Cannabis Cures Cancer

Do you know what that new thingy is, it's suppose to be a lot stronger, but goes out of ur system sick fast, and atm it's not illegal. Ppl in my city keep smoking it, it gets passe custom, kinda like cannabis, but much stronet, synthesized, but not propper.

yeah I forget what it's called - I'm not a fan of those things. This is how shit like crystal meth got invented. Because of prohibition, the law cracks down on safe stuff like the cannabis plant, so people go to the lab and make up new shit which is technically not illegal cause it's brand new. Then the law makes those things illegal so people go back to the lab and create something new again, each time usually moving to a less safe version of the drug. The US Gov't gave meth to fighter pilots during the vietnam war, and before that meth was used in lots of settings with no major problems. But with the war on drugs crackdown people went into the lab and kept developing new versions of meth, eventually coming up with crystal meth which is much much much worse than regular meth. A similar pattern is occurring now with cannabis and it's not a good thing imo.

Use the plant. Stay away from the synthetics. That's my advice.

On January 25 2012 11:30 Mariuslol wrote: Do you know what that new thingy is, it's suppose to be a lot stronger, but goes out of ur system sick fast, and atm it's not illegal. Ppl in my city keep smoking it, it gets passe custom, kinda like cannabis, but much stronet, synthesized, but not propper.

Here in sweden there is alot of synthetic cannabiscopies thats usually called Spice, but the chemical that gets you stoned is JWH-118(there are alot of different numbers but I think 118 was the first one

On January 25 2012 11:41 gebbstet wrote: Show nested quote + On January 25 2012 11:30 Mariuslol wrote: Do you know what that new thingy is, it's suppose to be a lot stronger, but goes out of ur system sick fast, and atm it's not illegal. Ppl in my city keep smoking it, it gets passe custom, kinda like cannabis, but much stronet, synthesized, but not propper. Here in sweden there is alot of synthetic cannabiscopies thats usually called Spice, but the chemical that gets you stoned is JWH-118(there are alot of different numbers but I think 118 was the first one

JWH-118 looks familiar to me - I feel like that's the really potent version of THC that I read about them using on lab rats to test what happens in the case of extreme doses. I could be wrong, just going off vague memories, don't quote me =)

420

spice is supposed to be completely shit compared to weed.

On January 25 2012 11:34 k2o4 wrote: yeah I forget what it's called - I'm not a fan of those things. This is how shit like crystal meth got invented. Because of prohibition, the law cracks down on safe stuff like the cannabis plant, so people go to the lab and make up new shit which is technically not illegal cause it's brand new. Then the law makes those things illegal so people go back to the lab and create something new again, each time usually moving to a less safe version of the drug. The US Gov't gave meth to fighter pilots during the vietnam war, and before that meth was used in lots of settings with no major problems. But with the war on drugs crackdown people went into the lab and kept developing new versions of meth, eventually coming up with crystal meth which is much much much worse than regular meth. A similar pattern is occurring now with cannabis and it's not a good thing imo. Use the plant. Stay away from the synthetics. That's my advice.

I was not aware of this, thanks for the info. Another good reason to legalize everything.

Edit: Will read article later

On January 25 2012 11:27 k2o4 wrote: It met some resistance, especially from our resident authority from the western medical world, palak. First, the "anecdotal" evidence was dismissed right off hand, which is stupid because that's like dismissing the Benjamin Franklin kite story, a piece of anecdotal evidence which led to many great applications

The truth aside, saying shit like this makes me stop reading whatever you were going to say right on the spot.

If you weren't from the United States I'd maybe think "Hey, he might just be bad at English
and not understand why that is a frivolous statement" and give you another shot,
but you are from the US and you have no excuse for saying things like that.

Stock Dilution Scam:

A share dilution scam happens when a company, typically traded in unregulated markets such as the OTC Bulletin Board and the Pink Sheets, repeatedly issues a massive amount of shares into the market for no reason, considerably devaluing share prices until they become almost worthless, causing huge losses to shareholders. Then, after share prices are at or near the minimum price a stock can trade and the share float has increased to an unsustainable level, those fraudulent companies tend to reverse split and continue repeating the same scheme.

