Cannabis Extracts Kills Cancer Cells in Cancer Sufferers - Polidicks

[QUOTE=s0beit;28309944]What do you think making those drugs illegal actually does? I'm curious to know[/QUOTE] make it easier to get their hands onto? im from Hawaii, and let them to tell you, it's one of the most drugged state ever, we're #1 in meth use, and I seen it first hand how fucking terrible it is. those hard drugs destroy shit. but weed? LSD? legalizing them won't do shit and they could be beneficial.

Why is everyone in here trying to justify smoking it all the time. It was an extract from it, they werent putting a blunt in their mouths and telling them to smoke it. Then again stoners will use anything to justify themselves it seems.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;28309686]and if you do stupid enough shit while high on cannabis so that police puts a gun to your head, the plant is not to be blamed.[/QUOTE] ...The fuck are you on? No one should ever be able to get off a charge because they're on something. Who the fuck even said that? Can you get away with drunk driving because you're drunk? No, and no expects it to be different for pot either.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;28309980]make it easier to get their hands onto? im from Hawaii, and let them to tell you, it's one of the most drugged state ever, we're #1 in meth use, and I seen it first hand how fucking terrible it is. those hard drugs destroy shit. but weed? LSD? legalizing them won't do shit and they could be beneficial.[/QUOTE] You just defeated your argument yourself, you just said meth is readily available. Chances are the other drugs you named aren't in short supply there (or most places in the United States for that matter) If people do cocaine they're going to get cocaine, if they do meth they're going to get meth. There's always some criminal element to fill the gap when it comes to black markets, so not only have you had virtually no effect on the availability of the drugs but you are now supplying criminals with money through legislation.

[QUOTE=DinoJesus;28309988]Why is everyone in here trying to justify smoking it all the time. It was an extract from it, they werent putting a blunt in their mouths and telling them to smoke it. Then again stoners will use anything to justify themselves it seems.[/QUOTE] What's the matter with anyone smoking pot? no one here has once said "420 ERRDAY SMOKE WEED NO CANCER!". No, I'm pretty fucking sure, the only people here who say shit like that, are you anti drug posters who act like you have the right to tell people what to do with their own bodies. The most important part of the article is that it's for extracts. But weed should be legal anyways.

[QUOTE=DinoJesus;28309988]Why is everyone in here trying to justify smoking it all the time. It was an extract from it, they werent putting a blunt in their mouths and telling them to smoke it. Then again stoners will use anything to justify themselves it seems.[/QUOTE] An extract is nothing more than a highly concentrated form of the same stuff your smoking in your weed. The increased cannabinoid levels inherent in an extract are simply there to attempt an eradication of the cancerous cells. That is to say, who knows what results from long term exposure to low concentrations (aka the cannabis itself). My guess is it can't be far from what is found in this article.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28310028]You just defeated your argument yourself, you just said meth is readily available. Chances are the other drugs you named aren't in short supply there (or most places in the United States for that matter) If people do cocaine they're going to get cocaine, if they do meth they're going to get meth. There's always some criminal element to fill the gap when it comes to black markets, so not only have you had virtually no effect on the availability of the drugs but you are now supplying criminals with money through legislation.[/QUOTE] War on drugs has made drug use easier. The more you try and stamp out a market, the more that markets going to deal with. Why anyone thinks banning any substance will help anything is beyond me. it's a simple waste of money for social conservatism and stupidity.

[QUOTE=DinoJesus;28309988]Why is everyone in here trying to justify smoking it all the time. It was an extract from it, they werent putting a blunt in their mouths and telling them to smoke it. Then again stoners will use anything to justify themselves it seems.[/QUOTE] Justify smoking it all the time, who said that?

Facepunch just can't deal with the fact that pot is one the least harmful recreational substance that you can use. It's not going to cure cancer, but why waste your time arguing over it Haters gonna hate, smokers gonna smoke

[QUOTE=s0beit;28310028]You just defeated your argument yourself, you just said meth is readily available. Chances are the other drugs you named aren't in short supply there (or most places in the United States for that matter) If people do cocaine they're going to get cocaine, if they do meth they're going to get meth. There's always some criminal element to fill the gap when it comes to black markets, so not only have you had virtually no effect on the availability of the drugs but you are now supplying criminals with money through legislation.[/QUOTE] every shit is readily available, doesnt mean we should legalize them for shits and giggles or BUT PEOPLE ALREADY DO THIS, WHY NOT JUST LET THEM DO THIS TOO? i mean, really, do you think the dealers or drug lords will let themselves lose their number one source of income and power, just because their shit got legalized?

