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

I have a very hard time believing an argument that marijuana isn't being used now because of politics against it. Although it may be true that the government isn't in favor of legalizing marijuana (for whatever reason), it is very difficult to believe that pharmaceutical companies would just let something that could cure cancer just fall to the wayside. Do you realize how much money would be made for a company that patented an active drug that just cured cancer? It would obviously be an instant blockbuster which NO other company could use except the particular company that patented it for 20 years. It would have the market cornered on the product for that long before generic competitors could enter the market. We're talking billions, probably trillions of dollars over the next several years. That is incentive enough to say Fuck you government. Pharmaceutical companies have much more power then you probably realize, and believe me they will use that power for their benefit.

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?

Here is the problem. The evidence you just gave in ur blog is the same quality evidence as the Gerson Therapy
http://gerson.org/faq.htm

or

This natural site
http://www.cancernaturalcure.com/index.htm

or

Vitamin C treatment
http://www.cforyourself.com/Conditions/Cancer/cancer.html


Until there are published clinical independent results you don't have any actual evidence that matters when it comes to medicine. The US gov't blocking research is a frustrating block, but is solved by just moving trials elsewhere like Canada or Nigeria (Pfizer does illegal tests there) or Central America (CIA did (maybe still does) secret drug testing there)

The evidence your story provides are just pictures. Did you even look at them? Warning Graphic http://www.cannabisscience.com/download/patientthree_jan232012_update1.pdf

As for the less graphic example where they "provide doctor documentation" http://cannabisscience.com/download/cancer_extract_kills.pdf
Are you fucking kidding me blacking out the Drs name?


If they genuinly think they have a possible cure for a type of cancer then they should ask an independent lab to do in vitro and then possible in vivo tests. 75 rats being cured under lab conditions is 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000x more convincing then 3 (or even 75) ppl being cured outside of a lab.

On January 25 2012 19:25 Luhos wrote: I have a very hard time believing an argument that marijuana isn't being used now because of politics against it. Although it may be true that the government isn't in favor of legalizing marijuana (for whatever reason), it is very difficult to believe that pharmaceutical companies would just let something that could cure cancer just fall to the wayside. Do you realize how much money would be made for a company that patented an active drug that just cured cancer? It would obviously be an instant blockbuster which NO other company could use except the particular company that patented it for 20 years. It would have the market cornered on the product for that long before generic competitors could enter the market. We're talking billions, probably trillions of dollars over the next several years. That is incentive enough to say Fuck you government. Pharmaceutical companies have much more power then you probably realize, and believe me they will use that power for their benefit.

I keep seeing elementary logical fallacies over and over again. You cannot patent a natural plant. K? You cannot patent a drug for 20 years. K? You are right that Big Pharma wouldn't let billions of dollars slip through their fingers. That's why they win around $300 billion dollars every year - they keep researching plants and making synthetic drugs based on their observations of which plants help. THEN they can patent it. 5 years down the road the patent expires and they twitch the formula just a lil bit so that they can make a new patent and keep the price big. Big Pharma doesn't like natural cures on anything, cause they cannot make money.


illegal marijuana:

-Drug war - hundreds of millions every year.
-Huge prison business - most prisoners are there for drug dealing
-Huge profits for Big Pharma cause people can't self-medicate** and have to buy expensive synthetics to (not cure but) 'dumb-down' symptoms of diseases. ('Modern medical industry hates curing disease, they love making life-long patients - anti-depressants for example)
-uncontrolled drug environment. Young kids can go buy marijuana and the dealer goes "ever tried this crystal stuff, it's awesome!"

legal marijuana:
-no drug war - savings in over hundreds of millions of $.
-taxation - +hundreds of millions of dollar every year.
-prison industry gets raped and expenditures (profits for some big fish) drops by a half
-controlled drug environment - you have to be over 18 to buy from drug stores. Price becomes super low. Drug dealers become much less due to prices and legality and quality.
-Big Pharma loses billions of dollars every year due to people using Marijuana to treat illnesses like glaucoma/Multiple sclerosis/depression/arthritis/inflamations/burning sensations/restless legs and so on.