------

A penny stock is a common stock that trades for less than $5 a share. While penny stocks generally are quoted over-the-counter, such as on the OTC Bulletin Board or in the Pink Sheets, they may also trade on securities exchanges, including foreign securities exchanges. In addition, penny stocks include the securities of certain private companies with no active trading market. Although a penny stock is said to be "thinly traded," share volumes traded daily can be in the hundreds of millions for a sub-penny stock. Legitimate information on penny stock companies can be difficult to find and a stock can be easily manipulated.
-----

Pump and Dump Schemes

Penny stocks are often relentlessly promoted as part of illegal pump and dump schemes. The SEC explains how it works:

"A company's web site may feature a glowing press release about its financial health or some new product or innovation. Newsletters that purport to offer unbiased recommendations may suddenly tout the company as the latest "hot" stock. Messages in chat rooms and bulletin board postings may urge you to buy the stock quickly or to sell before the price goes down. Or you may even hear the company mentioned by a radio or TV analyst. Unwitting investors then purchase the stock in droves, creating high demand and pumping up the price. But when the fraudsters behind the scheme sell their shares at the peak and stop hyping the stock, the price plummets, and investors lose their money. Fraudsters frequently use this ploy with small, thinly traded companies because it's easier to manipulate a stock when there's little or no information available about the company."

[ ] clinical trials
[ ] independent verification
[ ] published evidence

...soo what exactly does this article change?

edit: I also need to state I am not this sites medical expert, nor expert in anything. I can think of at least 3 members off the top of my head who I know know more then me on medicine (SakiSaki, mrpav.com, bober1)

On January 25 2012 14:13 palak wrote: [ ] clinical trials [ ] independent verification [ ] published evidence ...soo what exactly does this article change?

nothing. He just needed a reason to make another post about weed

Medical doctors dont nurture some sort of irrational hate against cannabis, they (we) just apply the same scientifical scrutiny to it as we do to anything else. Its rather you who is so completely biased about the subject that you treat any rational questioning as irrational attacks. How can you not see this?

First off, I'm neither for or against medical marijuana/cannabis, if something were proven to stop cancer I would say go for it. But its obvious you're very biased here, and so is this article. It's not a medical journal, and is from a site specifically for the use of cannabis. Also I have to add, under law a pharmaceutical company cannot conduct experiments with live human subjects UNTIL the medication is approved as a IND from the FDA. They can only do animal testing, or some computer modeling to simulate efficacy and bioavailablility in human subjects. If the new drug is approved as an IND, then the company can do phase 1 testing in human subjects in which for the most part ONLY SAFETY is assessed. Because of this fact, I'm very skeptical especially when this article is claiming they have "numerous self-medicated cancer patients." Well if they do, it isn't from any drug before its an approved as an IND.

I'm a very casual, informal person, and only in recent years have I started forcing myself to be more formal (mostly due to joining the world of school and academia). So I'm sorry for not being very thorough in my post and leaving a lot of holes to attack, but I will try to address the things you guys brought up.

On January 25 2012 13:26 taco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 25 2012 11:27 k2o4 wrote: It met some resistance, especially from our resident authority from the western medical world, palak. First, the "anecdotal" evidence was dismissed right off hand, which is stupid because that's like dismissing the Benjamin Franklin kite story, a piece of anecdotal evidence which led to many great applications The truth aside, saying shit like this makes me stop reading whatever you were going to say right on the spot. If you weren't from the United States I'd maybe think "Hey, he might just be bad at English and not understand why that is a frivolous statement" and give you another shot, but you are from the US and you have no excuse for saying things like that.

While I personally need a lot less evidence to convince me of something's value than a doctor would, I don't believe that anecdotal evidence is automatically enough to prove something is true. But I think that it shouldn't be instantly dismissed either, and I mentioned the kite example to make that point. In the post I linked to, I had a video of a man who treated his skin cancer with hemp oil. He documented as scientifically as he could, and showed fantastic results. Yes, that's not a lab experiment, there are plenty of potential confounds, etc, but it's also not just some dude speaking out of his ass. To me, I see that and think "there's a good chance there's something here, we should pursue it heavily" while others go "anecdotal, I won't even watch it" and I think that's wrong. That's what I was getting at, and I apologize if I didn't make it very clear.

On January 25 2012 14:13 palak wrote: [ ] clinical trials [ ] independent verification [ ] published evidence ...soo what exactly does this article change? edit: I also need to state I am not this sites medical expert, nor expert in anything. I can think of at least 3 members off the top of my head who I know know more then me on medicine (SakiSaki, mrpav.com, bober1)

As those are your criteria that need to be met, then fine, nothing has changed for you. One day those things will be done and we'll have to smoke a bowl together to celebrate. I hope you do realize that the main obstacle is the politics around cannabis - you can't do those human trials without FDA and DEA approval, and good luck getting DEA approval. So BECAUSE we are prevented from doing those things, we need to look for other ways to make the case. Yes, they won't satisfy you doctors yet, but if the government would stop obstructing we could satisfy you guys. And we need you guys to be pushing from your end to get those things done - how can you guys look at all these results, and the fact that cannabis causes apoptosis in cancer cells, and not be chomping at the bit? Why such a sour puss attitude?

