Thread: Marijuana Myth Busters

From the lead post at WebMD...

Might cannabinoids keep dangerous tumors from spreading throughout the body? Ramer and Hinz set up an experiment in which invasive cervical and lung cancer cells had make their way through a tissue-like gel. Even at very low concentrations, the marijuana compounds THC and methanandamide (MA) significantly slowed the invading cancer cells.

Doses of THC that reduce pain in cancer patients yield blood concentrations much higher than the concentrations needed to inhibit cancer invasion.

"Thus the effects of THC on cell invasion occurred at therapeutically relevant concentrations," Ramer and Hinz note.

From the second post...

In 1974 researchers learned that THC, the active chemical in marijuana, shrank or destroyed brain tumors in test mice. But the DEA quickly shut down the study and destroyed its results, which were never replicated -- until now.
The term medical marijuana took on dramatic new meaning in February, 2000 when researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis.

The Madrid study marks only the second time that THC has been administered to tumor-bearing animals; the first was a Virginia investigation 26 years ago. In both studies, the THC shrank or destroyed tumors in a majority of the test subjects.

Most Americans don't know anything about the Madrid discovery. Virtually no major U.S. newspapers carried the story, which ran only once on the AP and UPI news wires, on Feb. 29, 2000.

The ominous part is that this isn't the first time scientists have discovered that THC shrinks tumors. In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.

The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the events in his book, "The Emperor Wears No Clothes." In 1976 President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out -- unsuccessfully -- to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."

From the third post...

Myth: Marijuana Kills Brain Cells. Used over time, marijuana permanently alters brain structure and function, causing memory loss, cognitive impairment, personality deterioration, and reduced productivity.

Fact: None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study.

Why do you guys quote 30 year old studies that have NEVER BEEN REPLICATED, when the recent studies find the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you purport to be true???

Someone has been drinking the government-issued Kool-Aid again...

Myth: These articals and studies are 30 years old...


Fact:The method by which marijuana is administered is important. Smoked marijuana may contain carcinogenic compounds that are created by the combustion of the plant material. Marijuana in its natural state, however, is not carcinogenic, and in fact has been shown to prevent cancer. Marijuana may therefore be safer if it is taken as an herbal tincture or with a vaporizer.

Fact: The study proved and web site provided here http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.htm and excerpts was released in 2007

Fact: The web site http://www.freevibe.com./ provided is updated each time a new study is added and every day for articles and news the one quoted here as in the one from Nov. 2007

Fact: I have invited two a medical doctors studying this issue to speak in this thread to verify the facts and findings

Fact: http://www.marijuana-anonymous.org/ are from the less then 1 year old

Fact: Out of the 276 current papers on this subject found at http://www.webmd.com/ The ones provide here have not been altered or changed since they do provide valid study and opinions by medical professional.


Fact : The information provide of the naturally occurring marijuana-like compound 2-AG is called monoacylglycerol lipase, and it is this enzyme that could be a target for therapeutic drug intervention to help those in pain.

Fact: New drug increasing the body's own marijuana-like compounds could work similar to something like Prozac, which blocks the body's reuptake of the compound serotonin, causing it to be active longer,
Fact: Apparently, several parts of the brain are involved in the effect, most notably a structure in the midbrain known as the periaqueductal gray. In this region, stress causes the release of the naturally occurring marijuana-like compounds in the brain.

Fact: A drug derived from the new research would likely be more effective and specific than smoked marijuana.

Fact: THC and the other derived drugs from the cannabis plants suggest slow the spread of cervical and lung cancers. These are studies that are being done through a tissue-like gel. Not on mammals…

Fact: Doses of THC that reduce pain in cancer patients yield blood concentrations much higher than the concentrations needed to inhibit cancer invasion. THOSE DOSES ARE NOT ADMINISTERED BY SMOKING.

Fact: Marijuana is an illicit drug. The medical use of its properties will not change that !!!

The first link leads to this...

Error! The file you requested was not available.

The second makes assertions that remain unproven.

The third, well, it's sad that there sre so many weak-willed people in this country.

The fourth, WebMD, was quoted in the first article I posted.

Fact: A drug derived from the new research would likely be more effective and specific than smoked marijuana.

This statement does admit that smoking marijuana is effective by saying that a 'derived drug' would be MORE effective. Of course a 'derived drug' would mean massive profits for the pharma corp. that 'derived' it.

Fact: THC and the other derived drugs from the cannabis plants suggest slow the spread of cervical and lung cancers. These are studies that are being done through a tissue-like gel. Not on mammals…

The second post's results were found in mice, mice ARE mammals.

Fact: Doses of THC that reduce pain in cancer patients yield blood concentrations much higher than the concentrations needed to inhibit cancer invasion. THOSE DOSES ARE NOT ADMINISTERED BY SMOKING.

But they COULD be.

Fact: Marijuana is an illicit drug. The medical use of its properties will not change that !!!

The REASONS for it's status as an 'illicit drug' have been posted, and they have NOTHING to do with it's effect on human beings and EVERYTHING to do with corporate profits.

