Marijuana And Cancer: Scientists Find Cannabis Compound Stops Metastasis In Aggressive Cancers - Polidicks

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;37750533]It depends on the day. Sometimes it's "cannabis is awesome" and other times its "pot is stupid". I don't understand why though.[/QUOTE] Because not everyone - unlike what it may look like - is a pothead on Facepunch

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;37750336]Is it me or does Facepunch seem horribly indoctrinated by the DARE program? For an extremely Liberal and Atheist majority I think you guys would like marijuana.[/QUOTE] No? There's a sizeable community of drug users who seem well educated on the subject. (Although some may be overzealous about the benefits of certain plants.)

[QUOTE=VaSTinY;37750569]Because not everyone - unlike what it may look like - is a pothead on Facepunch[/QUOTE] I'm not a user and I think it is ridiculous that it is illegal.

I honestly think those who still support it being illegal are like those who oppose abortion rights. No one has any right to tell another individual what he or she can and cannot do with their own body.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37750116]Well you could always use biofuel made from algae.[/QUOTE] I've actually worked on a project based on that. Horrible inefficient with current algae species available to the average Joe, and those bred for that exact purpose are hidden in the dark by oil companies. Even Canola, Palm or Soybean based oil is more efficient in this decade. Hooray for lobbying :suicide:

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;37740839]Also lets just take a moment to RECOGNIZE that this illegal plant has this many uses; [img]http://images.babasopinions.multiply.com/image/1/photos/upload/300x300/R53W9AoKCpoAAHjJK6o1/Marijuana%20Uses.gif?et=8Y3LrmkEFlWp0Iz943jnYg&nmid=[/img][/QUOTE] oh look it's one of you people again MARIJUANA and HEMP are [B]not the same thing.[/B] hemp is useful for all those things. marijuana has little use beside getting high and alleviating symptoms of some illnesses hemp is also legal in most parts of the world (a notable exception being the US and A)

Hemp is not marijuana, but marijuana can be hemp. [editline]21st September 2012[/editline] The [b]only[/b] difference is the psychoactive compound percentage. Hemp is very very low and would take a lot smoking it to get any effects, marijuana is usually 5-15%.

[QUOTE=Van-man;37751199]I've actually worked on a project based on that. Horrible inefficient with current algae species available to the average Joe, and those bred for that exact purpose are hidden in the dark by oil companies. Even Canola, Palm or Soybean based oil is more efficient in this decade. Hooray for lobbying :suicide:[/QUOTE] Once oil prices start rising they might start focusing into it more.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37743595]Sorry but this is exaggerated and bending facts to fit the ideology. I have no qualms with hemp or cannabis myself, but the fact its trying to use hemp to justify cannabis is a bit sad. It goes on about how hemp is wonderful but ignores that it fell out of favour anyways whenever or not countries made it illegal. These days, making biofuel from algae is much much more feasible and productive than doing it with hemp.[/QUOTE] Why must you hate everything we like.

[QUOTE=dass;37741054]Don't forget cancer, but the things it produces ALSO give cancer![/QUOTE] After seeing you in multiple threads about this, are you literally like some fucking anti weed cancer vanguard or something? Seriously did weed bully you as a kid and did it stick a cancer stick in your ass?

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;37744021]Name me one natural fibre that is either stronger or grows more densely per square meter?[/QUOTE] I live near the ocean and there's a rather large port here, and lately I've seen lots of fisherman switching from polyethylene/cotton rope to hemp rope, not only because it's stronger, but if it's let off into the ocean (which happens frequently) it breaks down easily and harmlessly.

I want drugs, now!

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37751737]Once oil prices start rising they might start focusing into it more.[/QUOTE] Like the big oil companies wont try and cockblock it all they can.

[QUOTE=TamTamJam;37752200]I live near the ocean and there's a rather large port here, and lately I've seen lots of fisherman switching from polyethylene/cotton rope to hemp rope, not only because it's stronger, but if it's let off into the ocean (which happens frequently) it breaks down easily and harmlessly.[/QUOTE] I thought hemp rope had a tendency to rot easily compared with superior substitutes.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37752989]I thought hemp rope had a tendency to rot easily compared with superior substitutes.[/QUOTE] Well if synthetic alternatives gets worn up regularly either way, then that isn't much of a problem.

[QUOTE=Van-man;37753322]Well if synthetic alternatives gets worn up regularly either way, then that isn't much of a problem.[/QUOTE] Manila rope doesn't suffer from that, plus its stronger, more flexible and more elastic.

[QUOTE=Kalibos;37751434]oh look it's one of you people again MARIJUANA and HEMP are [B]not the same thing.[/B] hemp is useful for all those things. marijuana has little use beside getting high and alleviating symptoms of some illnesses hemp is also legal in most parts of the world (a notable exception being the US and A)[/QUOTE] Oh its one of you people again, Yes it is the same fucking thing. Hemp is the male plant of Cannabis Sativa and the female plant gets you high. A ban on one is a ban on the other. At least that is what happened with prohibition.