Proof of the effectiveness of marijuana:



(for the 100th time - smoking weed DOESN'T cure cancer. It's marijuana oil that does - it has to be super concentrated, mkay?


Oh, and just think about this - we are discussing whether a naturally occurring plant that makes people happy and help them through tough time with 0 deaths in the history of mankind can be legal. At the same time we have mass-murder-weapons like cigarretes legal (400 000 deaths in the USA every year). Isn't it ironic how fucked up the world is and how brainwashed people are?

- this is how concerned for your health is Big Pharma and the FDA. Oh wait, "THEY DIDN'T KNOW it was detrimental to the health. 40 years ago we didn't have labs to test stuff" rofl :D.

I think the pharmy arguement is kinda moot...they have the vast means and resources to just dominate the weed market as well...

On January 26 2012 02:49 YoMeR wrote: I think the pharmy arguement is kinda moot...they have the vast means and resources to just dominate the weed market as well...

First, they can't patent it so - no monopoly. Secondly, in just a few years time most people would've learned how to grow it themselves. Nobody wants to give money for something that is easy to grow and have big yields. Thirdly, they would lose BILLIONS of dollars from the anti-depressant industry and other pills that would be waaay less effective than weed. That would also take a few years for people to realize.

In conclusion, Big Pharma would lose tens of billions of dollars every year IF Marijuana is legal. Those people love money more than life, they would eat their shit for that much money. Greed is all around us. Just come and let it snow. :D

I edited/deleted everything.

I find it mildly entertaining and moreso disturbing that such a "smart" forum has no idea what this company is attempting and HAS done so in the past.

Fuck it, whatever. Why do I even share information to people who won't care, yet, act like they do.

Hey. K2. Or anyone else. You can invest in this company. SUPER CHEAP. Fucking buy it. Put your money where your mouth is. You can become millionaires. Invest it all, INSANE DIVIDENDS must come.

Or...

Don't

you forgot to name the company, dude.

On January 26 2012 02:58 D_smart_S wrote: Show nested quote + On January 26 2012 02:49 YoMeR wrote: I think the pharmy arguement is kinda moot...they have the vast means and resources to just dominate the weed market as well... First, they can't patent it so - no monopoly. Secondly, in just a few years time most people would've learned how to grow it themselves. Nobody wants to give money for something that is easy to grow and have big yields. Thirdly, they would lose BILLIONS of dollars from the anti-depressant industry and other pills that would be waaay less effective than weed. That would also take a few years for people to realize. In conclusion, Big Pharma would lose tens of billions of dollars every year IF Marijuana is legal. Those people love money more than life, they would eat their shit for that much money. Greed is all around us. Just come and let it snow. :D

Ofc they can patent it. You sure have alot of opinions in areas where you dont even know the basic facts. Very recently the patented drug Sativex got approved in Sweden for treatment of MS. Its a spray containing THC and other cannabis components. You are so fucking dumb if you think the greedy pharmaceutical companies are completely ignoring something that according to you basicly cures cancer. You also clearly no nothing about depression but what else is new.

On January 25 2012 18:53 whamm! wrote: 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 if you know Choy! ^^

On January 26 2012 07:24 SakiSaki wrote: Show nested quote + On January 26 2012 02:58 D_smart_S wrote:   On January 26 2012 02:49 YoMeR wrote: I think the pharmy arguement is kinda moot...they have the vast means and resources to just dominate the weed market as well... First, they can't patent it so - no monopoly. Secondly, in just a few years time most people would've learned how to grow it themselves. Nobody wants to give money for something that is easy to grow and have big yields. Thirdly, they would lose BILLIONS of dollars from the anti-depressant industry and other pills that would be waaay less effective than weed. That would also take a few years for people to realize. In conclusion, Big Pharma would lose tens of billions of dollars every year IF Marijuana is legal. Those people love money more than life, they would eat their shit for that much money. Greed is all around us. Just come and let it snow. :D Ofc they can patent it. You sure have alot of opinions in areas where you dont even know the basic facts. Very recently the patented drug Sativex got approved in Sweden for treatment of MS. Its a spray containing THC and other cannabis components. You are so fucking dumb if you think the greedy pharmaceutical companies are completely ignoring something that according to you basicly cures cancer. You also clearly no nothing about depression but what else is new.

