Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Marijuana can cure cancer?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    Yeah, the FDA also allows THC in pill form, but a lot of the medical-MJ crowd swears it's the smoke.

    And I don't really care enough to argue that point. If you think it helps you, have at it. I'm just saying the FDA is never going to find it medically justifiable to approve smoking it. I read something once though about patients nebulizing it. Something like that might find approval, if it isn't approved already.
    The fact that in pill form, you aren't getting all the terpenoids and compounds that come with the raw plant product. You don't have to smoke it, hence the oils market for such products.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by alkemical View Post
      The fact that in pill form, you aren't getting all the terpenoids and compounds that come with the raw plant product. You don't have to smoke it, hence the oils market for such products.
      You're probably right, but (like this thread) any rationality to any of it is lost on many people. They think smoking MJ has some benefit, therefore it will.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
        http://www.lung.org/associations/sta...marijuana.html



        If a major corporation ever gets behind marijuana distribution, the lawsuits will start rolling. It's a virtual guarantee.

        And I have no issue with Medical MJ, or legalization in general. I just chuckle at all the mystical healing hype it's accumulated during its years in the wilderness. In practice, while it may help, it will spectacularly fail to live up to these crazy expectations.
        other studies have shown no risks. if anything some of the pharm lawsuits and side effects are more worrisome.



        Evidence on cannabis and cancer



        Several research studies have shown a link between cannabis and cancer. But other studies have shown no link. This makes it difficult to say exactly what the risk is. There have been a couple of systematic reviews that have tried to draw some conclusions on this.

        In 2005 a review looked at the results of several studies into marijuana use and cancer risk. The researchers looked at 2 cohort studies and 14 case control studies. The case control studies involved many different types of cancer. Results were mixed and the researchers could not make any firm conclusions about the risk of cancer. It was also difficult to draw conclusions because of limitations in the studies. They included small numbers of people, involved too few heavy marijuana users and possibly underreported marijuana use in those countries where it is illegal.

        In 2006 a systematic review looked at marijuana use and lung cancer risk. Although they could not find a significant link between marijuana and cancer, the reviewers reported that smoking marijuana increased tar exposure and caused changes to the lining of the small tubes in the lungs. They recommended that, until we have more definite evidence, doctors should warn people of the possible harmful effects of marijuana smoking. A New Zealand study in 2008 compared people with lung cancer to people who did not have lung cancer and found that regular cannabis use does increase the risk of lung cancer.

        In early 2006 doctors reported on a possible link between cannabis and bladder cancer. Smoking is one of the main causes of bladder cancer. This study looked at men with bladder cancer under the age of 60, who had smoked marijuana, and compared them to men who hadn’t smoked it. The study showed that marijuana may be a possible cause of bladder cancer. But as the study was small, researchers need to investigate further to find out for certain.

        A 2009 study showed an increase in risk of testicular cancers in cannabis smokers compared to non cannabis smokers. The researchers say there was still an increase in risk after they accounted for tobacco and alcohol use. But the study was too small to draw any definite conclusions, so we still need more research into this.

        Two American studies found that cannabis seemed unlikely to increase cancer risk. One, in 2006, found that there was an increased risk of cancers of the upper airways and digestive system (for example, the mouth, throat and food pipe). But when they adjusted the data to account for smoking cigarettes and other common risk factors, they found that the link with cannabis disappeared. In their data, it didn't seem to be the cannabis that was increasing the risk, but other factors such as smoking tobacco. They concluded that if cannabis did affect cancer risk, the effect was likely to be small. The other study, in 2009, looked at head and neck cancers. They found that risk of head and neck cancers in smokers and drinkers seemed to be lower in people who smoked cannabis as well. But this is only one study and we would need more research to show whether this was a reliable finding or not.

        Finally, there is laboratory research looking at the effect of some chemicals in cannabis smoke on cancer cells. There is evidence that some of these substances can kill prostate cancer, breast cancer and brain tumour cells in the lab. The researchers do point out that using these pure substances in the lab is very different from smoking cannabis. They used far higher concentrations of each substance in their tests than you could get from smoking cannabis.

        So at the moment we don't have clear evidence either way. We do know that smoking is unhealthy. And that, like tobacco, cannabis contains cancer causing substances. Therefore it would seem likely to increase cancer risk. But we need more research to know this for sure.


        http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/canc...s-cause-cancer

        Comment


        • #19
          Looks mostly like what you'd expect when there are few reliable study subjects (due to illegality) and probably far fewer who would've been reliable users for decades, as with tobacco smoking.

          Results will be mixed, because in such a small sample it's tough to isolate much of anything. So at some point you have to fall back on reason. Chemical similarities to tobacco should yield similar results over the long term.

          That may (unlikely) turn out to be an incorrect assumption. But in the world of medicinal drug approval, it's all guilty until proven innocent. You don't just assume tar in the lungs stops being carcinogenic because it came from a different leaf. You'd need mountains and mountains of evidence to successfully pass a claim like that through the FDA. And that kind of evidence just doesn't exist.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
            http://www.lung.org/associations/sta...marijuana.html



            If a major corporation ever gets behind marijuana distribution, the lawsuits will start rolling. It's a virtual guarantee.

