the harm would be at this point.

[Le Taz Hot]

43. Allow me to dissuade you of

"what you hear." Different strains of cannabis carry different properties. Some strains are good for sleep, some for easing pain, some for calming, some for lifting up the spirits and SOME for encouraging the appetite.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. k&r

[pipi_k]

4. If pot were legal, my brother would still be alive today...

I'm sure of it.

He was never a drinker. His thing was pot. Unfortunately, the company he worked for tested for it so he had to stop smoking. For some reason, he got into alcohol.

That was the beginning of the end for him.

It didn't take as long as it usually does. We found out from a doctor that the gastric bypass he had nearly ten years ago exacerbated the effects of the alcohol. It only took about three or four years. The last two were hell. On him...on his children...on the rest of the family.

He died very miserably this past February, at the age of 40. In horrible, awful pain. My baby brother.

The substance that killed him in less than five years? Legal. Drink all you want on weekends or after work. Nobody at the company cared.

The substance that he smoked for over 20 years with no ill effects? Yeah. Use it and get fired.

Now he's dead.

I hope pot opponents are fucking happy.

[ejpoeta]

13. but it's a gateway drug. that's what they keep saying. not sure how it's a gateway drug.

my brother used to smoke it when he was younger. don't know of any other drugs he ever did besides that one. he smokes cigarettes now though. it's PR. put that message out there. i can say that alcohol led me to cigarette smoking... sort of.. they seemed to go well together.

[glowing]

29. Me too. It wasn't until I was drunk that I began smoking cigs.. you know inhibition lowered.

and it wasn't until after alcohol I tried pot.. Loved it so much more... I was the stoner at the party... However, all that stuff is over except the cigs... go figure.

[dotymed]

33. Same here.

When I used to drink, I would use drugs and sometimes remember. Alcohol lowers your inhibitions. It makes you (think) you are bullet-proof.

IMO, alcohol is more of a "gateway drug" than pot. When you're drunk you'll do almost anything.

[JoeyT]

34. It's a gateway drug because it's illegal.

When I was in high school I could have told you where to buy absolutely any hard drug you wanted including just about any prescription drug. I also got offered them semi-regularly by the people that sold weed. All because the shady-ass dudes I had to deal with to get pot when I smoked it could hook you up with pretty much anything and coke has a higher sale rate and a higher profit margin. So it's just good business sense for them to push the stuff that makes them more money.

I think legalizing pot would actually bring the new addiction rate for hard drugs down for that very reason. Less contact with skeevy bastards trying to talk kids into more profitable stuff.

Edited to add: No, I didn't take them up on the hard stuff.

[Occulus]

68. That's untrue, and always has been.

Always.

[Recursion]

125. It was for me

I got into coke through my pot contacts (thank God... it's a much better drug for me, at least...)

[kestrel91316]

82. It was a gateway to a successful college and professional career

for me, lol.

Maybe I'd be making more money these days if I went back to smoking it and mellowed out and got more creative......

[patrice]

5. K&R

[tridim]

6. I'm not comfortable saying cannabis "cures cancer"

Probably should be changed to "shrinks tumors"

Other than that, great chart. I can't work it out.

[ZombieHorde]

9. I agree. "Shrinks Tumors" would be better. Still great overall though. nt

[JoshieR]

78. It also supresses nausea...

...and helps chemo patients reduce vomiting. This is also why it is dangerous to smoke pot and drink excessive amounts of alcohol at the same time.

[Cleita]

19. Me neither and there is no real data that states that. However,

what it does do for cancer patients is alleviate the side effects of cancer treatments like radiation and chemotherapy. It is effective against nausea and other side effect, enabling the patient to get proper nutrition which aids in curing the cancer.

[Occulus]

80. There is real data that supports the premise that cannabis, or chemicals *in* cannabis,

promote apoptosis (cellular "kill switch") and inhibit angiogenesis (formation of new blood vessels) in cancerous tumors.

I'm very sorry the science doesn't agree with your worldview, but the data isn't lying.

[Cleita]

97. It's not my world view. I work for a doctor who

prescribes medical cannabis and he doesn't feel there is enough proof there or a good medical study that supports this.

[Fly by night]

104. Well alrighty then. Your boss's opinion is good enough for ...

... well, you and him I suppose. It would not be difficult for both of you to become more educated on the issue. Check out my several posts in this thread for peer-reviewed medical research articles relevant to the issue. There have also been 650+ other peer-reviewed articles on the anti-tumor properties of cannabinoids that your boss may not have seen yet.

Really, this is not a hard topic to become educated on. Unfortunately, physicians have to rely on someone besides drug company reps to educate them on it.

[Cleita]

124. He went to medical school and is a specialist in pain

management so I believe his opinion carries a lot more weight than mine or yours. Also, the articles say that they "may" cure cancer. There have been no studies over a period of time, especially since other treatments are also in play, that can definitely say that it was the cannabis that cured the cancer and not any other drugs that were used at the same time. What we do know for a fact, is that cannabis alleviates much of the side effects of cancer drugs and keeps the patient more comfortable and able to eat and sleep better. For that alone it's a very important part of a cancer treatment regime.

[Occulus]

130. No, they do NOT say that.

Stop being disingenuous on this, Cleita.

"Promote cellular apoptosis in tumors" and "inhibit angiogenesis" DOES NOT MEAN "CURE". You know that, so stop equating the two.

I am getting so tired of the semantic games you people play. Get yourself educated and use the scientific terms. I'm done taking you seriously until you do at least that much.

Prove you're interested in intelligent discussion of the facts. Using the word "cure" and waving it around like a flag only makes you look like a fool.

[Cleita]

131. Excuse me but the OP said, 'cures cancer' if you bothered to read the chart. That is what

I'm disputing. Your answer says it does, so if you want to be taken seriously then clean up your semantics if that isn't what you meant. I did not dispute that it can shrink tumors.

[Occulus]

139. Okay, just stop. Not one of the articles linked to on this thread uses the phrase "cures cancer".

Not a single one; I just checked all of them. The only place that appears is in the OP, and only because it's far easier to fit- and more than a little inaccurate- to say "cures cancer" than "promotes cancer cell apoptosis and inhibits angiogenesis in tumors".

I didn't ever claim that cannabis "cures cancer", nor has anyone else but the chart in the OP. All of the other actual scientific information uses the actual scientific terms, which do not by themselves mean "cure".

YOU are playing a despicable semantic game over the phrasing in a chart in the OP. THAT is incredibly disingenuous. You know that. I know that. Everyone on this thread knows that.

So STOP. You're only making yourself look like a fool.

[Cleita]

141. I wasn't talking about the articles. Both the first

post I answered to and my post talked about the OP. Now you stop. Also, stop with calling me a fool. Everyone tries to call me a fool who can't get me to grovel to them and their superior intellect. It's stupid, childish and makes you look like a you-know what.

[Occulus]

144. Again with the little semantic game in the OP's chart.

As I said elsewhere, you can refer to the actual science behind the claim in the chart any time you like. We all agree it's not the same thing at all as a "cure", so your beef appears to be with the wording, and that's very very petty of you.

I didn't call you a fool; I said your behavior makes you look like one. That you take that personally is your problem, not mine. Don't want to look like a fool? Then stop harping about the claim in the OP's chart (which we all admit is scientifically inaccurate) and start talking about the merits of the science behind the claim.

Again- you can do that, and join the adults in rational discussion, any time you like. That you adamantly refuse to do that says more about you than it does about me or anyone else on this thread.

And yes- it is the sign of an inferior intellect to continue to harp on a claim we all freely and openly accept isn't the whole story. It's called "willful disregard of the facts and discussion at hand" and, bluntly put, it makes you look stupid. Your problem appears to be strictly with the wording; we're all talking about something a little bit more detailed and sciencey.

I've read enough of your posts during your time here to know you are neither stupid nor a fool. If you want to continue to make yourself look like one or both, that's up to you- just don't expect to be taken very seriously.

[Fly by night]

133. Actually, since your boss is not an oncologist, his opinion may not be very well informed ...

... on the anti-tumor properties of cannabinoids. I would not expect it to be since it is outside his area of specialization.

I hope we can all agree that --

a) cannabis has been shown to have demonstrable medically beneficial uses for a host of serious conditions, thus obviating its continued Schedule 1 classification, (besides the fact that cannabis also fails to meet the other two criteria for Schedule 1 -- highly addictive, highly toxic) and

b) the current restrictions on any form of medical research on this plant and its components is anti-scientific, immoral and indefensible.

BTW, I am glad you and your boss live in a legal medical cannabis state. Here in Tennessee, pain patients can and are discontinued from medical treatment by pain specialists if they test positive for cannabis, despite the abundant evidence that cannabis has anelgesic properties AND can assist patients in reducing or eliminating their opiate use for pain.

[Cleita]

134. I never disputed the tumor shrinking properties. It was

that it was claimed to cure cancer and there is no proof of that. Shrinking a tumor does not mean the cancer is gone. And I think that refusing patients life saving treatment because they are caught smoking dope is criminal. I'm so sorry your state is so backwards.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fly by night]

154. Take a look at my posts 50 & 91 for peer-reviewed articles ...

...on the anti-tumor properties of cannabis. The Italian glioma paper discusses the curative properties of cannabis and the Tashkin and Kelsey papers discuss the impact of cannabis use for preventing the occurrence of lung, head and neck cancers.It is clear that there is something in this plant that should have been seriously studied for decades at the National Cancer Institute. Maybe soon we can proceed in a science-based fashion to do that.

BTW, the policy re: cannabis users being kicked out of pain management treatment for a positive urine is the norm in this country, not the exception. Hopefully that will change soon also.

[kestrel91316]

83. It helped my dad a lot with the side effects of radiation and chemo over 30 years ago.

Sadly, he died anyway. But the pot eased his suffering.

[Fly by night]

50. If you & the two posters above me are uncomfortable, you might want to actually educate yourselves.

We have known, since at least the mid-70s, that cannabinoids are potent chemotherapeutic agents for killing at least a half dozen cancer cell lines. That research conclusion, by a research team at the Medical College of Virginia, was defunded by DEA and NIDA as soon as they announced their findings. Similar research in the 90s which came to the same conclusion suffered the same defunding fate.

In the mid-1990s, a 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.)

This information has been discussed here at DU innumerable times and links have been provided each and every time. In hopes that the three of you will actually educate yourselves on the issue, please read this link (please):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-armentano/what-your-government-know_b_108712.html

Over the past 20 years, there have been at least 650 peer-reviewed medical journal articles published on the chemotherapeutic properties of cannabinoids. Among the most encouraging is work in Spain and italy on the impact of cannabinoids for treating gliomas, brain cancers that have proven very difficult to treat. Here's one conclusion of the Italian research team: "(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." (This quote is from the above link, so you can find the reference there.) Google "Spain Italy cannabinoids gliomas" for at least a dozen peer-reviewed medical research articles on that topic.