I'm just gonna go ahead and jump on the bandwagon 420 blaze it faggots

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;37754193]Oh its one of you people again, Yes it is the same fucking thing. Hemp is the male plant of Cannabis Sativa and the female plant gets you high. A ban on one is a ban on the other. At least that is what happened with prohibition.[/QUOTE] only in some countries though, quite a few countries have marijuana banned but hemp legal, like where I live for example [editline]22nd September 2012[/editline] so no a ban one one is not a ban on the other

It should just be someone's choice to smoke it and not get in to trouble. They do it with alcohol so why the hell not?

[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37741028]I can't wait for people to debate the authenticity of this, so I can shut them up with the quote exactly how people tried to shut me up when I questioned the accuracy of a 20+ year study on marijuana's effect on intelligence that ended up having only 52 people from one town in New Zealand to base most of their findings on. [/QUOTE] You seem to have mistyped "1,037 people from a city of 120,000 in New Zealand." Anyways, why would I question this study's authenticity or rigorousness? It's clearly authentic: following the sources given by the OP leads to prior papers on both PubMed and Nature.com. The study is also rigorous: as you said, the study was conducted over a 20 year period; furthermore, the method was sound, and the Nature paper is in fact available to the public [url=http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v95/n2/abs/6603236a.html]here[/url], for anyone who wants to double check it. One must note, though, that the study used cannabidiol derivatives, as opposed to the compounds naturally present in cannabis. This is important since derivatives often have little relation to the original molecule; for example, both estrogen and testosterone are derivatives of cholesterol. You seem to think that "those people" had a personal vendetta against you, or held an "anti-marijuana" stance. As for me, that is not the case: I simply support the scientific method.

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;37750336]Is it me or does Facepunch seem horribly indoctrinated by the DARE program? For an extremely Liberal and Atheist majority I think you guys would like marijuana.[/QUOTE] orrrr maybe just maybe there are some of us that support legalizing weed but at the same time don't want to suffer idiots who go around proclaiming it's a miracle drug with absolutely no negative effects? Seriously some of you seem to be jumping to the conclusion that just because we don't all blindly sing the praises of marijuana that we must not want it legalized, which is not the case. hth it is possible to support something without making bullshit up just to further your case.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37767868]orrrr maybe just maybe there are some of us that support legalizing weed but at the same time don't want to suffer idiots who go around proclaiming it's a miracle drug with absolutely no negative effects? Seriously some of you seem to be jumping to the conclusion that just because we don't all blindly sing the praises of marijuana that we must not want it legalized, which is not the case. hth it is possible to support something without making bullshit up just to further your case.[/QUOTE] It's funny because no one on here actually claims it's a miracle drug and you're beating a long dead horse.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;37741278]Except most of the things in that picture can be done far better and cheaper using other materials. Marijuana becoming legal isn't going to revolutionise the world[/QUOTE] Its like nobody on Facepunch knows what they're talking about.

[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;37768073]Its like nobody on Facepunch knows what they're talking about.[/QUOTE] It won't.

I'm pretty sure you'd be able to grow marijuana plants if you had some sort of permit (either research/industry). They sound like they're full of useful and interesting natural compounds for pharmacological research and development. I mean, opium poppies are farmed in Tasmania.

[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;37778565]I'm pretty sure you'd be able to grow marijuana plants if you had some sort of permit (either research/industry). They sound like they're full of useful and interesting natural compounds for pharmacological research and development. I mean, opium poppies are farmed in Tasmania.[/QUOTE]You have to have a DEA license which are extremely hard to get and you must prove you're a scientist, etc.

[QUOTE=Fyhlen;37767699]You seem to have mistyped "1,037 people from a city of 120,000 in New Zealand." Anyways, why would I question this study's authenticity or rigorousness? It's clearly authentic: following the sources given by the OP leads to prior papers on both PubMed and Nature.com. The study is also rigorous: as you said, the study was conducted over a 20 year period; furthermore, the method was sound, and the Nature paper is in fact available to the public [url=http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v95/n2/abs/6603236a.html]here[/url], for anyone who wants to double check it. One must note, though, that the study used cannabidiol derivatives, as opposed to the compounds naturally present in cannabis. This is important since derivatives often have little relation to the original molecule; for example, both estrogen and testosterone are derivatives of cholesterol. You seem to think that "those people" had a personal vendetta against you, or held an "anti-marijuana" stance. As for me, that is not the case: I simply support the scientific method.[/QUOTE] of those people only 52 were marijuana dependent which means they were the only people tested against the norm

[QUOTE=FlashFireSix;37741089]I wish somebody would just grow a backbone, legalize and control it, because yeah while smoking a fuckton can cause problems, so does alchahol and tobbaco?[/QUOTE] that's more of an argument against tobacco and alcohol than an argument for marijuana

[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37741028]I can't wait for people to debate the authenticity of this, so I can shut them up with the quote exactly how people tried to shut me up when I questioned the accuracy of a 20+ year study on marijuana's effect on intelligence that ended up having only 52 people from one town in New Zealand to base most of their findings on. As seen here:[/QUOTE] I was watching the argument in that other thread, and that one was about [B]smoking pot[/B], not using a cannabis-derived chemical to control cancer growth. These two topics are quite different actually, despite what you might think, so your argument doesn't really accomplish anything.