rofl, green star lol. I am very worried for your future patients. Ofc they can patent the individual cannabindoids, but they cannot patent the whole plant. Do you realise the difference? Maybe you should smoke some marijuana to become a little smarter, "doc" :D. You might become a little greener. Also, if you can see in my post, I talk about the method of observing plants and synthesizing some of the active ingredients and that is how they patent pills containing individual ingredients. They are not doing this because marijuana contains bad cannabinoids. All cannabinoids that have been analyzed show at least several positive effects, non of them show negative effects. The cannabinoid receptors are the most abundant type of receptors in your brain. That's because mother nature has created humans to be healed by plants through cannabinoids. It is blatantly obvious that Big Pharma are patenting such pills and lobbying against marijuana ONLY FOR PROFIT. The industry you are studying to be a part of is one of the most corrupt and evil ones. Sorry dude, hard to swallow, I know. You think you are studying medicine, but in fact you are studying Pharmacology, Pills, Drugs, Synthetics. How to take part of the good stuff from the naturally occurring plants and turn them into profit while making sure the plants themselves are illegal. Big Pharma companies are all shareholdings and all they give a fuck about is their shareholders to be satisfied and to make huge profits. You know this very well but I am sure you find it very hard to admit. Now, please, either apoligize for calling me "so fucking dumb" and admit that you are the dumb one here or go find a natural plant that has been patented and show me the law which says it can. Thank you, "doc". lol.

youre fucking dumb as bulgarian mule d smart s, and no one should apolagize for telling the truth

Of course you cannot patent the plant itself, my point is that if that plant had a specific compound that would cure cancer, it would have been extracted and put in a dosage form, or synthesized based on the original compound, etc. Then the pharm companies would patent that particular molecule, and put it through clinical trials. If it could get through all the trials and reach the market, pharm companies would make trillions because obviously nothing cures cancer yet, and this would.

And yes, patents do last 20 years, at least in the US. However the time starts ticking the day it's patented. Once the drug finally reaches the market its about 5 or so years later, so the company would have 15 years of uninterrupted sales from the only drug that cures cancer. Of course after that patents can be extended through patenting enantiomers, providing addition indications for the drug, etc. But that's an entirely different subject.

On January 26 2012 02:45 D_smart_S wrote: I keep seeing elementary logical fallacies over and over again.

That's because you're the only person in this universe forced to read the bullshit you type.

On January 26 2012 11:31 Luhos wrote: Of course you cannot patent the plant itself, my point is that if that plant had a specific compound that would cure cancer, it would have been extracted and put in a dosage form, or synthesized based on the original compound, etc. Then the pharm companies would patent that particular molecule, and put it through clinical trials. If it could get through all the trials and reach the market, pharm companies would make trillions because obviously nothing cures cancer yet, and this would. And yes, patents do last 20 years, at least in the US. However the time starts ticking the day it's patented. Once the drug finally reaches the market its about 5 or so years later, so the company would have 15 years of uninterrupted sales from the only drug that cures cancer. Of course after that patents can be extended through patenting enantiomers, providing addition indications for the drug, etc. But that's an entirely different subject.

I am not gonna argue on the patent thing, maybe you can have for 20 years, I have read that most patents are for 5 or 10 years but w/e.