In addition, two large case-control studies by Tashkin et al at UCLA and Kelsey et at at Brown University and three other medical schools have concluded that recreational cannabis use significantly reduces the expected incidence of lung and head/neck cancers respectively. Here are the summaries of those two studies.
---

Feds' Top Pot Researcher Says Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer:

A U of California researcher who has performed US-government sponsored studies of marijuana and lung function for over 30 years says that pot does not cause lung cancer. Dr. Donald Tashkin said that, when he began his work thirty years ago, he "opposed ... legalization because thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects." However, he now admits that his decades' worth of scientific research revealed an opposite conclusion. In 2006, Tashkin led the largest population case-control study ever to assess the use of marijuana and lung cancer risk. The study, which included more than 2,200 subjects (1,212 cases and 1,040 controls), reported that marijuana smoking was not positively associated with cancers of the lung or upper aerodigestive tract – even among individuals who reported smoking more than 22,000 joints during their lifetime. "What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect," Tashkin told the newspaper chain, noting that cannabinoids cause "cells die ... before they age enough to develop mutations that might lead to cancer"....

"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."
---

Marijuana May Reduce Risk of Certain Cancers, Study Says
August 27, 2009

A new study finds that long-term marijuana users have a lower risk of certain head and neck cancers, Reuters reported Aug. 25.

Researchers from Brown University studied patients with head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and a control group and found that subjects who had smoked marijuana for 10 to 20 years had a 62-percent reduced risk of getting HNSCC. Those who smoked marijuana 0.5 to 1.5 times per week had a 48-percent reduction in risk.

The study authors, led by Karl T. Kelsey, said that the findings may be linked to the known anti-tumor action of cannabinoids....

The study was published in the August 2009 issue of the journal Cancer Prevention Research.
---

All of this information (and the related links) have been posted here at DU many, many times. Cannabinoids appear to be potent cancer-fighting compounds not only because they shrink tumors (your preferred language) but because they accelerate the death of cancer cells (i.e., kills cancer cells outright). If a substance kills cancer cells, I would think it would be acceptable to say that the substance "cures cancer." These potent chemotherapeutic effects are in addition to the palliative effects of cannabis for reducing emesis and resultant weight loss, among other positive effects. The words of a noted oncologist, Dr. Donald Abrams, summarizes this multi-component effect nicely:

"I think marijuana is a very good medicine. I'm a cancer doctor. I take care every day of patients who have loss of appetite, nausea, pain, difficulty sleeping and depression. I have one medicine that can treat all of those symptoms, instead of five different medicines to which they may become addicted. That one (medicine) is marijuana, and my patients are not going to become addicted to it."

Dr. Abrams is chairman and principal investigator of the Community Consortium, an association of Bay Area HIV health care providers, one of the pioneer community-based clinical trials groups, established in 1985. He is the Assistant Director of the AIDS Program at San Francisco General Hospital and a professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Abrams has been conducting National Institute on Drug Abuse-approved research on marijuana for the past twelve years. He considers marijuana to be both a safe and an effective medicine.

Once again, it would be nice if you and the other posters would stop being dismissive of the volumes of evidence that cannabinoids are potent chemotherapeutic agents. Read the research, posted above and posted innumerable times here at DU.

Or don't and cling to your less-informed positions. There's nothing any of us can do about that. But you can be damned sure that the farces of evil that maintain cannabis prohibition (and that block legitimate research on the chemotherapeutic effects of cannabinoids) appreciate your persistent non-efforts in this regard.

[Pooka Fey]

56. Just wanted you to know that I read your post

And I find these results very compelling. HOWEVER, I think the medical community needs to remain cautiously optimistic. Are these effects due to correlation or causation; is there another variable in the study subjects that is unaccounted for? Sometimes medications have undesirable side effects which don't immediately show up in a study subject. There could be unintended consequences to cheer-leading pot as a cancer cure - cancer is a very complex illness.

Pot as a cancer treatment however, allowing chemo patients to nourish themselves and recover their strength more quickly - undeniable. Good news in your post however. Mother Nature is the best pharmacy.

[Fly by night]

98. Re: safety and ruling out co-factors

After two years of in-depth review of the science of medical cannabis, DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young had this to say about the safety profile of cannabis when he ruled (in 1988) that cannabis should be removed from Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substance Act:

"VIII. ACCEPTED SAFETY FOR USE UNDER MEDICAL SUPERVISION

With respect to whether or not there is "a lack of accepted safety for use of under medical supervision", the record shows the following facts to be uncontroverted.


Findings of Fact

1. Richard J. Gralla, M.D., an oncologist and Professor of Medicine who was an Agency witness, accepts that in treating cancer patients oncologists can use the cannabinoids with safety despite their side effects.

2. Andrew T. Weil, M.D., who now practices medicine in Tucson, Arizona and is on the faculty of the College of Medicine, University of Arizona, was a member of the first team of researchers to perform a Federal Government authorized study into the effects of marijuana on human subjects. This team made its study in 1968. These researchers determined that marijuana could be safely used under medical supervision. In the 20 years since then Dr. Weil has seen no information that would cause him to reconsider that conclusion. There is no question in his mind but that marijuana is safe for use under appropriate medical supervision.

3. The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death?

4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.

5. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.

6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.

7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.

8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death, a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.

10. Another common medical way to determine drug safety is called the therapeutic ratio. This ratio defines the difference between a therapeutically effective dose and a dose which is capable of inducing adverse effects.

11. A commonly used over-the-counter product like aspirin has a therapeutic ratio of around 1:20. Two aspirins are the recommended dose for adult patients. Twenty times this dose, forty aspirins, may cause a lethal reaction in some patients, and will almost certainly cause gross injury to the digestive system, including extensive internal bleeding.

12. The therapeutic ratio for prescribed drugs is commonly around 1:10 or lower. Valium, a commonly used prescriptive drug, may cause very serious biological damage if patients use ten times the recommended (therapeutic) dose.

13. There are, of course, prescriptive drugs which have much lower therapeutic ratios. Many of the drugs used to treat patients with cancer, glaucoma and multiple sclerosis are highly toxic. The
therapeutic ratio of some of the drugs used in antineoplastic therapies, for example, are regarded as extremely toxic poisons with therapeutic ratios that may fall below 1:1.5. These drugs also have very low LD-50 ratios and can result in toxic, even lethal reactions, while being properly employed.

14. By contrast, marijuana's therapeutic ratio, like its LD-50, is impossible to quantify because it is so high.

15. In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating ten raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death.

16. Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care."

Since Judge Young issued his opinion 23 years ago, there has been nothing to contradict his original conclusions, despite voluminous efforts by our well-entrenched drug worrier agencies to do so.
---

As far as confounding factors in explaining the "effects" of cannabis, I would really recommend that you read the Tashkin and Kelsey studies. As you no doubt know, controlling for confounding variables is a critical part of conducting case-control studies, and both those studies pass muster in this regard.

Finally, much of the research on cannabinoids has been conducted "in vitro" where confounders are seldom an issue.

I am not one for over-promising anything or settling up unrealistic expectations regarding any medical treatment or preventive medicine practice. But our nation's sad history vis a vis cannabis is that our government has actively suppressed promising research on this plant to maintain our non-scientific, immoral and indefensible reefer madness. Hyperbole on the part of pro-cannabis supporters pales in comparison with willful and intentional ignorance, with actively running away from promising results with this plant and its components because (horror of horrors!) it also produces "illegal smiles". If only that was a more common side-effect of our pharmacopoeia in general, all patients would be better for it.

[tridim]

75. I'm very educated in cannabis, and I've had this debate before

It's a matter of semantics. "Cure" is not synonymous with "treatment".

Simply stated, smoking only Cannabis will not cure a patient with advanced cancer. Therefore is not a cure by definition. No cannabis friendly doctor would prescribe only Cannabis as a cure for cancer, nor should they.

It will certainly make them feel better though. Again not a cure, but a treatment.

I guess you missed where I said it shrinks tumors (which is a fact), oh well.

Smoke a bowl and relax dude.

[Fly by night]

91. You don't appear to be very educated about cannabis, though semantics does seem your strong suit.

There are a number of ways to say what cannabinoids appear to do vis a vis cancer. "Cure", in the case of gliomas, has been demonstrated, albeit in small scale studies. "Prevent" appears to have been well-documented by both Tashkin and Kelsey in the largest case-control studies ever conducted on the issue. "Palliative therapy" as an adjunct to cutting, burning and poisoning (the three main cancer treatments) is undeniable

The fact is also undeniable that two federally-funded studies (referenced in my original response) demonstrated the "effects" of cannabis on a host of cancer cell lines and, for their troubles, both studies were summarily defunded. If those research findings had been embraced and helped launch a serious research effort on the "effects" of cannabinoids on cancer, we would know much more than we do now. As it is, NIDA still refuses to fund any research on the positive "effects" of cannabis, so we have to rely on foreign researchers for most of our information on this subject.

BTW, speaking of semantics, no one in this thread (certainly not me) recommended smoking cannabis as a cure for advanced cancer, so you are basically just making that up. There are few remedies for advanced cancer, legal or otherwise. Likewise, many of the studies conducted on the "effects" of cannabinoids on cancer suggest that the naturally occurring concentrations of beneficial cannabinoids in whole-plant cannabis may be insufficient to be used as chemotherapy. However, the Tashkin and Kelsey research studies do seem to indicate that those concentrations appear to be sufficient to reduce significantly the expected incidence of specific cancers.

It is good to see that you and the other nay-sayers in this subthread accept the palliative effects of cannabis for cancer patients. That is certainly not news. We were researching that issue (and documenting its undeniable benefit as an anti-emetic) back in the late 1970s, when I was an official at the National Cancer Institute. Before that, when I was a research grantee at the Centers for Disease Control, I learned from other grantees the numerous uses for cannabis as folk medicine among northern New Mexican villages. Of course, anyone who is even remotely familiar with the uses of cannabis as medicine would know that the plant has had 5,000 years of documented medical uses (and counting) across a multitude of cultures.

Any time you want to talk science and not semantics, you are welcome to start. As for your advice to "smoke a bowl and relax dude", save your sophomoric sarcasm for someone it might actually mean something to. That someone would not be me.

To end this response, here's just one of the recent papers on cannabinoids and gliomas. As a semantics expert, see if you can count how many different "effects" of cannabinoids on gliomas that the researchers found.
----
Mol Neurobiol. 2007 Aug;36(1):60-7. Epub 2007 Jun 28.

Cannabinoids and gliomas.
Velasco G, Carracedo A, Blázquez C, Lorente M, Aguado T, Haro A, Sánchez C, Galve-Roperh I, Guzmán M.
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, School of Biology, Complutense University, 28040 Madrid, Spain.

Abstract

Cannabinoids, the active components of Cannabis sativa L., act in the body by mimicking endogenous substances--the endocannabinoids--that activate specific cell surface receptors. Cannabinoids exert various palliative effects in cancer patients. In addition, cannabinoids inhibit the growth of different types of tumor cells, including glioma cells, in laboratory animals. They do so by modulating key cell signaling pathways, mostly the endoplasmic reticulum stress response, thereby inducing antitumoral actions such as the apoptotic death of tumor cells and the inhibition of tumor angiogenesis. Of interest, cannabinoids seem to be selective antitumoral compounds, as they kill glioma cells, but not their non-transformed astroglial counterparts. On the basis of these preclinical findings, a pilot clinical study of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme has been recently run. The good safety profile of THC, together with its possible growth-inhibiting action on tumor cells, justifies the setting up of future trials aimed at evaluating the potential antitumoral activity of cannabinoids.