[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;28310065]An extract is nothing more than a highly concentrated form of the same stuff your smoking in your weed. The increased cannabinoid levels inherent in an extract are simply there to attempt an eradication of the cancerous cells. That is to say, who knows what results from long term exposure to low concentrations (aka the cannabis itself). My guess is it can't be far from what is found in this article.[/QUOTE] Apparently long term weed smokers were 60% less likely to get mouth/lung cancer - although don't go by what I'm saying because I aint got any sources handy atm

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;28310126]every shit is readily available, doesnt mean we should legalize them for shits and giggles or BUT PEOPLE ALREADY DO THIS, WHY NOT JUST LET THEM DO THIS TOO? i mean, really, do you think the dealers or drug lords will let themselves lose their number one source of income and power, just because their shit got legalized?[/QUOTE] But you can't stop them is my point. I agree with you and know where you're coming from with this, but it's a money sink to stop people selling those drugs. Why not just legalize them and have the government sell them, regulate them, and we could even have programs like portugual does to help addicts deal with their problems in an actually effective way. AA and NA have a 5% success rate after 6 months. That's the same as doing it on your own. Not the answer.

The only reason marijuana isn't legalized is because of years and years of misinformation. It's really just a matter of time.

[QUOTE=Imaledgev2;28310127]Apparently long term weed smokers were 60% less likely to get mouth/lung cancer - although don't go by what I'm saying because I aint got any sources handy atm[/QUOTE] I've read studies that have suggested that in weed smokers who also smoke cigarettes, cancer is highly reduced threat.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28310171]I've read studies that have suggested that in weed smokers who also smoke cigarettes, cancer is highly reduced threat.[/QUOTE] I'm not too sure what you're trying to say by this

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28310155]But you can't stop them is my point. I agree with you and know where you're coming from with this, but it's a money sink to stop people selling those drugs. Why not just legalize them and have the government sell them, regulate them, and we could even have programs like portugual does to help addicts deal with their problems in an actually effective way. AA and NA have a 5% success rate after 6 months. That's the same as doing it on your own. Not the answer.[/QUOTE] Well, I guess you got a point that we can't really stop em, but we can regulate em, but still, we should at least give more information or educate people them more about these drugs if we decide to legalize it at least.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;28310244]Well, I guess you got a point that we can't really stop em, but we can regulate em, but still, we should at least give more information or educate people them more about these drugs if we decide to legalize it at least.[/QUOTE] I agree. Just like Portugual.

What about the links between cannabis and mental health issues, most predominately schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses?

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;28310296]What about the links between cannabis and mental health issues, most predominately schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses?[/QUOTE] What about people who have allergic reactions to pain killers? My point is that it it should be dealt with the same - if you are known to be susceptible to mental health problems, then it's not recommended to take it, just like if you are (or could be) allergic to paracetamol, you'd be advised to stay away

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;28310296]What about the links between cannabis and mental health issues, most predominately schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses?[/QUOTE] Yeah, clearly a reason not to legalize it... so, if it's legalized you'll need to pass a test for skitzofrenia. Big deal..

Correct me if i'm wrong but I didn't see a link to any peer reviewed studies in the news post. Besides that fact this seems really questionable overall, the fact that cannabis extract specifically kills cancer cells.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28310051]What's the matter with anyone smoking pot? no one here has once said "420 ERRDAY SMOKE WEED NO CANCER!". No, I'm pretty fucking sure, the only people here who say shit like that, are you anti drug posters who act like you have the right to tell people what to do with their own bodies. The most important part of the article is that it's for extracts. But weed should be legal anyways.[/QUOTE]Until the scientific community proves it has no negative side effects, I'm just gonna say its bad. And just because it isnt my body, doesn't mean I'm not going to consider them idiots for blindly smoking a substance which has been told over and over to them is harmful since elementary school. Honestly, the people who support it are the idiots who are smoking it. Most of the time they just say its not bad for you without even attempting to prove its not. Honestly, there is a lot of proof saying its harmful, and I'm going to believe an expert in the field over some doped up stoner begging for peoples acceptance. Lets see some facts about it. [QUOTE]THC, the main active ingredient in marijuana, binds to membranes of nerve cells in the central nervous system that have protein receptors. After binding to nerve cells, THC initiates a chemical reaction that produces the various effects of marijuana use. [B]One of the effects is suppression of memory and learning centers (called the hippocampus) in the brain.[/B] [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Marijuana smokers may develop many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, including chronic cough with phlegm and chronic bronchitis. Long-term use of smoked marijuana may injure or destroy lung tissue. Marijuana smokers inhale many times more carbon monoxide and tar than do tobacco smokers, possibly because marijuana joints are usually unfiltered.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Use of marijuana may impair important cognitive functions such as attention, memory, and learning. Research on marijuana use among young people shows lower achievement than among non-users.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Marijuana increases blood pressure and heart rate, especially when combined with cocaine.[/QUOTE] And honestly, considering the fact that it may even have a chance of harming you, and it isnt neccessary to smoke it, just makes it seem dumb to me to do it in the first place.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28310398]Yeah, clearly a reason not to legalize it... so, if it's legalized you'll need to pass a test for skitzofrenia. Big deal..[/QUOTE] Actually sounds pretty good