THE LEGALIZATION LOBBY

The proposition that smoked marijuana is "medicine" is, in sum, false – trickery used by those promoting wholesale legalization. When a statute dramatically reducing penalties for "medical" marijuana took effect in Maryland in October 2003, a defense attorney noted that "there are a whole bunch of people who like marijuana who can now try to use this defense." The attorney observed that lawyers would be "neglecting their clients if they did not try to find out what ‘physical, emotional or psychological’" condition could be enlisted to develop a defense to justify a defendant’s using the drug. "Sometimes people are self-medicating without even realizing it,’" he said

Ed Rosenthal, senior editor of High Times, a pro-drug magazine, once revealed the legalizer strategy behind the "medical" marijuana movement. While addressing an effort to seek public sympathy for glaucoma patients, he said, "I have to tell you that I also use marijuana medically. I have a latent glaucoma which has never been diagnosed. The reason why it’s never been diagnosed is because I’ve been treating it." He continued, "I have to be honest, there is another reason why I do use marijuana . . . and that is because I like to get high. Marijuana is fun.

A few billionaires—not broad grassroots support—started and sustain the "medical" marijuana and drug legalization movements in the United States. Without their money and influence, the drug legalization movement would shrivel. According to National Families in Action, four individuals – George Soros, Peter Lewis, George Zimmer and John Sperling – contributed $1,510,000 to the effort to pass a "medical" marijuana law in California in 1996, a sum representing nearly 60 per cent of the total contributions.

In 2000, The New York Times interviewed Ethan Nadelmann, Director of the Lindesmith Center. Responding to criticism that the medical marijuana issue is a stalking horse for drug legalization, Mr. Nadelmann stated: "Will it help lead toward marijuana legalization? . . . I hope so."

In 2004, Alaska voters faced a ballot initiative that would have made it legal for adults age 21 and older to possess, grow, buy, or give away marijuana. The measure also called for state regulation and taxation of the drug. The campaign was funded almost entirely by the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, which provided "almost all" the $857,000 taken in by the pro-marijuana campaign. Fortunately, Alaskan voters rejected the initiative.

In October 2005, Denver voters passed Initiative 100 decriminalizing marijuana based on incomplete and misleading campaign advertisements put forth by the Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER). A Denver City Councilman complained that the group used the slogan "Make Denver SAFER" on billboards and campaign signs to mislead the voters into thinking that the initiative supported increased police staffing. Indeed, the Denver voters were never informed of the initiative’s true intent to decriminalize marijuana.

The legalization movement is not simply a harmless academic exercise. The mortal danger of thinking that marijuana is "medicine" was graphically illustrated by a story from California. In the spring of 2004, Irma Perez was "in the throes of her first experience with the drug ecstasy" when, after taking one ecstasy tablet, she became ill and told friends that she felt like she was "going to die." Two teenage acquaintances did not seek medical care and instead tried to get Perez to smoke marijuana. When that failed due to her seizures, the friends tried to force-feed marijuana leaves to her, "apparently because [they] knew that drug is sometimes used to treat cancer patients." Irma Perez lost consciousness and died a few days later when she was taken off life support. She was 14 years old.
STILL, THERE’S GOOD NEWS there are Continued Declines in Marijuana Use among Youth

Still More good news
No mater how your opinions go on this all the facts remain the same !!!


MARIJUANA IS DANGEROUS TO THE USER AND OTHERS

Legalization of marijuana, no matter how it begins, will come at the expense of our children and public safety. It will create dependency and treatment issues, and open the door to use of other drugs, impaired health, delinquent behavior, and drugged drivers.

The more you post, the more desperate you seem...

In October 2005, Denver voters passed Initiative 100 decriminalizing marijuana based on incomplete and misleading campaign advertisements put forth by the Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER). A Denver City Councilman complained that the group used the slogan "Make Denver SAFER" on billboards and campaign signs to mislead the voters into thinking that the initiative supported increased police staffing. Indeed, the Denver voters were never informed of the initiative’s true intent to decriminalize marijuana.

Is your assertion that Denver voters didn't read the Act they voted for? I find that hard to believe. I know in MY state, the Act and it's intentions are printed prominently on the ballot itself. I'm really starting to distrust your 'sources'.

In the spring of 2004, Irma Perez was "in the throes of her first experience with the drug ecstasy" when, after taking one ecstasy tablet, she became ill and told friends that she felt like she was "going to die." Two teenage acquaintances did not seek medical care and instead tried to get Perez to smoke marijuana. When that failed due to her seizures, the friends tried to force-feed marijuana leaves to her, "apparently because [they] knew that drug is sometimes used to treat cancer patients." Irma Perez lost consciousness and died a few days later when she was taken off life support. She was 14 years old.

So some girl takes ecstacy and OD's and you want to claim that it's marijuana's fault???

You're REALLY getting 'out there' now...

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

Just worry about yourself. Let others decide what is good for them, not you.

Too bad reality seems like such a stretch....