PMID: 17952650

[tridim]

103. Though it's odd that I've already read everything you've posted.

I bow to your extensive book knowledge on the subject, it's very impressive.

[Fly by night]

106. Semantics and sarcasm -- obviously you think what this thread needs is more cowbell.

If you've read all the research I cited (which is highly doubtful), then you would not maintain your current uninformed position IF you understood the research. Cannabinoids hold much more promise for treating and preventing cancer besides its well-documented palliative effects. Freeing medical scientists to study the plant in order to separate the wheat from the chaff (minus any more cowbell from either diside of the issue) would be a good (and 70 year overdue) start.

BTW, my experience is not simply bibliographic, having provided cannabis to seriously ill people for over two decades and now carrying a federal Bureau of Prisons number for my troubles.

[tridim]

112. I understand everything the studies reported

None of them have concluded that cannabis is a cure for cancer, which was my one and only point before you released your reams of publicly available research that anyone interested in the subject has read and re-read. We both agree that there is promise in the research, can we please just leave it at that?

BTW, I also may or may not have provided cannabis to seriously ill people (including dozens of chemo patients), legally, when I lived in a legal state.

[Fly by night]

152. If we agree that research should be able to proceed unfettered, that's a good place to stop.

It's good to know that the two of us may or may not have helped seriously ill folks get access to cannabis. However, that only makes me (at least) a bit of a horticultural expert on this issue. My forty years as a public health epidemiologist is the basis for my opinions on this thread. Good luck wherever you are now in being able to serve seriously ill folks again. It is a very rewarding way to spend one's time.

[MrScorpio]

7. I don't bother with either

But that's just me

[ZombieHorde]

8. Totally. Everyone knows PCP is the best.

Nothing says "mellow evening with loved ones" like PCP.

[MrScorpio]

10. Dude, I totally thought that heroin was your bag

You caught me by surprise there

[Bluenorthwest]

11. And what has that got to do witht the OP?

This is not about our personal preferences or use at all. It is about facts and the irony of American 'justice' which locks up huge amounts of people, mostly minorities, for one but not the other.

[MrScorpio]

12. Oh, yeah. I totally get the Drug War angle

And you're preaching to the choir here about the inordinate use of those drug laws against minorities…. No doubt about that.

But sometimes I wonder how much of a problem this would be if fewer people used either one of them recreationally?

Starving the beast, so to speak.

[shanti]

95. it's human nature

to desire an altered state of consciousness, so they will never disappear totally. just leave those of us that want to partake alone. that's all we ask.

[felix_numinous]

15. K&R!!

[butterfly77]

16. Kick,kick,kick &recommended!

[emald]

17. rage is all I can feel over this

I have smoked marijuana, carefully, for over 15 years. I suffered a head blow of major proportion, my second, when I was twenty one and involved in an ugly motorcycle accident. There followed twenty years of failed marriage, and 68 jobs, until a friend suggested pot. Amazing the difference. Now I have a medical card (Oregon) and grow my own. My story is not singular.

[dotymed]

35. I knew a young man (I was too).

That received SSI disability for mild retardation. When I would sneak away for my evening smoke, Johnny would often appear, I shared. He acted very normal when high. He told me that it was the only time he ever felt "normal."

He was lost when I had to quit smoking for a new job. I felt sorry for him, it really made a difference. He could carry on a conversation, stoned, that he could never do when straight or on alcohol.

[JDPriestly]

36. Could it be that the marijuana did not change your mentally disabled

friend, but rather that when you used marijuana, your perception of your friend was less critical, less judgmental?

[NobodyInParticular]

37. Could it be that your mentally disabled friend felt more secure

because he did not feel scrutinized by others who had "mellowed out" in his presence?

[dotymed]

66. Not at all.

There was an unmistakable, obvious change (for the positive) in his thinking and communication process. While admittedly, it had the opposite effect on me, he became more cognizant and less distracted by his "mental illness."

I thought the same thing at first, "maybe it's just because I'm stoned." A few times there were "witnesses", one being his mother. She was a sweet lady, who was admittedly, "a little different."

Her son was about 25 y.o. and his mother would sometimes accompany him on his visit to my backyard. The Father was a gambling addict and I often made extra at mealtimes and took it over to them. Their family dynamics were not ordinary. She loved her son very much. She would often play the organ while she and Johnny sang. They were very colorful, and great neighbors. She told me that she knew it was illegal but when Johnny partook, he was a different man. It was as if he was always "wasted" until then. Anecdotally, I'd conclude that he definitely benefited from the effects of marijuana. I, on the other hand, got high and was less "stressed."

[unkachuck]

18. it's obvious....

....cannabis needs a better corporate lobby....

[Yavapai]

22. The cannabis lobby is coming, see this link

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june032011/cannabis-pharma.php

[Plucketeer]

20. Black is White

Day is Night - what's the mystery???

[gtar100]

38. Yep. Welcome to the 21st Century in the good ol' USA

[handmade34]

21. Dupont couldn't control it

http://www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/hemp/history/newbilln.htm

"The New Billion Dollar Crop"

[quakerboy]

25. Yeah, but Monsanto could find a way

Hey... our genetics are in your weed. Pay up or we take everything you own.

Hmm. DEA VS Monsanto. In theory, it would be an awesome fight to watch, cause no matter who takes a hurting, it makes feel a little better about humanity.. on the other, dealing with the winner after would probably be more of a bitch than it already is.

[handmade34]

26. I would rather

see hemp legalized and put my 40 acre farm of hemp into production

[Le Taz Hot]

44. It's really close to passing

in California. SB-676 was kicked back to committee for some tweaking but it should be back on the floor by July. This actually already passed committee and the legislature TWICE but Ahnie vetoed it. Ahnie's not here anymore. :evilgrin: Legalization will also be on the ballot again in 2012.

[harmonicon]

23. Who drew this up? A stoned 15 year old?

Cannabis is certainly addictive. If it wasn't, I wouldn't know so many people who are addicted to it.
Anti-depressant? Hardly. Technically, THC is a mild hallucinogen, but has the effects of a depressant (gee! maybe that's why it makes me sleepy!).
Cures cancer?! Whoa... back up the train. That's just nuts.
Zero deaths in history? I guess if you don't count people getting into accidents because they're stoned, or the insanely harmful effects of breathing smoke into your lungs. I suppose the plants don't actually jump out of the ground and kill people. If that's what you mean, then, yeah, zero deaths.
How does pot save anyone money? I'm just stumped by that one. Police? Saves them money? Huh?
No OD. Well, I guess 1/7 ain't bad.
Grows brain cells. What The Fuck?! Does it also, "open the third eye, man!"?

[Mister Ed]

40. Can't argue with you when you're right.

I hate to be a buzzkill, but honestly, the claims made in that chart are absurd.

That said, it's equally absurd that cannabis is illegal while so deadly a drug as alcohol is legal.

[harmonicon]

41. No shit.

I'm in the minority that thinks all drugs should be legal, but especially pot. I just wish people would make reasoned arguments about it instead of making ridiculous claims with no backing. I think the most simple argument is that we're adults and can do what we want with our bodies.

I smoke every day. I know that the nicotine helps with concentration and short term memory. However, I don't think that's why cigarettes should be legal. I think cigarettes should be legal because I like to smoke them, and what I smoke is no one else's business. I drink almost every week, but again, it's not the health benefits of alcohol that make me glad that it's legal.

[Speed8098]

42. Addicitve my ass

I don't usually put my personal life out here for everyone to see, but your post just sent me through the roof.

:mad: Nothing makes me more angry than people talking shyte about things they know nothing about. Let me clue you in my friend. I was a 30 year smoker however due to some high profile construction projects I am project managing I had to quit since they choose to piss test me and my union brothers who work on these sites.

Remember, I said 30 YEARS. when I put it down I suffered no side effects whatsoever. NONE, NADA, not a freaking thing. This isn't anecdotal evidence as you've chosen to post. Cannabis is certainly addictive. If it wasn't, I wouldn't know so many people who are addicted to it., this is FIRSTHAND PERSONAL experience, not to mention that I've seen many friends grow older and just lose interest in getting high and none of them suffered side effects at all.

Do me a favor, educate yourself before you come into this forum and make statements you know nothing about: http://norml.org/index.cfm

Zero deaths in history? I guess if you don't count people getting into accidents because they're stoned
I challenge you to justify that statement with one, that's right ONE reliable source that backs up your claim that someone was killed or died in an accident due to only smoking pot. You can't do it and I'll tell you why. If you smoke a joint today and I test you tomorrow you will show THC metabolites in your system. That 18 pack of beer might be out of your system but the THC remains. How long THC stays in your system depends on many things, body fat being one of them.

Cures cancer?! Whoa... back up the train. That's just nuts.
Nuts??? read this:Investigators are also studying the anti-cancer activities of cannabis, as a growing body of preclinical and clinical data concludes that cannabinoids can reduce the spread of specific cancer cells via apoptosis (programmed cell death) and by the inhibition of angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels). Arguably, these latter findings represent far broader and more significant applications for cannabinoid therapeutics than researchers could have imagined some thirty or even twenty years ago. http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7002

How does pot save anyone money? I'm just stumped by that one. Police? Saves them money? Huh?
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/64465/
(snip)Why $42 billion? Because that's what our current marijuana laws cost American taxpayers each year, according to a new study by researcher Jon Gettman, Ph.D. -- $10.7 billion in direct law enforcement costs, and $31.1 billion in lost tax revenues. And that may be an underestimate, at least on the law enforcement side, since Gettman made his calculations before the FBI released its latest arrest statistics in late September. The new FBI stats show an all-time record 829,627 marijuana arrests in 2006, 43,000 more than in 2005.

Do your homework before you come here and try to minimize the FACTS. All you do with posts like yours is make yourself look uninformed.

[Le Taz Hot]

46. +1

Excellent rebuttal. Notice that the prohibitionist claimants never provide legitimate links, but they "know" all about it. :eyes:

[spooked911]

48. Pot is CERTAINLY addictive

It's dumb to say otherwise. It's at least as addictive as alcohol is, to the right person.

[Le Taz Hot]

54. Actually, one might be unread if one thinks pot is addictive.

Baltimore, MD: The results of a recent study from Johns Hopkins University suggesting that quitting cannabis can trigger withdrawal symptoms as severe as those associated with quitting cigarettes are based on subjective reports from only twelve individuals, and are in sharp contrast to findings reported previously by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM).

The widely reported study, published last week in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence, evaluated the behavior patterns of twelve participants selected at random to cease their use of marijuana and tobacco for five days. Participants reported their symptoms using a checklist that indicated scores for anger, aggression, anxiety, appetite change, irritability, restlessness, sleep difficulty, and other common withdrawal symptoms. Investigators found that subjects reported experiencing withdrawal symptoms of a similar nature and magnitude regardless of whether they were abstaining from tobacco or cannabis. "These results … suggest cannabis withdrawal is clinically important," researchers concluded.

