Cannabis Extracts Kills Cancer Cells in Cancer Sufferers - Polidicks

[QUOTE=s0beit;28312607] By the same token you would ask if schizophrenics should be able to buy alcohol, i think they can and it hasn't been that large of a problem.[/QUOTE] No, not by the same token at all. Weed can bring out symptoms of schizophrenia if one has a family history of schizophrenia, while otherwise it may lie dormant. Alcohol does not do this.

[QUOTE=Bran;28313362]No, not by the same token at all. Weed can bring out symptoms of schizophrenia if one has a family history of schizophrenia, while otherwise it may lie dormant. Alcohol does not do this.[/QUOTE] OK but i was talking about people already diagnosed as schizophrenic, I'm not talking about that at all. Anyway, most people who try drugs and have that problem probably would have done it anyway, legal or not. (You see, that's how you were able to bring up that specific example, since you know, laws do nothing and people with those problems try it anyway or else we never would have known)

Wait....is it just me, or is everyone jumping over each other to over clarify their statements about this subject?

[QUOTE=Killoch0;28309257]I think it should be pointed out its Cannabis [B]Extracts[/B] that killed the cancer in this study, and not smoked Cannabis. On another note, it seems every week some new treatment/cure for cancer is found. Why is cancer not a distant memory yet?![/QUOTE] There's no fucking difference. Smoked, vaped, eaten or shoved up the ass Cannabis will do the exact same thing that extracts will do, and probably even better, for far less money. The "extracts" are there solely to make more money and to avoid the "negative stigma" that herbal cannabis has. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Bran;28313362]No, not by the same token at all. Weed can bring out symptoms of schizophrenia if one has a family history of schizophrenia, while otherwise it may lie dormant. Alcohol does not do this.[/QUOTE] There is no substantial evidence that it can indeed bring out symptoms of schizophrenia, as there has been only one decent study on it and the results are questionable at best.

[QUOTE=s0beit;28312120] That said,[b] i don't believe weed is the savior of the human race until i have some scientific evidence explaining why, or more importantly how.[/b] [/QUOTE] here you go [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6cZdSJvOME[/media]

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;28313842]There's no fucking difference. Smoked, vaped, eaten or shoved up the ass Cannabis will do the exact same thing that extracts will do, and probably even better, for far less money. The "extracts" are there solely to make more money and to avoid the "negative stigma" that herbal cannabis has. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] There is no substantial evidence that it can indeed bring out symptoms of schizophrenia, as there has been only one decent study on it and the results are questionable at best.[/QUOTE] Wow no you don't understand chemistry at all. When you make and refine extracts of natural substances, you can eliminate all the other elements which might have negative effects and strengthen the effect of the chemical with the effect by concentrating and purifying it in higher doses than possible through plant intake. Trust me, willow bark is not better than Asprin.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28314233]Wow no you don't understand chemistry at all. When you make and refine extracts of natural substances, you can eliminate all the other elements which might have negative effects and strengthen the effect of the chemical with the effect by concentrating and purifying it in higher doses than possible through plant intake. Trust me, willow bark is not better than Asprin.[/QUOTE] Yes, I understand what extract means. A THC/CBD extract will get you tons higher-err medicated, but any other form of weed will do the same. I will not deny that they are better for medical purposes and tests, sure, but marijuana is a tiny bit different from Aspirin. You can get the same effects from the straight herb as the extract, albeit you'll need a bit more plant. Not to mention the hundreds of other Cannabinoids present in cannabis other than THC and CBD. And there are no real harmful elements to be eliminated soooooo All I'm saying is, it's silly to say extracts can do anything that herbal cannabis can't do.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28314233]Wow no you don't understand chemistry at all. When you make and refine extracts of natural substances, you can eliminate all the other elements which might have negative effects and strengthen the effect of the chemical with the effect by concentrating and purifying it in higher doses than possible through plant intake. Trust me, willow bark is not better than Asprin.[/QUOTE] Okay but you don't seem to understand the purpose of cannabis concentrates. The cannabinoids in weed that you filter into the concentrate work in symphony with each other, there is no filtering out of other substances. This is not necessary. What happens is it removes the plant matter; the "weed", from the equation. You're left with the THC crystals, ie; the stuff that gets you high. Making it a more 'concentrated' form of THC. The man you quoted is right and you are mistaken. Trust me I'm a patient in the state of CA where it's legal, and, quite frankly, I know these things from experience.