A bottle of chemotherapy drugs can be as expensive as several thousand dollars. Injections or pills of say THC will go for what - several bucks? And remember that people undergo many chemotherapy sessions. It's a huge billion-dollar business. Moreover, people can easily make their own hemp(marijuana) oil and it will be natural (better absorbed) + will have all other important and helpful cannabinoids and it will be cheaper. If you think that Big Pharma has not thought about these things you are in big deceit. I mean, it is so obvious that they just want to get a patent and increase the price of natural ingredients. Those are not good people. There are other aspects of modern medicine that are great - Surgery for example. They can remove Siam twins (those glued people, maybe another term), they can do all kinds of complex surgeries. Yes, there are pills that help with symptoms and so on but when it comes to cancer drugs, antidepressants and stuff of that nature, Big Pharma is all for the money. There are soooo many natural cures for "uncurable" illnesses but if you haven't researched them you would dismiss them easily. A few years ago I used to think of natural cures like some old lady in a village that gave it to some people and was like "yeah, that proves it cures the illness". But there are many many lab tests, controlled studies, testimonials, books written. They are just not promoted on TV so you wouldn't know about them unless someone tells you or you SPECIFICALLY search for them online. Nature nurtures us, feeds us, gives us water, the Sun gives Life to planets, why is it so difficult for people to realize or at least consider that Nature has given us the tools to cure almost all diseases. There would be a time when some of you will be very ill or your friends and it's good to know how to deal with such tough moments. But the Ego is a huge problem. Brainwashing is another.

"Do you feel sad sometimes? Do you feel bad after work? Many people have the symptoms of sadness syndrom. Why not take this pill and live a happy life? Thousands of people have already tried and experience the wonderful joy in their everyday life. Ask your doctor today."

"Doc, I was at school today and this kid called me fat and I am sad now. Can you give me sumthin'?"
"Yeah sure, you have the sadness syndrom, take this pill bottle, $80."
"What's in it?"
"I dunno. There was a Big Pharma lobbyist and gave me this calendar, the pen, a clock and told me to give people this pill."
"Cool."

Ever been to a doc's office and payed attention to all the gifts? All the top brands. There are ~80 000 lobbyist that do exactly this job.

On January 25 2012 19:14 Night2o1 wrote: 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

I get what you are saying, but I counter without something else almost exactly like it: Drinking under the age of 21. It's illegal, and on the baseball team, everyone goes out to parties, and (almost) everyone drinks. The 20 and under kids drink with everyone that is 21+.

I hate to say it because it almost nullifies my argument, but you must really be apart a team and have that "locker room bond" to understand. I can tell you that everyone in the locker room knows who does and doesn't smoke, and everyone knows the unwritten rule of not ratting a teammate out.

Thats why (and I know that the consequences of his actions are ALL positive, and it cleaned the sport) Jose Canseco is a little back stabbing bitch. He broke the rule of talking about what happens in a locker room for personal gain by writing "Juice", something that helped end the steroid era, but he broke the rule and is now hated by the baseball community.

Everyone on any baseball team in America knows this, and that is pretty much the one example I can think of where someone let something leak.

Basically, I feel that way because they knowingly separate themselves from the group knowing fully that no one will rat them out.

And they see this all the time because we hide 20 and under kids all the time when parties get busted.

On January 26 2012 09:17 D_smart_S wrote: Show nested quote + On January 26 2012 07:24 SakiSaki wrote:   On January 26 2012 02:58 D_smart_S wrote:   On January 26 2012 02:49 YoMeR wrote: I think the pharmy arguement is kinda moot...they have the vast means and resources to just dominate the weed market as well... First, they can't patent it so - no monopoly. Secondly, in just a few years time most people would've learned how to grow it themselves. Nobody wants to give money for something that is easy to grow and have big yields. Thirdly, they would lose BILLIONS of dollars from the anti-depressant industry and other pills that would be waaay less effective than weed. That would also take a few years for people to realize. In conclusion, Big Pharma would lose tens of billions of dollars every year IF Marijuana is legal. Those people love money more than life, they would eat their shit for that much money. Greed is all around us. Just come and let it snow. :D Ofc they can patent it. You sure have alot of opinions in areas where you dont even know the basic facts. Very recently the patented drug Sativex got approved in Sweden for treatment of MS. Its a spray containing THC and other cannabis components. You are so fucking dumb if you think the greedy pharmaceutical companies are completely ignoring something that according to you basicly cures cancer. You also clearly no nothing about depression but what else is new. rofl, green star lol. I am very worried for your future patients. Ofc they can patent the individual cannabindoids, but they cannot patent the whole plant. Do you realise the difference? Maybe you should smoke some marijuana to become a little smarter, "doc" :D. You might become a little greener. Also, if you can see in my post, I talk about the method of observing plants and synthesizing some of the active ingredients and that is how they patent pills containing individual ingredients. They are not doing this because marijuana contains bad cannabinoids. All cannabinoids that have been analyzed show at least several positive effects, non of them show negative effects. The cannabinoid receptors are the most abundant type of receptors in your brain. That's because mother nature has created humans to be healed by plants through cannabinoids. It is blatantly obvious that Big Pharma are patenting such pills and lobbying against marijuana ONLY FOR PROFIT. The industry you are studying to be a part of is one of the most corrupt and evil ones. Sorry dude, hard to swallow, I know. You think you are studying medicine, but in fact you are studying Pharmacology, Pills, Drugs, Synthetics. How to take part of the good stuff from the naturally occurring plants and turn them into profit while making sure the plants themselves are illegal. Big Pharma companies are all shareholdings and all they give a fuck about is their shareholders to be satisfied and to make huge profits. You know this very well but I am sure you find it very hard to admit. Now, please, either apoligize for calling me "so fucking dumb" and admit that you are the dumb one here or go find a natural plant that has been patented and show me the law which says it can. Thank you, "doc". lol.