By contrast, previous studies published by the Institute of Medicine and others have consistently reported that cannabis lacks the severe physical and psychological dependence liability associated with other common intoxicants, such as alcohol, cocaine, and tobacco. According to the IOM, among those individuals who use tobacco, 32 percent at some point in their lives meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of "drug dependence." By comparison, 23 percent of heroin users, 17 percent of cocaine users, and 15 percent of alcohol users meet the criteria for drug dependence.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7515&wtm_format=print

[rbnyc]

59. There's a big difference between trying to quit a substance that is...

physically addictive and one that is psychologically addictive. I have helped loved ones quite alcohol, heroin, nicotine and pot. The things that happen to your body when you try to quit alcohol, heroin and nicotine truly do complicate matters intensely. With pot, it's just a mental challenge. Trying to quit pot is like trying to watch less TV or do more exercise. It's not necessarily easy, but you don't have to manage physical withdrawal.

Heroin has been by far the most dangerous substance that has ever had an impact on someone I love, and the most dramatic from which to withdraw. Alcohol was rough. Nicotine is the one with the biggest relapse factor. In my experience, pot has really been no big deal.

I'm not saying that there are no adverse effects of using (especially smoking) pot. But it's not physically addictive and that does make a big difference if a regular user decides to and is ready to quit or cut back.

EDIT: typo

P.S. I am in favor of legalization.

[otohara]

67. Then How Come

Several people I know who smoke and travel quite a bit, can leave the weed at home and travel to Asia, etc....with out problems, withdrawals?

Wouldn't an addict just stay in the US?

[dotymed]

70. I think it is "psychologically addictive."

I have a brother, who is a wonderful "old hippie." He smokes daily. It is common knowledge in our family and has been for years.

When he is out of pot, he doesn't sleep as well and he gets a little grumpy. Nothing compared to me and my cigarettes though. He has used weed for about 40 years and he is universally liked by almost everyone.

[Occulus]

74. No, it's not.

Period.

[EOTE]

92. Yeah, sure it is. Just as addictive as alcohol.

Of course, you can actually DIE from alcohol withdrawal if you're addicted enough. After several years of daily marijuana use, you give it up cold turkey and you might have a slight problem sleeping the first night. If you honestly think that pot is "at least as addictive as alcohol", you are in some serious need of education. The two aren't even in the same league in terms of addiction. Now, if you're going to try to play with the wiggle room introduced by you saying "to the right person", well ANYTHING is addictive to the right person, including styrofoam cups. So that little bit of information means precisely nothing.

[Fly by night]

107. Not according to NIDA research which ranks cannabis at the bottom of addictive substances.

Their research, confirmed with the annual adult household surveys of substance use, indicate that about 15% of alcohol users become dependent on it, while the percentage for cannabis users is around 4%.

You're absolutely right re: the withdrawal effects. Having run an alcohol detox center, I have seen patients near death on numerous occasions from alcohol withdrawal. I've never even admitted a single patient for cannabis withdrawal nor heard of such an admission in any treatment center anywhere on this planet.

[phleshdef]

94. That depends on what you mean by addictive.

I can most certainly tell you that marijuana is not addictive in such a way that if you stop doing it, you go into severe physical withdrawal. Thats the kind of addictive people need to be worried about.

Is it addictive in that, if you enjoy it, you tend to want to make a habit of it for your own enjoyment? Then yea, that much might be true. In that regard, its no different than sex, video games, netflix or music.

[haele]

136. A person with a personality disorder and a pre-disposition to addictive behavior may seem

"addicted" to Pot if that's what they need as an excuse for not developing real coping skills. I mean the few borderline sociopaths who have problems dealing with the fact that they are no longer precious snowflakes mommy and daddy have been protecting and still have anger issues they're too lazy to work out.
Pot just lets them feel less guilty about sitting around doing nothing but what they want to do while life passes them by because they can claim to be "depressed" when faced with having to take action when they don't want to.

I've known and worked with people with actual PTSD, various levels of disorders in the Autism spectrum, as well as levels of bipolar and clinical depression, and there is a distinct difference between an immature, self-centered adult and a self-medicator with a real problem.

It's always the few that abuse a beneficial system or product that f*** it up for everyone else, because those are the few idiots that agenda-driven political hacks and profiteers use for propaganda.

As for actual physical issues, there are still some concerns about adverse reactions between cert iain types of Bi-Polar and Schizophrenia and Marijuana. But that sort of issue exists for a lot of other perfectly legal substances that you can buy in a grocery store and some people, and is not really grounds for keeping it a controlled substance.

Haele

[Fly by night]

51. Thanks. These days, pro-marijuana policy reform OPs really attract the no-nothings around here.

BTW, anyone who still smokes tobacco these days (as the nay-sayer you responded to admitted he/she does) does so for three reasons (and three reasons only):

1) They are pluperfectly stupid.
2) They are addicted to a substance that is harder to kick than heroin.
3) They want to help save Social Security by dying before they can collect it.

Once again, thanks for responding to the numb-nuts. They wear me out with their whack-a-mole omniprescence on pro-pot threads here.

[dotymed]

72. I'd hate to be a "no-nothing."

:bounce:

[Fly by night]

101. Yes indeedy. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, as are the very informative OPs ...

... on medical cannabis that are posted regularly here at DU. The people in this thread who are the more persietent nay-sayers must maintain that position only by failing to read anything (anything) posted for their benefit here or anywhere else.

Whenever I run across them here (and there's nothing like a pro-medical cannabis thread to wake them up), I am reminded of the H.L. Mencken quote: "Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced" and the one from Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

[Fly by night]

198. I know, I know .... Don't worry, dotymed, you'll always be a "yes-something" to me.

[harmonicon]

153. I'm a numb-nuts now? Thanks, dude.

Now I feel really great about giving a shit about your legal troubles. It's great that you got me to care about that, but you just want me to die. Thanks, buddy.

[Fly by night]

155. I don't know who you are or what engendered this response, but ...

...whatever. Seriously.

I don't recognize your handle so I don't have a single clue who you are. Did you change your name here? If so, why?

And anyone who calls me "dude" automatically loses 20 points in whatever game we're playing.

[harmonicon]

157. I used to like you. Oh well. nt.

[Fly by night]

160. Once again ...who are you?

And what in my posts offended you?

If someone I don't know or recognize here gets offended and fails to explain why, well that's just so many random, irrelevant pixels.

If you have something substantive to say, well, I'm all eyes. Go for it.

[harmonicon]

162. Is this not offensive?:

"anyone who still smokes tobacco these days (as the nay-sayer you responded to admitted he/she does) does so for three reasons (and three reasons only):

1) They are pluperfectly stupid.
2) They are addicted to a substance that is harder to kick than heroin.
3) They want to help save Social Security by dying before they can collect it.

Once again, thanks for responding to the numb-nuts."


I do smoke tobacco. I do it because I'm an adult and I can decide what to do with my body, which is also why I think marijuana and other drugs should be legal. I really don't think I'm that stupid, either. What I do think is stupid is all of the bull-shit, anti-intellectual reasoning that I see around here about how pot is some kind of god damned miracle. It's a drug that does different things, like lots of drugs do. It's not a god damn unicorn generator, and I don't think I'm a "numb nuts" for pointing that out.

As for who I am... that's what profiles are for. I keep a pretty low profile around here, so I'm not surprised that you wouldn't recognize my screen name.

[Fly by night]

174. Well at least now I know what you're upset about.

I don't care what you do with your body. I expect you know that your nicotine habit will take (on average) eight years off your life (closer to twelve if you're female). If you're like seven out of ten tobacco smokers, you've tried at least once (unsuccessfully) to quit. I know how tough all of that is because a big chunk of my professional career has been involved in public health education efforts to reduce tobacco use. We've made much progress but we obviously have a ways to go.

I still don't have a clue who you are. We've never interacted here before, and likely we won't again. Sorry if the unvarnished truth hurts. Believe me, it hurts less than having your tongue or lungs cut out while you're still young or living the last three to five years of your life hooked to an oxygen tank. That describes two of my neighbors, both younger than me, neither of whom will live to be my age. (I expect both to be dead in a matter of a few months.)

I do agree that cannabis is not a unicorn generator. However, I also believe it is safe, effective, non-addictive medicine for a host of medical conditions; and I hope one day our government gets that.

Good luck to you and your body, whoever you are. Sorry if I offended you.

[harmonicon]

178. We've interacted here before, just not a lot.

There are people on this board who would just as soon I off myself than keep smoking. What bothered me about your post was perceived hypocrisy. If you think marijuana should be legal, I don't think you should begrudge people who use other drugs, like nicotine.

Yes, I know my chances. My dad's been smoking for 50+ years, and still does. He's had to give up caffeine and most alcohol and other sugars in the past few years for health reasons, but not smoking. His aunt smoked until she was 90. On other other hand, I had a good friend die of lung cancer 20 years after quitting smoking when he first lost a lung to the disease. I've also had very young friends die of other cancers and different diseases, smokers or not. I take my chances and live my life how I see fit, and that's all I want for others. I don't smoke much pot (on average, maybe once a year), but have no problem with others doing so.

Apart from the larger legalization issue, pot should certainly be legal for medical reasons. For Christ's sake, opiates are. Where would our medical treatment be without them?

Best of luck to you and your completely unjustified persecution. I really do hope that it works out.

[Occulus]

181. I still think the two of you are talking past each other n/t

[Occulus]

163. I think he meant "any of the three"

"2) They are addicted to a substance that is harder to kick than heroin. "

Applies to me, and apparently, you as well.

(I'll be charitable to both of you: I think you took that wrong. And I think Fly by Night accidentally wasn't completely clear.)

[Recursion]

64. *spewing water that was so funny*

Let me clue you in my friend. I was a 30 year smoker

That is literally a Richard Pryor joke, about cocaine.

"Addictive? I've been doing cocaine 30 years and I ain't addicted..."

[Occulus]

76. Still true, though.

Plenty of people I know personally have dropped cannabis from one day to the next with no ill effects and no particular desire to use after.

It's just not addictive.

[Recursion]

79. Yes, yes, you can quit any time you want to

I'm for legalization, but I'm sick of having to keep a straight face when friends try to act like the shit is good for you. It's yet another way to feel good when you otherwise wouldn't; none of those are harm-free except for exercise.

[Occulus]

81. Only those who want to keep it illegal make THAT claim.

Nobody who actually uses the stuff claims it is "good for you". The only direction I ever hear that claim is from the anti-cannabis crowd.

The science doesn't lie. The data has been accumulating for decades that cannabis actually does have some very interesting medical properties that, in sum, make for very compelling reasons to legalize it.

I would suggest you read studies concerned with the effect of certain cannabinoids and other chemicals present in cannabis on cancer tumors, as well as new studies suggesting that chemicals in cannabis may actually promote new cell growth in the brain.

Nearly everything you "know" about cannabis is propaganda, and lots of it is on this thread. The common "wisdom" regarding this plant is, simply put, mostly wrong.

[Recursion]

109. Did you read the OP? "Cures cancer", etc. (nt)

[Occulus]

117. Did you read the science?

Tumor apoptosis and angiogenesis inhibition.

[Recursion]

121. The PCD is questionable at best

Like I said, it's the sort of data-fudging I expect from pharma, and it doesn't reassure me when "the good guys" do it. (And I'm particularly worried about Brown & Williamson or RJR getting their hands on weed.)

[Occulus]

123. Ah, the old tobacco company canard.

Not gonna bite; unlike tobacco, cannabis can grow under all climates in the US.

Try again.