It turns out, all the patients turned into zombies.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;28314324]Yes, I understand what extract means. A THC/CBD extract will get you tons higher-err medicated, but any other form of weed will do the same. I will not deny that they are better for medical purposes and tests, sure, but marijuana is a tiny bit different from Aspirin. You can get the same effects from the straight herb as the extract, albeit you'll need a bit more plant. Not to mention the hundreds of other Cannabinoids present in cannabis other than THC and CBD. And there are no real harmful elements to be eliminated soooooo All I'm saying is, it's silly to say extracts can do anything that herbal cannabis can't do.[/QUOTE] There's the entire inhaled smoke thing which isn't really good for your lungs in any case, along with possible contaminants, other plant material, etc etc. And maybe, but it's even more asinine to say that pot could do it better than purified cannabinoid extracts. [QUOTE=ShukaidoX;28314338]Okay but you don't seem to understand the purpose of cannabis concentrates. The cannabinoids in weed that you filter into the concentrate work in symphony with each other, there is no filtering out of other substances. This is not necessary. What happens is it removes the plant matter; the "weed", from the equation. You're left with the THC crystals, ie; the stuff that gets you high. Making it a more 'concentrated' form of THC. The man you quoted is right and you are mistaken. Trust me I'm a patient in the state of CA where it's legal, and, quite frankly, I know these things from experience.[/QUOTE] You just completely agreed with me. Hope you're aware of that.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28314366]There's the entire inhaled smoke thing which isn't really good for your lungs in any case, along with possible contaminants, other plant material, etc etc. And maybe, but it's even more asinine to say that pot could do it better than purified cannabinoid extracts.[/QUOTE] That smoke which has yet to be seen causing any damage what-so-ever to anyone's lungs or trachea. So I fail to see the need to refine it anymore than it already is. That plant matter is in no way detrimental to ones health unless you choke on it or something as well. The extract just gives you more of the active ingredients more directly. It's just another way to get medicated. A more expensive way too.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;28314476]That smoke which has yet to be seen causing any damage what-so-ever to anyone's lungs or trachea. So I fail to see the need to refine it anymore than it already is. That plant matter is in no way detrimental to ones health unless you choke on it or something as well. The extract just gives you more of the active ingredients more directly. It's just another way to get medicated. A more expensive way too.[/QUOTE] The smoke in general can exacerbate pre-existing lung and tracheal conditions. Smoke is smoke and it's rarely a positive thing to be breathing en masse.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28314366]There's the entire inhaled smoke thing which isn't really good for your lungs in any case, along with possible contaminants, other plant material, etc etc. [/QUOTE] Burning plant matter is not good for your lungs, any doctor will tell you that. What you don't seem to understand is the difference between the dispersant qualities of cannabis smoke versus the constrictive traits of tobacco. What this means is that the effects on your lungs are practically non-existent, due to the fact it doesn't stay in your lungs like how tobacco will give you black lung. That doesn't get into the fact that doctors ONLY truly reccomend using a vaporizor for medicating as it has no risk of smoking at all and in fact is only a vapor... essentially what you're saying is ignorant and your spewing of this misinformation is damaging to the community. [QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28314366]And maybe, but it's even more asinine to say that pot could do it better than purified cannabinoid extracts.[/quote] The only thing that's asinine about this is your uninformed view of cannabis.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28314514]The smoke in general can exacerbate pre-existing lung and tracheal conditions. Smoke is smoke and it's rarely a positive thing to be breathing en masse.[/QUOTE] If that's the case, vaporize.

[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;28314530]Burning plant matter is not good for your lungs, any doctor will tell you that. What you don't seem to understand is the difference between the dispersant qualities of cannabis smoke versus the constrictive traits of tobacco. What this means is that the effects on your lungs are practically non-existent, due to the fact it doesn't stay in your lungs like how tobacco will give you black lung. That doesn't get into the fact that doctors ONLY truly reccomend using a vaporizor for medicating as it has no risk of smoking at all and in fact is only a vapor... essentially what you're saying is ignorant and your spewing of this misinformation is damaging to the community. The only thing that's asinine about this is your uninformed view of cannabis.[/QUOTE] I'd really like to see any proof towards your claim that pot smoke is fundamentally different from tobacco smoke. And yes, i'm damaging the community because i'm saying inhaling large quantities of smoke regularly [I]might[/I] not be too good for you.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28314595]I'd really like to see any proof towards your claim that pot smoke is fundamentally different from tobacco smoke. And yes, i'm damaging the community because i'm saying inhaling large quantities of smoke regularly [I]might[/I] not be too good for you.[/QUOTE] Your ignorant ideals regarding something which, quite frankly, has no real reason to be prohibited, make for the change of this oppressive system take longer and thereby are a hindrance towards progress. Got it? Also, the fact you require evidence to prove that tobacco and cannabis are completely different is laughable but [URL="http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=62318;article=13310;"]here you go.[/URL] [quote]The main thing going on here is the difference between bronchial dilators and constrictors. Tobacco is a bronchial constrictor whereas Cannabis is a bronchial dilator; this means smoking tobacco will tighten and close the pathways in your lungs where Cannabis will open them up... This allows the particulate matter (black mucus) etc., to be expelled, thereby eliminating their effects "on contact" with lung tissue.[/quote]FFS I'll even quote it.