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28310436]Correct me if i'm wrong but I didn't see a link to any peer reviewed studies in the news post. Besides that fact this seems really questionable overall, the fact that cannabis extract specifically kills cancer cells.[/QUOTE] I would also like to see this. It's fishy for sure. But still, no reason not to legalize it.

While the cancer reducing properties of marijuana and cannabis have been known for years (due to an inherent toxicity of the [url=http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/tx700275p] by-products of burning marijuana[/url] and THC toxicity at a cellular level [disputed]), I severely doubt the competency of this company. All they are basing this off of is from one uncontrolled study, not even performed by lab personnel in a controlled environment. Only some woman who used a topically applied cannabis solution.

[QUOTE=DinoJesus;28310455]Until the scientific community proves it has no negative side effects, I'm just gonna say its bad. And just because it isnt my body, doesn't mean I'm not going to consider them idiots for blindly smoking a substance which has been told over and over to them is harmful since elementary school. Honestly, the people who support it are the idiots who are smoking it. Most of the time they just say its not bad for you without even attempting to prove its not. Honestly, there is a lot of proof saying its harmful, and I'm going to believe an expert in the field over some doped up stoner begging for peoples acceptance. Lets see some facts about it. And honestly, considering the fact that it may even have a chance of harming you, and it isnt neccessary to smoke it, just makes it seem dumb to me to do it in the first place.[/QUOTE] Question, do you support prohibition? Yeah, it's a well known fact of life that THC and marijuana causes mild temporary memory loss. Cool, I smoke every day and have done for a long time. I still have a pretty solid memory. A week off of smoking? Perfect memory. The fact of the matter is, there's no way to OD on it, and the damage that's done by it is very minimal. Oh, I know, you'll just say I'm "brainwashed" by pro pot bullshit. Do you even know WHY it was originally made illegal? I'm going to say fuck no you don't.

But it's impossible to accurately identify a biological predisposition - you can only rely on things like family history. I'm pretty sure there's no straight-forward "schizophrenia test". E: I remember having this sort of discussion before, actually. From what I recall, HumanAbyss believes that in reality, these drugs are nowhere near as bad as mainstream education/media would have you believe, and that the vast majority of drug users are completely fine, using himself as an example. Thing is, there's no proof for this, and a slightly plausible explanation for a lack of proof doesn't really cut it.

[QUOTE=DinoJesus;28310455]Marijuana smokers inhale many times more carbon monoxide [b]and tar[/b] than do tobacco smokers, possibly because marijuana joints are usually unfiltered.[/QUOTE] What the fuck, marijuana does not have tar in it. Most stupidest thing ive seen all day

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;28310544]But it's impossible to accurately identify a biological predisposition - you can only rely on things like family history. I'm pretty sure there's no straight-forward "schizophrenia test".[/QUOTE] Smoking weed once with skitzofrenia is not going to cause the worse problems imaginable. Hell, it's that simple of a test. You can't overdose on it, so it's a fairly safe test. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=counterpo0;28310554]What the fuck, marijuana does not have tar in it. Most stupidest thing ive seen all day[/QUOTE] This is the funniest thing. The only place pot has ANY tar in it, is in the leaves. You don't fucking smoke leaves.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28310470]I would also like to see this. It's fishy for sure. But still, no reason not to legalize it.[/QUOTE] Of course not, but that's another issue altogether. This is the story linked from the company's website: [url]http://www.cannabisscience.com/download/cancer_extract_kills.pdf[/url] Ha ha wow, yeah this isn't trustworthy at all. It's looking at a single case with no remarks about controlling confounding factors, concurrent treatment, anything. There's a list of references but I probably can't check them seeing as how they usually require journal access, not to mention the fact that the references look totally unrelated to the "study". This is pretty obviously a piece from a group pushing an agenda and not really legitimate looking science at all. I agree with the agenda, but still. e: Just to preempt everyone attacking me/this because weed should be legalized, yeah it should. But there should be legitimate scientific studies done towards the effects of it and not worthless things like this. There probably has been already anyways.