[Recursion]

126. I'm not sure you know what "canard" means...

But, no, I'm not going to "try again", I'm worried about what they will do if they start marketing it, and "try again" isn't a serious answer. And why is it so damn important to you that I personally have a positive feeling about this particular drug? I don't like using it, it makes me feel like shit, and I don't like what it does to my friends when they use it. None of that makes me want to outlaw it, but why do you care so much what I think about it?

[Occulus]

132. Because you and others are spewing untruths all over this topic.

You claim you don't want it illegal, but every single one of your posts on the subject either downplays the medical benefits, dismisses the actual scientific research, or dodges the historical evidence that this is in no way intrinsically harmful to people if they wish to use it. Each and every time you talk about cannabis, you go out of your way to minimize the potential benefits, be they medical, social, or economic.

FOR EXAMPLE:

"I got into coke through my pot contacts (thank God... it's a much better drug for me, at least...)"

When you were responding to my post about cannabis not being a gateway drug.

"I don't know that causing neoplasms in the brain should be marketed as a good thing."

When responding- again, to my post- on the topic of brain cell growth.

"I've read both of those initial studies (a)nd they're pretty weak sauce"

When responding on the subject of cellular apoptosis and angiogenesis inhibition.

Your claims about your feelings on cannabis legalization do not at all match your posts on the subject of the potential benefits and I no longer believe you are here to have a serious discussion.

You aren't alone; your opinions on the subject are all over this thread, posted by you and others. For example, the tobacco company canard (yes, I'm using the word properly, says the dictionary). It is an unfounded rumor or speculation that tobacco companies will somehow make cannabis more harmful if they were to market it. There's no need to do so; any cannabis crop would be of inherent economic value as harvested, without processing or additives. Furthermore, since anyone, anywhere can grow it themselves (it's a weed, after all), there would be no real need to buy it from such a source.

As I said- canard.

[Recursion]

143. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

OK, that one was hilarious...

tobacco companies will somehow make cannabis more harmful if they were to market it. There's no need to do so; any cannabis crop would be of inherent economic value as harvested, without processing or additives.

OK, that one really killed me. Yes, of course they wouldn't increase the THC content, or add nicotine, or genetically engineer God knows what to make people smoke it more. Our fine friends at RJR learned their lesson :eyes:

[Occulus]

145. I didn't say they couldn't.

I said they wouldn't need to. And they would very likely be caught doing so. And people would remember wheat they did and said about tobacco.

And what works for tobacco won't necessarily work for cannabis, and people will be able to currently available medical strains from groups other than tobacco companies.

Because of those things, they might not get into the business at all. They'd probably make more money growing hemp- and if they did, and engineered the shit out of it to make it hardier and stronger of fibre (not likely because it's very unnecessary), I'd have no problem with that because you don't smoke industrial hemp.

And if tobacco companies engineered their cannabis to have a higher THC content there's nothing wrong with that, as THC is not toxic in the first place.

[Recursion]

148. Oh, I sincerely doubt that

And what works for tobacco won't necessarily work for cannabis, and people will be able to currently available medical strains from groups other than tobacco companies.

Doubtful. If it gets legalized it all gets handed over to the big corporations, immediately, and we still won't be able to grow our own. Remember how K street works.

And if tobacco companies engineered their cannabis to have a higher THC content there's nothing wrong with that, as THC is not toxic in the first place.

Yeah, nothing could possibly go wrong...

[Occulus]

158. This is all speculation anyway.

The fact is, the vast majority of people who want it can get it already and will continue to do so from sources they already know. Making it legal will only allow those sources to grow it openly.

You're forgetting that growing cannabis isn't exactly rocket science. If you know what you're doing, it's fairly easy to grow good stuff yourself, and it's not at all hard to learn. We have tobacco companies instead of home tobacco gardens because tobacco is actually quite hard to grow (and you have to cure it under specific conditions before you can use it).

As I mentioned before, this is a weed, an herb, and a hardy one at that. I really don't think the tobacco companies will jump on the bandwagon as much as you seem to believe they will, and if they do, I don't think they'll make much money doing it, especially since their names are already somewhat tarnished.

I've known plenty of people who smoke cannabis and not tobacco; the two don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. I know they wouldn't buy cannabis from a tobacco company, and I suspect most others who smoke cannabis and not tobacco feel the same way.

[harmonicon]

172. It would all depend on the laws.

With so much attention going to the potential tax revenue that could be generated by legalizing marijuana, I'm afraid that it would become big business very quickly. While home brewing is legal, that's not how most people get their beer, and a home brewer can't legally sell their beer either. For pro-business reasons, home distillation is still illegal. We do not have a good track record on this stuff.

I think it would be good to have a law much like the Czechs do. I don't remember the exact details, but the last time I was there was the first since they'd changed the law. It's not exactly legal, but it's not criminal either. Anyone can grow enough for themselves (x number of plants), and it's not illegal to smoke. Growing it for distribution or selling it is still illegal there though.

[Occulus]

180. If citizens are allowed to grow for personal use, the business market could flourish

Bear in mind that we are not talking about a hard-to-grow plant. Growing cannabis is as simple as growing a weed. It's an herb, and a hardy one. Anyone can grow "just cannabis", given soil, water, and sun. If they want good cannabis, they need seeds from a good strain. That's about as hard as growing heirloom tomatoes. But again, it's hardy, so growing "good" cannabis might be easier than that.

Home brewers cannot legally sell their beer, but they're most certainly able to give it away. I have personally known many people who have brewed their own beer on occasion, and enjoyed some of it myself. One person I knew once made an apple beer that was so good everyone who had it was telling him to get a license to sell it. That was awesome beer, 100% unique to this one guy, and I'm happy I was able to have a bottle of it.

I want to see cannabis allowed for commercial sale during my lifetime as beer, wine, and liquor are today. Growing cannabis for personal use is something very much like brewing one's own beer (or growing one's own produce), and as many of us already know, microbrew beers can be very, very good indeed. I don't really see a need to block off a microfarm market for cannabis; we should apply the exact same licensing regulations to cannabis farms that we do to microbreweries. Under such laws, there would be no real need to tightly regulate the amount of THC per plant; a label should certainly exist, but again, that's all we ask of beer, too.

For proof, I offer Bell's Brewery, in Kalamazoo, MI. This company brews some very good beer (among the most popular, Bell's Oberon Ale, a strictly summer brew, which is very well-liked among the locals). If I wanted to start a microfarm, the same laws that apply to Bell's should apply to me.

[harmonicon]

186. Bell's is one of my favourite breweries.

If only Oberon was still a strictly summer brew. Remember when it was called Sol Sun and only came in 22s? Those were the days. Each year's batch was different from the last.

The thing is, Bell's also had legal problems with the state of Illinois and wasn't allowed to distribute there for awhile. Then (still?), they were distributed by Anheuser Busch, which made it far more wide-spread, which I guess is good, but also took away from some of the local appeal.

I'm just afraid that you're too optimistic about what could happen with marijuana legalization. I think it would be marketed (if only on the sly), and companies would try to sell as much as possible. Small growers would be pushed out of the market, and home growers (if that were legal, which I bet would be banned, and people would accept that as compromise) would have their abilities to do so greatly curtailed.

The problem, as I see it, is that even most Democrats who are pro-legalization are also pro-corporation, and they'd get far more donations from big business than they would from individuals.

[harmonicon]

151. I'm plenty informed.

For starters, you do realize that there are different kinds of addiction, right? Marijuana is addictive as much as many other things are, though it may not come with certain physical side effects. The statement was not that marijuana is not chemically addictive, but simply that it's not addictive. There's a big difference there.

About the deaths from accidents thing... I guess I could look that up for you, but I can't be bothered. More importantly, have you heard of things like lung cancer and emphysema? It's not the nicotine in tobacco causing those diseases. Smoking pot does the same shit to your body as smoking cigarettes, but contains even more tar.

For the cancer cure thing... man, you're clutching at straws. One study does not a fact make.

Saving money: I think this just proves that a high person drew up the chart. Yes, I of course agree that legalizing marijuana would save most governments an awful lot of money. I guess stoners aren't always the most articulate about meaning.

I am all for the legalization of marijuana. I'm just even more against the wide-spread acceptance of bullshit.

[Occulus]

159. "Smoking pot does the same shit to your body as smoking cigarettes, but contains even more tar."

Your cluephone is ringing. I believe it's someone in Clueistan calling to tell you you don't have to smoke it at all.

There are TWO kinds of addiction; physical addition, and psychological addiction. Examples of physical addiction include the habitual use of any drug which, upon cease of use, cause serious withdrawal symptoms (i.e., heroin, meth, or alcohol); psychological addiction involves behavioral alterations (i.e., anxiety, sleeplessness, irritability, stress). These do not necessarily go hand in hand; a person who drinks six bottles of Mountain Dew a day might exhibit "the shakes" if they can't get their soda; a person who drinks a pot of coffee in the morning might be less pleasant to be around through the morning.

If you're talking about psychological addiction to cannabis, my reply is that it is no more severe than going without your morning coffee or your afternoon soap opera. You might have a little trouble getting to sleep, and you might be a little bit irritable, but those symptoms of "withdrawal" are so benign and transient that they shouldn't be considered as reasons or as contribution to reasons for keeping cannabis illegal in any way.

[harmonicon]

166. When did I ever suggest that cannabis should be illegal?

I'm 100% for the complete legalization of it. I think it should be as legal as the coffee and cigarettes that I have in my house right now. I need at least a cup of coffee every day to feel ok, and I don't begrudge anyone who needs a joint every day to feel the same. I just think that it wouldn't hurt for them to admit that it's an addiction. I'm not ashamed to be addicted to coffee and nicotine. I'm an adult, and these are choices that I've made.

[Occulus]

184. You didn't.

I was snarkily using the editorial "you" after the first sentence (you really don't have to smoke it; you can vape it or cook out the cannabinoids into butter and use it that way- mmm, brownies).

You're not to blame; that's hard to get across in writing online and I just wasn't deft enough. Sorry about that.

What we're doing now is venturing from the realm of addiction into the realm of vice, which is a little bit different. Coffee and soap operas, to me, don't equal 'addiction' in the drug war sense of the word.

I have a collection of video games ranging from the early 1990s to, well, yesterday (as of this writing). Am I addicted to video games?

[harmonicon]

185. You may be addicted. I don't know.

I think it would depend on how you handle being away from it. If I go a day without a cigarette or some caffeine, I start to go a bit nuts. I also start to get a bit loopy if I go a few days away from the internet, but they're different things. I'd still wager that I'm addicted to all three. I suppose when something gets in the way of other things - or takes priority over other things - in your life, it may be addicting. I'm no psychologist though.

[rbnyc]

57. Not physically addictive...

However, someone would have to work pretty hard to prove that it is an anti-depressant, that it cures cancer or that it grows brain cells.

Anecdotal evidence is really meaningless, but regarding the addictive factor, I'll add mine. I have been addicted to a variety of physically addictive substances, the hardest of these to quit has been sugar! (I still struggle to keep my sugar consumption within healthy limits.) The second hardest was nicotine. (I haven't had a cigarette in almost 13 years, but it was a bitch!) From the ages of 15 to 30-something, I was a daily pot smoker. When I decided to start trying to get pregnant, I quit. I just quit. It was not difficult at all, and I had no physical side effects from going cold turkey.