[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;28314650]Your ignorant ideals regarding something which, quite frankly, has no real reason to be prohibited, make for the change of this oppressive system take longer and thereby are a hindrance towards progress. Got it? Also, the fact you require evidence to prove that tobacco and cannabis are completely different is laughable but [URL="http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=62318;article=13310;"]here you go.[/URL][/QUOTE] Hey shitbrains, I support legalization. I just don't support the idea that pot is the perfect wonder drug with 0 negative effects. Also that's really trustworthy, how bout a link to something actually legitimate looking, like maybe a study? e: Or really, anything that isn't "Raver's Edge" for fucks sake

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28314699]how bout a link to something actually legitimate looking[/QUOTE] It's 'cause the page is black, isn't it? Why don't you take your racism somewhere else, man.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28314699]Hey shitbrains, I support legalization. I just don't support the idea that pot is the perfect wonder drug with 0 negative effects. Also that's really trustworthy, how bout a link to something actually legitimate looking, like maybe a study?[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html]Here's a source which I know you'll just eat right up.[/url] Actually read this so next time you start saying things as if they were facts you think twice before you press that reply button.

[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;28314742][url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html]Here's a source which I know you'll just eat right up.[/url] Actually read this so next time you start saying things as if they were facts you think twice before you press that reply button.[/QUOTE] Wow that has nothing to do with the issues I was bringing up. It doesn't say a single thing about the dilator and constrictor thing that was brought up in your previous post, either. You're just totally ignoring the fact that i'm not arguing anything about it causing cancer and saying smoking it is worse than extracts because it's [B]smoking it[/B] which is pretty much never good for you in terms of not irritating your lungs and such. Stop being blinded by your need to praise pot and actually consider what you're arguing and responding to. e: Seriously, you've gone from disagreeing with the extract vs. plant thing even though you weren't really to just going POT IS GOOD DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER for no apparent reason.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28314699]Hey shitbrains, I support legalization. I just don't support the idea that pot is the perfect wonder drug with 0 negative effects. Also that's really trustworthy, how bout a link to something actually legitimate looking, like maybe a study? e: Or really, anything that isn't "Raver's Edge" for fucks sake[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer[/url] [url]http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891[/url] [url]http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer?page=2[/url] And the fact that Willie Nelson is still alive is a pretty good testimony to pot smoke being VERY different form tobacco smoke. As for the exact effect he is talking about, I have a good source on that, but I can't find it. I'm 100% certain of his claims, but until I find the source, feel free to continue rocking back and forth on your high horse. But I guess it doesn't matter. Point is, extracts aren't hugely different from the natural plant.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;28314829][url]http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer[/url] [url]http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891[/url] [url]http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer?page=2[/url] And the fact that Willie Nelson is still alive is a pretty good testimony to pot smoke being VERY different form tobacco smoke. As for the exact effect he is talking about, I have a good source on that, but I can't find it. I'm 100% certain of his claims, but until I find the source, feel free to continue rocking back and forth on your high horse.[/QUOTE] Jesus it's like you people can't read. Here let me abuse the tags that everyone has been doing [h2]I DON'T CARE ABOUT IT'S CANCER EFFECTS OR LACK THERE OF[/h2] [h2]I'M SAYING IT'S BAD FOR THE LUNGS THROUGH PURE PHYSICAL EFFECTS BECAUSE IT'S STILL SMOKE[/h2]

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28314798]which is pretty much never good for you in terms of not irritating your lungs and such.[/QUOTE] *citation needed

[quote=xen tricks;28314860]jesus it's like you people can't read. Here let me abuse the tags that everyone has been doing [h2]i don't care about it's cancer effects or lack there of[/h2] [h2]i'm saying it's bad for the lungs through pure physical effects because it's still smoke[/h2][/quote] [h2]EXCEPT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IT CAUSES ANY HARM. I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY VIABLE EVIDENCE THAT IT DOES. EVER. YOU'RE THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM THAT IT IS UNHEALTHY SO GO FIND SOME.[/h2] [h2]HEADER.[/h2] c