Why would they want to patent the whole plant? I dont get it? You have said it yourself, pharmaceutical companies analyse compounds from nature, mix with it a bit and sell it like medicine. What makes cannabis diffrent? If cannabis was a miracle cure, they could just creat a drug containing a mix of all cannabinoids proven to be effective and make billions. A little newsflash for you sir. Cannabis is illegal in most countries. The natural alternative for their drug is illegal! Its a fucking jackpot for them. And no, your average joe wont go out of his way breaking the law to obtain something that is the same thing as a pill that he can buy at the pharmacy. When you get a bacterial infection you dont try to lick on mold hoping some of it produces an antibacterial agent. You go to your doctor and he prescribes you antibiotics.

Contrary to your belief, i some weed quite frequently. I dont think it should be illegal, i dont think it does any significant harm and i think the war on drugs is idiotic. I like to get high but i dont put weed on a fucking irrational pedistal.

Idk, its always hard to argue with religious people cause you can never reach them with reason. I dunno why palak bothers really.

so now I am religious? WTF. I've always hated religion with all my heart. And I wasn't talking about average Joe breaking the law. I said that if marijuana is legal and there is the pill version and the plant itself, Big Pharma wouldn't make much money, especially compared to all the drugs that would be replaced by the plant. I didn't think it's that difficult to understand what I mean, but then I again - you think I am religious, so I guess you can't comprehend simple things easily.

You dont listen to logic and you say shit like:

" That's because mother nature has created humans to be healed by plants through cannabinoids."


So ye, religious.

Weed isnt legal in most countries so your argument has no weight.

I have to say I learned a lot from you today - First of all, Nature is a religion. Who would've guessed?Maybe the caves are it's church and the mountain is the God? And also, because weed is not legal in most countries now, we cannot talk or even think about a future moment when it will be. Is that taught in the medical school or is that one of the commandments of Natural Religion? Smart boy, very smart.

Yes worshiping nature is a religion, its called paganism. Saying that mother nature designed the cannabisplant to heal humans is a religious claim how is it not?

You think big pharma is not developing a cure for cancer using cannabis cause maybe in a few years weed might be legal in some countries and maybe some ppl wont buy the cure but rather smoke weed. You are a joke sir

Regardless of what practical applications marijuana might have, I just learned my father died yesterday of cancer. From what I have learned his death was painful and slow, ending with him on a morphine drip until his body just gave out. I would much rather have known him to have died in peace smoking weed every day, rather than in a hospital bed being fed hard drugs.

From this point forward I am going to take a more proactive interest in the medicinal properties of marijuana, and support legalization if for nothing more than as a pain remedy. I'm not counting on it curing cancer, but anything is better than a concoction of chemicals until your eyes glass over and you cant even feel anymore.