[Occulus]

77. Looks like it may be true, actually.

In low doses, chemicals present in cannabis induce serotonin production; in high doses, the effect appears to reverse:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071023183937.htm

Cannabinoids may promote new cell growth in the brain:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8155-marijuana-might-cause-new-cell-growth-in-the-brain.html

[rbnyc]

146. Cool.

Thanks for links.

[Occulus]

161. Bear in mind, that's in rats.

The possibility that it may be true in humans is definitely worthy of further study, though. That can only happen if pertinent research can be legally done, and right now, that isn't exactly the case.

[Occulus]

73. Wrong, wrong, and more wrong.

Cannabis is not addictive, except perhaps psychologically. In that sense, it's as addictive as coffee, but (unlike even coffee) does not involve withdrawal symptoms beyond a temporary restlessness when trying to sleep and slight irritability; certainly, the withdrawal symptoms, if any, are less pronounced than those of, say, nicotine.

Cannabis is clinically known to induce apoptosis in cancer cells. That means it can make some tumors kill themselves.

Cannabis has never been the direct cause of death due to overdose. It is not possible to ingest enough cannabis to kill you. Further, cannabis smoke is not ingested at the same rate as cigarette smoke, nor as often. Even if it were, it is possible to use cannabis without ever smoking it.

Cannabis smoke is known to dilate bronchial tubes. Cigarette smoke does the reverse. Again, cannabis smoke is not ingested in the same way, nor with the same frequency, as tobacco smoke.

Legalizing cannabis would save the public millions of dollars per year in enforcement and incarceration costs. Police would be able to concentrate on violent crime and hard drugs (such as meth) and the public would not have to spend money on otherwise innocent people.

[kestrel91316]

87. I have smoked plenty of cannabis. Never experienced ANY

hallucinogenic effects of any kind.

Do you just repeat crap you read on the internet??

[harmonicon]

156. I know that it has few hallucinogenic effects.

I'm not just repeating crap that I heard on the internet. I've done plenty of drugs myself, and generally like to know how they operate before I take them. The fact is, marijuana is classified as a hallucinogen. That's just a classification. A hallucinogen doesn't necessarily cause one to have what are conventionally considered to be hallucinations. That's just a difference between the scientific and popular uses of terminology. In any case, it certainly isn't an anti-depressant (which, by the way, is not a drug classification, but a prescribed usage for various types of drugs, thc not being one of them).

I guess you don't believe things on the internet, but I just did a two second search:
http://www.discoveriesinmedicine.com/Enz-Ho/Hallucinogens.html
"Marijuana and hashish, two substances derived from the hemp plant (Cannabis sativa), are also considered natural hallucinogens, although their potency (power) is very low when compared to others"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)
"While many drugs clearly fall into the category of either stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogen, cannabis exhibits a mix of all properties, perhaps leaning the most towards hallucinogenic or psychedelic properties, though with other effects quite pronounced as well."

Marijuana is effectively, however, classified as a depressant, though, like alcohol, it can at times have stimulating effects.

[fascisthunter]

191. Anyone having hallucinations after smoking pot probably smoked a batch laced

I have smoked pot (high grade!) for many years and I have NEVER had an hallucination.

[bertman]

24. I worked it out. I'm saying Legalize the herb that grows in the ground.

A great book that explains the reasons we Americans can't seem to work this out:

Drugs: America's Holy War by Arthur Benavie.

REC.

[felix_numinous]

27. A very informative documentary

for this thread:
http://marijuanamovie.org/

[Danchi]

28. Chris Rock says...

Marijuana is illegal because only Brown People grow the best and you can't go around making Brown People Rich People.

[mac56]

30. +1

[defendandprotect]

31. Elites need to separate us all from nature -- it represents profits/wealth for them...

and knowledge which is power --

We're not allowed to have it -- !!

[RandomThoughts]

32. I have heard stuff like that before.

Specifically the phrase.

We're not allowed to have it

Do you know what that phrase is?

A translation of the spirit of No. without explanation, without learning, just a statement of some edict, without reason, without sense.

Just a statement, as if it is true for some reason, without anything backing it up.

It is pure authoritarianism.

[defendandprotect]

129. Not clear on your postion -- however, it is capitalism exploitation of nature which brings profit...

the pounding down of natural resources -- oil, gas, coal -- etal

And knowledge of nature -- i.e. plants are our drugs, our natural medicines - -

there are no medicines which aren't based on plants.

HEMP would be a tremendous advantage for the planet and ozone layer --

the oil could be used to replace gasoline --

Corporatism is fascism --

[matk]

39. Brain cells?

This is the first time I heard the "grows brain cells" thing. Does anyone have more information on that?

[nadine_mn]

45. I have never smoked pot yet I am all for legalizing it

My husband and I are the only two people I know who have never tried marijuana.

I was born in the 70's my mom and and dad both smoked pot (dear god, they were going to name me Sunshine).

However, alcoholism is rampant in my family - and I have seen the effects of it and the toll it takes.

I abused alcohol a lot in college and law school - and looked down my nose at pot users as losers because I believed all the lies and after all, alcohol is legal, pot isn't so there.

But I have grown older and wiser, now I only drink every now and then - a beer here, a glass of wine there. Alcohol is incredibly addicting, I have relatives that need to drink just to maintain a baseline level of sobriety.

Everything I have read indicates that marijuana is non-addictive and is a great in its medical benefits - that alone gives it the edge over alcohol.


I say legalize it

[TroglodyteScholar]

47. Cures cancer? Saves police billions? Grows brain cells?

I'm not against legalization, but it is a REAL stretch to make any of those claims with a straight face. I'd even say they're harmful to the cause because any half reasonable person would dismiss them outright.

[immoderate]

71. "...reasonable people would dismiss them outright."

:rofl:

Great definition of "reasonable."


--imm

[Occulus]

86. Once again,

http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=cannabis+antidepressant&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

and

http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=cannabis+tumor+apoptosis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Legalize it and police won't spend the money to arrest, cities, counties, and states won't spend the money to prosecute, and the public won't spend the money on incarceration. Billions saved; that's just basic math.

I am not at all amazed or surprised by the ignorance on this thread.America and the rest of the world have been served propaganda regarding cannabis for decades.

What you need to remember is that most of what you "know" about cannabis is just plain wrong.

[TroglodyteScholar]

201. Throw around terms like "ignorant" all you like. It won't gain you any converts.

Making a dishonest argument based on oversimplified characterizations of the facts only hurts the cause. Stop it.

[rosesaylavee]

49. I am for legalizing MJ however I think this graph is wrong

In my experience, it does cause depression in frequent users and I have seen addiction to it. Would like to see the proof it grows brain cells as the people I have known who use it on a regular basis have balance issues and concentration problems.

That all said, I can say worse about alcohol addiction. Denying people the use of either doesn't work. Individuals need to figure out what moderate usage is.

[RainDog]

204. here's a link for you to read

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1366538&mesg_id=1378928

doctors have long listed cannabis as an antidepressant b/c of its mood-elevating qualities. Those doctors in the U.S. who have done the most research into this substance refer to it as an antidepressant.

There is now research that indicates the way in which it may function like an SSRI to alleviate depression - doctors also do not know the exact way that SSRIs function but they can demonstrate the way in which the brain seems to respond in ways that may indicate the route by which it and cannabis alleviate depression (and also the way it may help PTSD sufferers as well.)

[Harriety]

52. I'm putting this on a T-shirt. I have friends who keep saying...

that booze is the only safe recreational drug they will partake in. One friend has even gone through counseling with advice from her diabetic husband, who's heavily into booze. He'd insisted she not EVER smoke pot again as it was ruining their marriage. My other friend started smoking cigarettes again and made a vow to stay away from pot. She has a lot of problems with her lungs and no insurance but cigarettes are the lesser of two evils for her she said, as they are not as addictive. Oh.... What a world!

[midnight]

53. Thanks Kpete for working this out... I wonder ,though, how

you come to the conclusion that it,Marijuana, saves police and NHS billions?

[Pooka Fey]

55. I support decriminalization, but I agree that this graph is wrong.

I know from MUCH anecdotal experience that pot use can result in depression among a not insignificant portion of users. It also can mask depression, making depression sufferers calm enough to just "get through the day" without ever really treating the underlying cause of their depression and thus they needlessly continue to suffer. It also absolutely causes concentration problems and diminishes a person's motivation - again anecdotal experience - tons of mine and those in my circle.

It also is absolutely psychologically addictive. Anything that delivers a predictable result resulting in pleasure can produce a psychological addiction - and the damage can be more severe for family members than an eating disorder, for example. Compulsive eating doesn't make you high like pot does, and doesn't diminish your reaction time like pot does making driving under the influence dangerous to family members and others.

Any smoking can result in throat, mouth or lung cancer, so the "cures cancer" line is just pro-pot propaganda. Smoking also dries up the mucus membranes in the mouth giving bacteria a better avenue to infect the teeth and gums, which is in turn linked to heart disease. Undeniable. Yes you minimize the hazards by using a bong or a vaporizer.

Zero deaths in history - you're taking in a chemical toxin, THC, which the body and the liver need to cleanse from the organism - just like alcohol is a toxin. Smoking anything is not an activity which figures among a "healthy lifestyle". Nor is reliance on a chemical to make life's troubles easier to deal with - that goes equal for booze.

I agree that we waste billions on the drug war. No OD - well, I've seen people and had to take care of them who couldn't walk upright on their own two feet after smoking hash, in order to experience the pleasure of getting high. Sure, they won't die from it, but I prefer to have people around me who can carry their own weight in life. Yes, they could also die from drinking too much however an alcoholic usually dies slowly over many years, and same comment applies there about the virtue of carrying your own body weight in life (unless you are suffering from a terminal illness or chronic pain, of course) I am talking about "chemical dependents" here, people, not someone with a medical condition.

Grows brain cells? I have never met a chronic who I considered more interesting and intelligent than a normal, funny, "boring" non-party person.

And I absolutely support medical marijuana for cancer sufferers and chronic pain sufferers who can't otherwise find relief - certainly that has to be a decision between a doctor and a patient made in a medical setting. And for those who can smoke occasionally and do not feel they are addicted, they should certainly be free to find pot without worrying about going to jail, fer heavens sakes - so I support decriminalization, absolutely.

[teewrex]

58. I'm all for legailizing it but...extended use does cause stupidity

seen too many long term user friends who can't remember a thing

[Recursion]

62. I'm for legalizing it if it means I don't have to listen to my stoner friends...

...talk for hours and hours on end about how it should be legal.

[harmonicon]

173. I think you just won this thread. nt.

[Deep13]

60. Um, grows brain cells and cures cancer?

Bullshit. I agree it is useful in helping cancer patients tolerate their therapy and there is some information out there that it may have some chemotherapeutic properties itself, but it does not "cure cancer."

[Recursion]

65. A synthetic chemical similar to THC caused new brain cell growth in rats, possibly

However, even granting the study (Jiang et al, J Clin Invest 2005), I don't know that causing neoplasms in the brain should be marketed as a good thing.

[Recursion]

61. "Cures cancer"... "grows brain cells"

I suppose by the ridiculous standards pharma is held up to, those might just squeak through, but still...

[Occulus]

89. Go Google "cannabis tumor apoptosis" and "cannabis cell growth brain".

I think you may be surprised.