            And I have no issue with Medical MJ, or legalization in general. I just chuckle at all the mystical healing hype it's accumulated during its years in the wilderness. In practice, while it may help, it will spectacularly fail to live up to these crazy expectations.
            MJ has a very well demonstrated pain relief affect, with fewer side effects than many alternatives. It is not a miracle cure.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
              You're probably right, but (like this thread) any rationality to any of it is lost on many people. They think smoking MJ has some benefit, therefore it will.
              There are differences though: Is the smoke being filtered through water? Is it being vaporized? Was it grown organically? Was it sprayed with any compounds that could be carcinogenic?

              I'm not vouching for smoking - but i'm saying there's also not been a great way to judge quality control.

              The fact is though, that it's a medicine that people could grow themselves, while there is a cost to growing it - it cuts out insurance companies, copays, pharma, etc. The economics behind it, are just as important.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
                MJ has a very well demonstrated pain relief affect, with fewer side effects than many alternatives. It is not a miracle cure.
                It's a tool in the toolbox.

                Comment


                • #23
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by alkemical View Post
                    There are differences though: Is the smoke being filtered through water? Is it being vaporized? Was it grown organically? Was it sprayed with any compounds that could be carcinogenic?

                    I'm not vouching for smoking - but i'm saying there's also not been a great way to judge quality control.

                    The fact is though, that it's a medicine that people could grow themselves, while there is a cost to growing it - it cuts out insurance companies, copays, pharma, etc. The economics behind it, are just as important.
                    Yep, all of the (few) studies that talk about how much worse a joint is with tar, etc. than a fag are pretty silly. Of course you get more tar, etc. without a filter. On the plus side, at least your average pot grower doesn't have to add additional toxic chemicals to their product to make it "better".

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by alkemical View Post
                      It's a tool in the toolbox.
                      And for pain relief, a very, very good tool. Cheap, relatively safe (Tylenol will ****ing kill you dead slowly and painfully if you take too much even on a single occasion), effective, non addictive, etc.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
                        MJ has a very well demonstrated pain relief affect, with fewer side effects than many alternatives. It is not a miracle cure.
                        I fully agree it has good targeted clinical benefits. But smoking MJ can't rationally be held up as an anti-cancer regimen.

                        On the whole, it's more reasonable to think it would cause more cancer than it would 'cure' or prevent. I'm just saying whether long-term side effects are clinically proven yet or not, it's highly likely that they're there.

                        Which is fine either way, just so long as people understand that they're taking a risk that could end up very similar to smoking cigarettes.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                          I fully agree it has good targeted clinical benefits. But smoking MJ can't rationally be held up as an anti-cancer regimen.

                          On the whole, it's more reasonable to think it would cause more cancer than it would 'cure' or prevent. I'm just saying whether long-term side effects are clinically proven yet or not, it's highly likely that they're there.
                          I think the OP claim is complete bull****. But at least unlike a lot of woo, there is a least some plausibility (most medicines originate from plants). Call in the legit researchers IMHO.

                          Which is fine either way, just so long as people understand that they're taking a risk that could end up very similar to smoking cigarettes.
                          Umm, the OP isn't even claiming that _smoking_ MJ will cure cancer, just that oils from the plant can be used to treat cancer in unspecific ways (injections, cremes, ingestion, who knows).

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
                            I think the OP claim is complete bull****. But at least unlike a lot of woo, there is a least some plausibility (most medicines originate from plants). Call in the legit researchers IMHO.



                            Umm, the OP isn't even claiming that _smoking_ MJ will cure cancer, just that oils from the plant can be used to treat cancer in unspecific ways (injections, cremes, ingestion, who knows).
                            Medical MJ is going to be an enigma for many years. Research will have to be done against the backdrop of widespread anecdotes, hearsay and doubts. It's one of the only times in modern history where the research will have to be done on a product already in wide circulation.

                            With most (modern) drug research, that doesn't happen because the drug is difficult/impossible to formulate without the manufacturer's consent and/or FDA approval.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
                              Yep, all of the (few) studies that talk about how much worse a joint is with tar, etc. than a fag are pretty silly. Of course you get more tar, etc. without a filter. On the plus side, at least your average pot grower doesn't have to add additional toxic chemicals to their product to make it "better".
                              Exactly!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
                                And for pain relief, a very, very good tool. Cheap, relatively safe (Tylenol will ****ing kill you dead slowly and painfully if you take too much even on a single occasion), effective, non addictive, etc.
                                Pain relief, insomnia, neuropathy, i mean the list goes on and on. I know people think it's a miracle drug due to the different ways the cannabinoids interact with each persons chemistry. In some ways, the magic of the cure is how natural and mild it is without causing side effects that require another medicine.

                                I don't think anyone can argue there isn't benefits anymore. Right now, in states that don't have an MMJ or decrim'd position it's almost unethical and unfair.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X