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28314860]Jesus it's like you people can't read. Here let me abuse the tags that everyone has been doing [h2]I DON'T CARE ABOUT IT'S CANCER EFFECTS OR LACK THERE OF[/h2] [h2]I'M SAYING IT'S BAD FOR THE LUNGS THROUGH PURE PHYSICAL EFFECTS BECAUSE IT'S STILL SMOKE[/h2][/QUOTE] Can't even read fox news huh? [quote=faux news]Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.[/quote] They smoked over 200 pounds of pot over their entire life smoking it through paper, and yet there was no physical risks associated with them moreso than anyone else. It's because [B]it's different from tobacco for fucks sake.[/B]

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28314514]The smoke in general can exacerbate pre-existing lung and tracheal conditions. Smoke is smoke and it's rarely a positive thing to be breathing en masse.[/QUOTE] Not true for weed. I've read studies saying weed smoke is anti-asmathitic, and if it's not, then just use a vaporizer and that more than likely is.

[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;28314915]Can't even read fox news huh? They smoked over 200 pounds of pot over their entire life smoking it through paper, and yet there was no physical risks associated with them moreso than anyone else. It's because [B]it's different from tobacco for fucks sake.[/B][/QUOTE] Holy shit are you that bad that you literally do not understand the concept of context? Here let me help you: [quote]While a clear increase in cancer risk was seen among cigarette smokers in the study, no such association was seen for regular cannabis users. Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers. The findings surprised the study’s researchers, who expected to see an increase in cancer among people who smoked marijuana regularly in their youth[/quote] No greater risk... of cancer. It doesn't mean no greater risk of anything overall at all ever. and here [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12144608[/url] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11219370[/url] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17666437[/url] Three separate abstracts/conclusions saying that cannabis smoke has physical effects on the lungs. That's a little better than a quote mined line from fox news [quote]FINDINGS: Ninety-one subjects (9.7%) were cannabis-dependent and 264 (28.1%) were current tobacco smokers. After controlling for tobacco use, respiratory symptoms associated with cannabis dependence included: wheezing apart from colds, exercise-induced shortness of breath, nocturnal wakening with chest tightness and early morning sputum production. These were increased by 61%, 65%, 72% (all p < 0.05) and 144% (p < 0.01) respectively, compared to non-tobacco smokers. The frequency of respiratory symptoms in cannabis-dependent subjects was similar to tobacco smokers of 1-10 cigarettes/day. The proportion of cannabis-dependent study members with an FEV1/FVC ratio of < 80% was 36% compared to 20% for non-smokers (p = 0.04). These outcomes occurred independently of co-existing bronchial asthma.[/quote]

also, smoking isn't even important in the issue of pot. I can eat it, vape it, boil it to butter, smoke it, there's shit tons of ways besides smoking. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28315049]Holy shit are you that bad that you literally do not understand the concept of context? Here let me help you: No greater risk... of cancer. It doesn't mean no greater risk of anything overall at all ever. and here [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12144608[/url] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11219370[/url] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17666437[/url] Three separate abstracts/conclusions saying that cannabis smoke has physical effects on the lungs. That's a little better than a quote mined line from fox news[/QUOTE] the only thing i've ever heard it do is in extremely high doses it paralyzes the scillia of the lungs. That's it. It doesn't even do that permanently. Either way, I don't see why this argument is needed.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28315049]Holy shit are you that bad that you literally do not understand the concept of context? Here let me help you: No greater risk... of cancer. It doesn't mean no greater risk of anything overall at all ever. and here [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12144608[/url] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11219370[/url] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17666437[/url] Three separate abstracts/conclusions saying that cannabis smoke has physical effects on the lungs. That's a little better than a quote mined line from fox news[/QUOTE] Thank you. And now we go back to vaping it :)

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28315056]also, smoking isn't even important in the issue of pot. I can eat it, vape it, boil it to butter, smoke it, there's shit tons of ways besides smoking. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] the only thing i've ever heard it do is in extremely high doses it paralyzes the scillia of the lungs. That's it. It doesn't even do that permanently. Either way, I don't see why this argument is needed.[/QUOTE] I know, my entire argument here was started by someone saying that smoking it altogether is better than extracts, and when I pointed out the negative physical effects of smoking it's like I had attacked the entirety of pot.