[phleshdef]

96. Even if it didn't have anti-cancer properties, it definately helps people get through chemotherapy.

[Recursion]

108. I'll do you one better; I've read both of those initial studies

And they're pretty weak sauce (the brain cell growth thing was a synthetic cannabanoid and the alpha was not very good). But, like I said, about as weak as the case pharma makes for a lot of their stuff.

[Occulus]

122. "both of those initial studies"

Um. You didn't read enough.

[LiberalArkie]

63. If you are in BIG Pharma and the Police Tech business, definitely keep pot illegal

[indepat]

69. A microcosm of the insanity of our national policy encapsulated in a single

graph. :patriot:

[Shagbark Hickory]

84. Nobody has every died from smoking cigarettes either. If you want to use that logic. nt

[Occulus]

88. Tobacco smoke is a direct cause of lung cancer.

Chemicals present in cannabis indicate promotion of apoptosis in tumors and also show inhibition of angiogenesis.

I'm sorry the science isn't going your way, but there it is.

(Studies also show that persons who smoke cannabis and tobacco have a lower cancer rate than those who smoke only tobacco. Again, I'm sorry the science doesn't go your way, but the truth is the truth.)

[Shagbark Hickory]

90. I'm not talking about the effects of smoking. I'm talking about the act of smoking.

Nobody's died smoking.
Like with cannibis, they die from the effects of it.

[tridim]

113. Who died from the effects of cannabis?

Got a link?

[Occulus]

128. BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH

You're not talking about the effects of smoking, but you then say people die from the effects of smoking?

:rofl:

So if I get hit by a car while I'm crossing the street to score a bag, pot killed me? Is that what you're saying?

The truth: cannabis use is not a direct cause of death and never has been. It is not a toxic substance, full stop.

Alcohol can kill directly if used in too large a quantity. By the way- so can both tap water and table salt. Additionally, performing dangerous actions while intoxicated on alcohol can cause accident and injury which themselves cause death. This occurs with far greater frequency than the same death or injury caused by taking part in dangerous actions while under the influence of cannabis. Furthermore, alcohol and cannabis do not affect the brain in the same ways at all.

The effects of cannabis do not directly kill you, full stop. It can't. It's actually physically impossible, given the ways cannabis is usually consumed. I suppose you could mainline concentrated THC if you really wanted to, but I don't know of anyone who has ever done so, nor have I ever read of it being done, or even heard of it.

I'm not going to play this semantic game with you any more. You know you're wrong; you know I'm right. Stop being intentionally thick and either accept the facts or GO AWAY.

[Shagbark Hickory]

138. Not quite. It's the same argument Big Cancer made for their cigarettes.

Oh but nobody's ever died from smoking. Technically, true.

They've died from lung cancer maybe but smoking, no.

Just the same as someone who snorted coke and jumps off a building, died as result of being high and not die from snorting.

I believe this was the point that 5th grade illustration was trying to make.

[Bobbie Jo]

85. K&R

:smoke:

[RyanPsych]

93. I agree with all of it except the "Grows Brain Cells"part

From what I remember of my neurophysiology courses, I thought that it expanded neural synapses (where neurons send messages)overtime which made them a little slower. And my professor was a big proponent of legalization she just hated the idea of it being smoked- inhaling smoke is bad for the lungs. Maybe not cancerous, but still not that great for them.

[malaise]

100. But ganja fills up the private prisons

Rec

[DreamSmoker]

102. Reality check

My God... This is a perfect example why Cannabis has not been legalized yet...
The Blatant ignorance is mind blowing on this..
NO Real Research has been done here in the United States since the DEA did it during Nixon's days in Office..
ITs against Federal Law...
All this negative crap here about addiction and any harm from Cannabis is old Bull and twice as ignorant.....
All the old negative aspects were and have been spun from Criminal Stats by design all these years.. So those stats are totally BIAS and wrong..
Anyone can now look up Facts about Cannabis online if they choose.. But most of those against its use choose to stay comfortably Ignorant and twice and Righteous...

[robinlynne]

105. right on! but grows brain cells?

[nonperson]

114. Here is more on the brain cell claim

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8155-marijuana-might-cause-new-cell-growth-in-the-brain.html

Marijuana might cause new cell growth in the brain

22:00 13 October 2005 by Kurt Kleiner

A synthetic chemical similar to the active ingredient in marijuana makes new cells grow in rat brains. What is more, in rats this cell growth appears to be linked with reducing anxiety and depression. The results suggest that marijuana, or its derivatives, could actually be good for the brain.

In mammals, new nerve cells are constantly being produced in a part of the brain called the hippocampus, which is associated with learning, memory, anxiety and depression. Other recreational drugs, such as alcohol, nicotine and cocaine, have been shown to suppress this new growth. Xia Zhang of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, and colleagues decided to see what effects a synthetic cannabinoid called HU210 had on rats' brains.

They found that giving rats high doses of HU210 twice a day for 10 days increased the rate of nerve cell formation, or neurogenesis, in the hippocampus by about 40%.

More at the link.

It took me about ten seconds to find that article in a Google search. I'm sure other claims made here can be searched just as easily by anyone who disagrees with them.

[robinlynne]

150. It wasn't about disagreeing. dont know if I can handle strong doses twice a day though.

wouldn't get much work done. I just found it funny, because the more you smoke, the less memory you have, really. it is anti-anxiety absolutely!

[fascisthunter]

170. THIS I didn't know about

thanks for the link...

[tridim]

120. Yep, that's what recent research is finding.

I know it doesn't agree with the Federal propaganda memos, but that's because the DEA and politicians are liars.

Cannabis doesn't make men grow breasts either.

[nonperson]

149. "Cannabis doesn't make men grow breasts either."

But I've heard the hops used in beer does!

[obxhead]

110. Pot is great, but it does not CURE cancer.

Lets be honest here please.

[nonperson]

118. OK, let's be honest

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-armentano/what-your-government-know_b_108712.html

Paul Armentano
Posted: June 24, 2008 04:20 PM

What Your Government Knows About Cannabis And Cancer -- And Isn't Telling You

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.

More at the link.

This search took me about as long as the one about growing brain cells. Don't people know how to search on Google? Or is it anti-Cannabis brainwashing that keeps them from typing a simple search term and hitting "Enter"?

[obxhead]

171. Obviously you can't read your own link used for argument.

I read the entire link. There is promising research in it. Growth has been slowed and stopped. OK, I'll give you that.

Now point out just one sentence or even one link from a medical source that shows cancer has been CURED with the use of pot or a derivative from it.

[nonperson]

189. Obviously you missed this part:

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.)

This is par for the course with Cannabis. Studies are done and kept secret. Findings are finally revealed. Promising findings. Then the government shuts down any further studies because they, like YOU, don't want positive benefits of Cannabis to be known. They'd rather shut down testing than plumb all of the myriad benefits of Cannabis. Because they're brainwashed like so many others and they're afraid their brainwashing will be proven wrong and their carefully constructed world where Cannabis is EVIL will fall apart if they're ever forced to accept science instead of their beloved brainwashing.

Signs are promising that Cannabis has an effect on tumors. How do we know if Cannabis doesn't actually cure cancer when the people who have usurped the power to permit further studies refuse to allow them? THIS IS THE PATTERN WITH CANNABIS IN THIS WACKY NATION. THE CANNABIS BRAINWASHING THAT PERMEATES THIS NATION PREVENTS THE FURTHER STUDY OF THIS POTENT AND BENEFICIAL DRUG BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SIMPLY IGNORANT AND TOO WORRIED THEIR LIES WILL ALL BE EXPOSED.

I predict in the not too distant future people will look back at this time, at this insane prohibition, at the governmental and bureaucratic refusal to allow science and medicine to determine the use of beneficial natural plants, and they'll think we must have all been insane to arrest and imprison millions of people for marijuana use.

People like you refuse to see that your insane attitude toward Cannabis is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because you're too brainwashed to consider anything that might explode your erroneous, carefully influenced perceptions and be forced to recognize the truth.

[obxhead]

194. Cured. Highlight a single line that says anything relating to a CURE.

I see massive doses paired with slowed growth.

I get it. I'm not against pot, but CURE is not a true statement when it comes to cancer. It helps, it's great, I love it anyway. I GET it, I really do.

You can not show me ANY study where pot is a CURE for cancer to date.

[nonperson]

192. That argument was also made in the article you read

You obviously missed this too:

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.

[obxhead]

195. For fucks sake.

You some how seem to think "possible" means it's a fact.

I'm for full legalization. I'm against misinformation.

[nonperson]

196. For your sake

Every drug on the market today for every illness started out somewhere in nature or was synthesized based on some substance in nature. Cannabis shows great promise in treatment of an unusually large number of diseases but the government won't even permit testing. Great your against misinformation but you're only playing to the folks whose misinformation is the cause of the problem in the first place.

[obxhead]

200. x

[pscot]

115. K&R

[yawnmaster]

116. If I grow more brain cells, will pot keep my head from exploding...or growing grotesquely big? eom

[Occulus]

164. The effect, if it is there, is miniscule.

The point is that it completely refutes the commonly-held belief that "smoking pot kills your brain cells". It doesn't, and may be actually the reverse.

[yawnmaster]

168. It might be miniscule, but I only have so much space in my head. I may have to mix pot and gin...

to keep my brain cells at a constant level.

[Occulus]

179. That might work.

Just don't operate any heavy machinery.

We joke about alcohol and what we do when we overuse it sometimes (and sometimes it's nothing to joke about at all), but the other night someone elsewhere mentioned teething and how to eliminate teething pain, and the old home remedy of rubbing a finger dipped in brandy on a teething infant's gums sprang to mind.

And then there's sterilization. Even alcohol, as it turns out, has its medical uses, and not just rubbing alcohol. Funny, that.

[sarcasmo]

119. Taxed should have been on the Legal side and not Taxed on the illegal side.

[Occulus]

167. Good point.

The Marihuana Tax Act. Spelling is correct! That's how they spelled it!

[sarcasmo]

206. We had the spelling discussion today. Us old school folks still spell it with a J.

[defendandprotect]

127. Well done -- another kr

[RoadRage]

165. Uh? What??

Look.. i have no problem with legalizing MJ.. I think it would save billions on the "war against drugs" that will never be won.

With that being said.. I think it ranks right up there with cigarettes. Should it be legal? Yeah! Do I want my kid smoking it? Hell no!

I'll accept the argument that Pot is no worse for you then cigs or beer.. but putting up a chart saying that it's "GREAT" is total BS, and isn't doing much for the cause.

[fascisthunter]

169. take time to read the info people are posting

while the wording may not seem realistic at first, it may once you do a little research.

[Occulus]

182. "I think it ranks right up there with cigarettes."

Smoking it, or using it?

The two are not coupled.

[nonperson]

190. Man, I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading here on a supposedly "progressive" forum

If I'm reading this kind of CRAP here it's little wonder this nation is so fucked up. If this is what supposedly "enlightened" people think regarding Cannabis just imagine what the idiots on the supposed opposite side of the political spectrum think.

Wake up people. You're being manipulated by a government that is far more interested in protecting corporate interests than it is in science, medicine, and the truth.