And I love your humility palak, I should have said one of our resident medical experts, or at least the guy who pops into my mind when I think of "medical" and "LP" in the same sentence =)

On January 25 2012 15:39 SakiSaki wrote: Medical doctors dont nurture some sort of irrational hate against cannabis, they (we) just apply the same scientifical scrutiny to it as we do to anything else. Its rather you who is so completely biased about the subject that you treat any rational questioning as irrational attacks. How can you not see this?

That's a fair statement. I guess I just feel that doctors have way too high of a standard at times, and are way too dismissive of evidence at others. I also think part of the disconnect is created by the politics which prevent the tests which satisfy the doctors from ever happening in the first place, so someone like me who is convinced by what they've seen ends up arguing with people who require more evidence. I believe that if the politics got out of the way that the conversation would get a lot happier between me and doctors.

As a psychologist in training (I know that means dick to doctors, ya'll think we're a bunch of hacks), I have gained a tremendous respect for the scientific method and I believe we should apply it to solve questions like "Does cannabis cure cancer?". I agree with putting things through scientific scrutiny. But like I said, we're discussing a topic which we are not allowed to put through proper scientific scrutiny, and I think this is a time when it makes sense to look at the evidence you can gather and work with that. While the evidence we have still hasn't proved beyond a shadow of a doubt (or .001) that cannabis cures cancer, it all points in the same direction, and we have seen people who HAVE CANCER cure it by USING CANNABIS. So that's a pretty good indicator that there might be something to this idea that cannabis cures cancer.

Also Anders, I didn't say all doctors hate cannabis, just made a statement directed towards "you medical doctors who have such a weird hate towards this plant", ie, the doctors who don't even give cannabis a proper chance. I feel like the western medical world is so closed minded and it bugs me. For example, I remember posting something on LP about Alternative Medicine, including things like acupuncture, and while I don't remember specifically who, I do remember the feeling that people who were believers in the western medical paradigm dismissed the viability of Alternative Medicine. Again, knowing that it works, not just from personal experience but also from reading plenty of studies confirming it, I find that reaction to be really annoying. I hope this new generation that is in training (in other words, YOU) will be more open minded.

On January 25 2012 15:43 Luhos wrote: First off, I'm neither for or against medical marijuana/cannabis, if something were proven to stop cancer I would say go for it. But its obvious you're very biased here, and so is this article. It's not a medical journal, and is from a site specifically for the use of cannabis. Also I have to add, under law a pharmaceutical company cannot conduct experiments with live human subjects UNTIL the medication is approved as a IND from the FDA. They can only do animal testing, or some computer modeling to simulate efficacy and bioavailablility in human subjects. If the new drug is approved as an IND, then the company can do phase 1 testing in human subjects in which for the most part ONLY SAFETY is assessed. Because of this fact, I'm very skeptical especially when this article is claiming they have "numerous self-medicated cancer patients." Well if they do, it isn't from any drug before its an approved as an IND.

Thanks for pointing out why there are no official human trials. I'm assuming the self-medicated cancer patients are people in medical marijuana states. That would make the most sense.

As an avid pot smoker myself I'm alla bout Pro pot... but a lot of the shit you post on your blog about how weed cures cancer is just pretty LOL to be honest...It's not like doctors are all retarded and will disregard real hard scientific evidence that something cures one of the leading causes of death in people today ;o

I mean comon man.. really? If your stuff is really true i'd gladly eat my words and be happy for humanity...shit getting high cures cancer! ^^

On a side note. Weed really helps my glaucoma pain tho (i've had glaucoma for over 10 years now and the pain is starting to get gradually get more and more severe)

Other than that it makes me really lazy and relaxed...also makes sex amazing ^^

On January 25 2012 17:56 YoMeR wrote: As an avid pot smoker myself I'm alla bout Pro pot... but a lot of the shit you post on your blog about how weed cures cancer is just pretty LOL to be honest...It's not like doctors are all retarded and will disregard real hard scientific evidence that something cures one of the leading causes of death in people today ;o I mean comon man.. really? If your stuff is really true i'd gladly eat my words and be happy for humanity...shit getting high cures cancer! ^^ On a side note. Weed really helps my glaucoma pain tho (i've had glaucoma for over 10 years now and the pain is starting to get gradually get more and more severe) Other than that it makes me really lazy and relaxed...also makes sex amazing ^^

There's a lot of "truths" which are known by a lot of people for many years before the mainstream scientists finally catch on and realize it. Especially truths which have all this political baggage. Luckily we're in a paradigm shift right now and things are looking good for legal weed and more thorough scientific testing in the future, so I have high hopes that in our lifetimes you will all be able to look back and go "damn that k2o4 was right".