[RainDog]

202. I don't want your kid smoking it either

which is one reason it makes sense to legalize and regulate sales to keep it away from kids - it's easier for a kid to get pot than alcohol - tho someone who is determined will get either. that's part of growing up for some people - and if a kid smokes cannabis, it's no more likely to ruin his or her life than if a kid sneaks a cigarette or a drink - responsible adults do not allow kids to have access and deal with their own kids if they do decide to experiment when young.

however, if you read about the research into cannabis from people all over the world, the common refrain from scientists is that this substance is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco and, unlike alcohol or tobacco, has unique medical properties.

Cannabis was medicine all over the world for 3000 years. It is ONLY within the last 70 years or so that it has been illegal as medicine in the U.S. and this coincided with a racist push against Hispanics in this nation. You really need to get informed because, obviously, you're not.

If you think the information about cannabis doesn't help, that's because you're too stuck in your own prejudices to hear information and evaluate it. If you simply want to view cannabis as a recreational drug, that's your right - to limit your perception - but that doesn't make you right.

You know, one of the most amazing plants grows in my garden. It's a willow tree.

It's the basis for aspirin. It's an old remedy for pain via tea from the bark. Its use as an analgesic goes back thousands of years. Ancient Greeks and Syrians, as well as Native Americans, knew of the medicinal properties and used the willow as medicine long before a synthetic version was created in Europe.

Willow contains a natural rooting hormone that gardeners use to promote growth from cuttings.

It's a beautiful plant - in the winter the twisted limbs provide a stunning architectural landscape to contrast with snow. It's a great species to plant along riverbanks because it helps to contain soil - the root system interlaces, almost like a web to counteract the action of running water. Alexander Pope was amazed by the willow tree and thought it was such an amazing plant he begged for a stem send in a package from Spain which he then planted - the story goes this is the source of many willows in the UK. Willows make great natural fences - people can stick the stems of the willow into the ground and create a natural fence by interlacing the branches - just as the roots do in soil to contain erosion. People use it to create shelters - willow "gazebos" are wonderful in a garden - they provide shade, a place to read a book or look at the garden or meditate - willows have a "spiritual" component for some people in some religions - Judaism, Buddhism, and is sometimes used as a substitute for palms in Christian services. Wiccans think it is a guide to the afterlife. The Chinese thought using willow brooms "swept" evil spirits from one's home. It's mentioned in the Psalms "Upon the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and also cried in our remembering Zion. Upon the willows in the river's midst we hung our lyres."

Willow has long been used to create baskets, furniture (wicker), flutes...

The willow tree is one of the most amazing plants ever known to human kind.

It's great.

It's also legal. None of the claims I have just made is incorrect. You may not have known about them, but that doesn't make them wrong. If it were illegal, we'd hear the same attitudes toward willows that we see with cannabis - aspirin is actually capable of causing death, unlike cannabis. But we do not make this plant illegal b/c of this b/c we recognize that people have the right to grow this plant and enjoy it as they will. Why? Most likely b/c the pharmaceutical cos are already established as the source of a synthetic and most people don't bother to use the willow for other uses - but they can and many people do - they just don't have to urge others to get over their prejudices and let people live in peace with nature the way they choose. People who think the willow plant is great don't have to beg others not to put them in jail for no reason other than a desire to plant a garden and use the fruits of that garden as they will.

...or to allow R&D into the uses of willow as a medicinal product for those who can benefit from it.

Your pov is sort of sad, iow.

[hootinholler]

175. A little on the optimistic side

But there is a kernel of truth in each claim.

-Hoot

[hootinholler]

176. .

[nonperson]

193. How can we know if it's on the "optimistic side"

When the government refuses to permit Cannabis studies?

It's optimistic rather than proven fact because they're afraid to allow the studies to be conducted because they're afraid of the truth being revealed.

[Uncle Joe]

177. Kicked but too late to recommend.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[Matariki]

183. Grows brain cells?

Really? Tell me more....

[RainDog]

203. here's a report on a study that indicated brain cells increased by 40% in mammal experiments

The headline of the article says "may" increase brain cells - the research indicated neurogenesis in tests on rats - which are not, obviously, humans - but the study indicated a definite growth of brain cells with extremely high doses of synthetic THC. Another study with mice did not show the same result - the article doesn't mention the amount of THC used in the study to allow a comparison but that study accounts for the "may" in the article -

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8155-marijuana-might-cause-new-cell-growth-in-the-brain.html

Xia Zhang of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, and colleagues decided to see what effects a synthetic cannabinoid called HU210 had on rats' brains.

They found that giving rats high doses of HU210 twice a day for 10 days increased the rate of nerve cell formation, or neurogenesis, in the hippocampus by about 40%.

A previous study showed that the antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac) also increases new cell growth, and the results indicated that it was this cell growth that caused Prozac's anti-anxiety effect. Zhang wondered whether this was also the case for the cannabinoid, and so he tested the rats for behavioural changes.

When the rats who had received the cannabinoid were placed under stress, they showed fewer signs of anxiety and depression than rats who had not had the treatment. When neurogenesis was halted in these rats using X-rays, this effect disappeared, indicating that the new cell growth might be responsible for the behavioural changes.

The actual article is here: http://www.jci.org/articles/view/25509

The peer-reviewed journal article on the subject notes the potential value of this synthetic in relation to relief of clinical depression because SSRIs like Prozac work, in part, by neurogenesis in the hippocampus. This research undermines the belief that cannabis causes depression - or, like all other substances, may indicate that some people may respond positively and others negatively - as with penicillin or SSRIs.

The goal of the present study was to test the hypothesis that the potent synthetic cannabinoid HU210 is able to promote hippocampal neurogenesis, leading to the anxiolytic and antidepressant effects of cannabinoids. We demonstrate here that both HU210 and the endocannabinoid AEA promote proliferation of embryonic hippocampal NS/PCs without significant effects on their differentiation, resulting in more newborn neurons. The effects of HU210 on adult hippocampal neurogenesis were quantified in freely moving rats and were correlated with behavioral testing. We show that 1 month after chronic HU210 treatment, rats display increased newborn neurons in the hippocampal dentate gyrus and significantly reduced measures of anxiety- and depression-like behavior. Thus, cannabinoids appear to be the only illicit drug whose capacity to produce increased hippocampal newborn neurons is positively correlated with its anxiolytic- and antidepressant-like effects.

In addition to this study, the BBC reported on the potential benefits of cannabis for alzheimer's patients.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4286435.stm

Scientists showed a synthetic version of the compound may reduce inflammation associated with Alzheimer's and thus help to prevent mental decline.

They hope the cannabinoid may be used to developed new drug therapies.

The research, by Madrid's Complutense University and the Cajal Institute, is published in the Journal of Neuroscience.

Brains that are subject to the disease of alzheimers no longer contain receptors to react to cannabinoids. When rats were given cannabinoids - they suppressed the inflammation that causes brain plague that distinguishes alzheimers in those brains that are afflicted.

Research has demonstrated that cannabis used as a sublingual spray, Sativex, not only alleviated the spasms of MS, continued use stopped progression of the disease WITHOUT increased the dosage of Sativex (i.e. tolerance/the need for greater amts to perform the same medical function of cannabis as a drug was not demonstrated.) Links to various studies are included at the bottom of the page linked below.

http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/marijuana-may-inhibit-multiple-sclerosis-progression/

Recent clinical and preclinical studies also suggest that cannabinoids may inhibit MS progression. Writing in the July 2003 issue of the journal Brain, investigators at the University College of London’s Institute of Neurology reported that administration of the synthetic cannabinoid agonist WIN 55,212-2 provided “significant neuroprotection” in an animal model of multiple sclerosis. “The results of this study are important because they suggest that in addition to symptom management, … cannabis may also slow the neurodegenerative processes that ultimately lead to chronic disability in multiple sclerosis and probably other disease,” researchers concluded.<16>

Investigators at the Netherland’s Vrije University Medical Center, Department of Neurology, also reported for the first time in 2003 that the administration of oral THC can boost immune function in patients with MS. “These results suggest pro-inflammatory disease-modifying potential of cannabinoids MS,” they concluded.<17>

Clinical data reported in 2006 from an extended open-label study of 167 multiple sclerosis patients found that use of whole plant cannabinoid extracts relieved symptoms of pain, spasticity, and bladder incontinence for an extended period of treatment (mean duration of study participants was 434 days) without requiring subjects to increase their dose.<18> Results from a separate two-year open label extension trial in 2007 also reported that the administration of cannabis extracts was associated with long-term reductions in neuropathic pain in select MS patients. On average, patients in the study required fewer daily doses of the drug and reported lower median pain scores the longer they took it.<19> These results would be unlikely in patients suffering from a progressive disease like MS unless the cannabinoid therapy was halting its progression, investigators have suggested.

As a result, the British government is now sponsoring a three-year clinical trial to assess the long-term effects of cannabinoids on both MS-associated symptom management as well as disease progression. Health Canada also recently approved the prescription use of cannabis abstracts for the treatment of MS-associated neuropathic pain.<20> Similar approval of cannabis extracts is pending in Britain and Europe.

Our continued prohibition of cannabis is putting us far behind other western nations in research and development of this substance - just as our continued failure to invest in infrastructure in renewable energy and modes of transport has put us far behind other western nations - and for the same reasons - strong lobbies that favor their profits over open markets and the well being of the American people.

[RainDog]

187. Cost Savings : Jeffrey Mirons - senior lecturer in economics at Harvard

This study was widely publicized last year.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12169

Jeffrey A. Miron is a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Professor Miron earned his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and chaired the economics department at Boston University prior to joining the Harvard faculty. Katherine Waldock is a doctoral candidate at the Stern School of Business at New York University.

Miron's study looks at legalizing all drugs, not just cannabis.

This report estimates that legalizing drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government.

Approximately $8.7 billion of the savings would result from legalization of marijuana and $32.6 billion from legalization of other drugs.

The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $8.7 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana and $38.0 billion from legalization of other drugs.

After Miron's study, 500 economists signed a letter in support of legalization.

We, the undersigned, call your attention to the attached report by Professor Jeffrey A. Miron, The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition. The report shows that marijuana legalization -- replacing prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation -- would save $7.7 billion per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement and produce tax revenues of at least $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like most consumer goods. If, however, marijuana were taxed similarly to alcohol or tobacco, it might generate as much as $6.2 billion annually.

http://economics.about.com/od/incometaxestaxcuts/a/legalize_pot.htm

Time Magazine published this article about the economics of prohibition v. legalization

...there are big issues here, issues of economy and simple justice, especially on the sentencing side. As Webb pointed out in a cover story in Parade magazine, the U.S. is, by far, the most "criminal" country in the world, with 5% of the world's population and 25% of its prisoners. We spend $68 billion per year on corrections, and one-third of those being corrected are serving time for nonviolent drug crimes. We spend about $150 billion on policing and courts, and 47.5% of all drug arrests are marijuana-related. That is an awful lot of money, most of it nonfederal, that could be spent on better schools or infrastructure — or simply returned to the public.


At the same time, there is an enormous potential windfall in the taxation of marijuana. It is estimated that pot is the largest cash crop in California, with annual revenues approaching $14 billion. A 10% pot tax would yield $1.4 billion in California alone. And that's probably a fraction of the revenues that would be available — and of the economic impact, with thousands of new jobs in agriculture, packaging, marketing and advertising...
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889021,00.html#ixzz1QWPAYj00

just fyi