Yomer, I think the politics are the reason the scientists aren't all over this. If marijuana had never been discovered, and then tomorrow an expedition in the amazon discovered the plant, I think doctors would be creaming their pants as they started testing it. But we live in a world where cannabis has been illegal for the past 75 years and had massive amounts of propaganda against it. Until the culture changes the mainstream science won't catch up.

And I agree, doctors aren't retarded and I think it's pretty rare that they will dismiss real hard scientific evidence. But like palak made clear, the evidence which they desire (like human trials) can't be done because the politics prevent the tests from ever occurring. So then doctors never accept the reality of the plant.

My thoughts aren't very deep on this subject, but this is how I stand:

1) People who smoke pot are in this cult-like group. Every year when I get new teammates, within the first couple of weeks the question is always asked once we've broken some social barriers and are starting to build relationships, "So, do you smoke?" "No" is always my answer, and they never continue building that friendship with me. They always hang out together, not associating with people on the team that don't smoke. People think that religious cults are these awfuls things, and I somewhat agree with them and can see their point of view, however, what is the difference? Both isolate themselves and fixate on one thing that is dear to them.

2) How can smoking weed be healthy for you? It's still smoke entering in your lungs. Think about it. Do you go running into a burning building and try to get that smoke into your lungs? Is smoking cig's healthy? No. Whats the difference? It's still SMOKE going into your LUNGS. That's not healthy!
2-A) However, you can get around this by other forms of ingesting the drug, however I've noticed that most people who claim their use is medicinal, they still smoke it, which is dumb and counter productive when there are companies out in California who make edible versions of marijuana. TBH it's really just tilts me to no fucking end when people are like "YEAH legalize it cause I have arthritis!" STFU, no, you just want to smoke weed you pot head. Just fucking say it. Don't use people's real medical conditions are your excuse to get high. Just come out with it and say you think it should be legal so you can live your life high all the time.

3) With that being said, here is my stronger feelings about it. It should be legal because why the fuck is the government telling me what to do? Why is the FDA even apart of our government? Don't we know what is best for us? If I'm sick, and I honestly, truly believe that marijuana could help my condition, why is the government saying I can't try that form of medication? It's fucking ludicrous. That, my friends, is what pisses me off to NO FUCKING END. People are sick, they want to feel better, and they think they know a way, but the government, who has NO IDEA their situation, because they don't live with them and understand what is going on, is policing us and saying NO.
Seriously? Wake up people. The FDA has the power to prevent medicine that can help people from coming out to market. This is unreal. It's MY BODY, MY SICKNESS, let me fight it THE WAY I WANT TO FIGHT IT. I know whats best for me, and I don't need some dick in a chair in Washington deciding how I should be treated for my diseases.

+ Show Spoiler +

I dunno about cancer, but I sure hope pot becomes legal in the states so that my country follows suit (they always do)
weed here is shit most times and hard/risky to buy

not looking to steal brett's blog thread here lol but I rly wanted to give some quick perspective on El_Tanque's first point
I'm gonna assume weed isn't legal on the state-level where you live.
ok, so pot smokers that you meet are doing/possessing something illegal. non smokers are IMO more likely to:
-rat them out for whatever reason

-be overly flippant/loudmouthed about the topic (ie someone who doesn't smoke hanging out with a smoker who happens to have some pot in their pocket or car -> never know what can happen with a loudmouth around or someone who simply isn't always aware of this specific circumstance of the people they r hanging out with)

smokers might not hang out so much with that group of people because they have an indirect sort of power over them cuz of that. This applies a lot less/not at all if you are already secure/strong friends with a nonsmoker and can trust them.

second thing is that a lot of smokers smoke too much and they spend an inordinate amount of time being high. they don't rly want a nonsmoker around telling them to stop, cuz it feels bad man.
^--- btw I think this problem is made worse by weed not being as easy as going to the corner store to get. It is a lot easier to smoke less when you don't have it sitting in your closet.. but smokers always end up with a Stash, cuz its too inconvenient/dangerous to visit a dealer and transport weed more frequently than necessary

basically it being illegal makes everything suck

ps these are just my views as a semi-rational/not total retard type of guy who's been in this position, no guarantee that these are everyone's reasons