Marijuana Cures

[Kranis]

Around the internet i have noticed lots of people discussing the subject of marijuana being able to cure cancers. I have read that some scientists tested it on brain cancers and it was successful. What do you guys think?

[iNow]

I think those people misunderstand. Anytime we inhale smoke, it is carcinogenic. This is true of cigarettes, of marijuana, and even of barbequed meat. Where pot helps sometimes is with cancer patients going through chemotherapy, since they tend to feel quite nauseous and have difficulty eating. Pot helps them develop an appetite and tends to minimize the nausea.

 

It does not cure cancer. There is, as of today, no cure for cancer. Anybody who tells you pot cures cancer is either mistaken or lying.

[Kranis]

I think those people misunderstand. Anytime we inhale smoke, it is carcinogenic. This is true of cigarettes, of marijuana, and even of barbequed meat. Where pot helps sometimes is with cancer patients going through chemotherapy, since they tend to feel quite nauseous and have difficulty eating. Pot helps them develop an appetite and tends to minimize the nausea.

 

It does not cure cancer. There is, as of today, no cure for cancer. Anybody who tells you pot cures cancer is either mistaken or lying.

 

"Believe it or not, a Harvard study released on April 17, 2007 shows that the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread! Continue reading at NowPublic.com: THC (marijuana) helps cure cancer says Harvard study | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic...y#ixzz1tHTuIXAH "

I cant really rely on most of the info on the internet, but im not sure.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Kranis

[Fuzzwood]

There is no "THE" cancer. Everyone who summarizes it that way, doesn't ave any damn clue.

[ecoli]

"Believe it or not, a Harvard study released on April 17, 2007 shows that the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread! Continue reading at NowPublic.com: THC (marijuana) helps cure cancer says Harvard study | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic...y#ixzz1tHTuIXAH "

I cant really rely on most of the info on the internet, but im not sure.

 

One of my pet peeves is when media coverage or press release refers to a publication without linking back to it or even giving the title or authors or journal. Maybe the publication is god's gift to man, but how can you evaluate properly when the don't give you enough information? That's automatically fishy. I actually see this done most frequently with papers [allegedly] from Harvard academics... as if reputation alone should be enough to ward off critical investigation.

[Kranis]

There is no "THE" cancer. Everyone who summarizes it that way, doesn't ave any damn clue.

 

What do you mean?

 

One of my pet peeves is when media coverage or press release refers to a publication without linking back to it or even giving the title or authors or journal. Maybe the publication is god's gift to man, but how can you evaluate properly when the don't give you enough information? That's automatically fishy. I actually see this done most frequently with papers [allegedly] from Harvard academics... as if reputation alone should be enough to ward off critical investigation.

 

Yeah its hard to trust that source, but you can google the subject all around the internet

[ecoli]

Yeah its hard to trust that source, but you can google the subject all around the internet

 

Yes and none of those sources reference the original publication, at least not that I've found in 30 seconds of searching (which is about my give up point).

[iNow]

Also, even if we assume that THC can minimize tumor growth (it probably makes the tumor apathetic and too focused on sitting on the couch to grow at a regular rate), most people smoke it, and the negatives of smoking almost certainly outweigh any potential benefit of the compound itself. As a reminder, that's a big IF that I placed there... as this only matters IF the finding can be relied upon as accurate.

 

I'm open to the possibility that this is true. The evidence offered me so far, however, doesn't incline me to accept that it is.

[Kranis]

Also, even if we assume that THC can minimize tumor growth (it probably makes the tumor apathetic and too focused on sitting on the couch to grow at a regular rate), most people smoke it, and the negatives of smoking almost certainly outweigh any potential benefit of the compound itself. As a reminder, that's a big IF that I placed there... as this only matters IF the finding can be relied upon as accurate.

 

I'm open to the possibility that this is true. The evidence offered me so far, however, doesn't incline me to accept that it is.

 

I dont know what to believe, i wish it was true, but if it was i dont know if it would be released, since the money for the hospitals isnt in the cure, its in the treatment.

 

 

 

[iNow]

I dont know what to believe, i wish it was true, but if it was i dont know if it would be released, since the money for the hospitals isnt in the cure, its in the treatment.

Before you choose to invoke the possibility of a conspiracy, I strongly encourage you to invoke a confirmation of the finding first.

[ecoli]

I dont know what to believe, i wish it was true, but if it was i dont know if it would be released, since the money for the hospitals isnt in the cure, its in the treatment.

 

find the original article and we can start to address your concerns.

[insane_alien]

What do you mean?

 

Every instance of cancer is different. A cancerous cell is just a normal cell thats gone a bit mental due to genetic damage and started reproducing all over the place. normal cells have mechanisms to prevent this but in a cancerous cell they are broken.

 

so, the cancer cell is essentially genetically identical to the host. this means each cancer is unique. If its a different host then it has a different DNA starting block so any treatment might not work on a different individual. then there is the location of the damage. this means that a treatment that works on damage to one gene will probably not work against a cancer caused by damage to a second gene.

 

asking 'how do we cure cancer?' is like asking 'how do we cure disease?' there are so many variations it is a hopeless question. there is no answer. you can make more sense by focusing on a specific area of cancer such as cancerous skin cells or cancerous lung cells but even then, those are pretty broad brushes.

 

It is highly unlikely there will ever be a single cure-all drug. most likely we will develop personalised medicines where the cancer genome is sequenced and a drug therapy that will be effective for that individual cancer can be applied.

[Kranis]

Every instance of cancer is different. A cancerous cell is just a normal cell thats gone a bit mental due to genetic damage and started reproducing all over the place. normal cells have mechanisms to prevent this but in a cancerous cell they are broken.

 

so, the cancer cell is essentially genetically identical to the host. this means each cancer is unique. If its a different host then it has a different DNA starting block so any treatment might not work on a different individual. then there is the location of the damage. this means that a treatment that works on damage to one gene will probably not work against a cancer caused by damage to a second gene.

 

asking 'how do we cure cancer?' is like asking 'how do we cure disease?' there are so many variations it is a hopeless question. there is no answer. you can make more sense by focusing on a specific area of cancer such as cancerous skin cells or cancerous lung cells but even then, those are pretty broad brushes.

 

It is highly unlikely there will ever be a single cure-all drug. most likely we will develop personalised medicines where the cancer genome is sequenced and a drug therapy that will be effective for that individual cancer can be applied.

 

hmm, well all in all its basically uncontrollable mitosis which some believe marijuana can slow the process down, or even cause it to stop.

 

 

 

[insane_alien]

and the point is 'believe' cancer therapies are tested for efficacy, they haven't just decided to pump cancer patients full of incredibly toxic chemicals for no reason. they decided to do it because it helps kill cancer cells faster than it kills normal cells.

 

cannabis DOES NOT DO THIS.

 

what cannabis can do, and has been proven to do, is help people deal with the side effects of cancer therapies. the nausea the pain etc. and these are not trivial side effects, they can be quite debilitating. unfortunately, we cannot just develop a version of anticancer drugs that doesn't have these side effects because that would be stopping the primary mechanism by which they kill cancer cells.

 

I would say cannabis could and probably should be used as a complimentary medicine to reduce the impact of the side effects in cancer patients that are particularly susceptible to it. and for god sake don't make them smoke it. cannabis smoke is just as likely to cause lung cancer as tobacco smoke no matter what the hippies say. there are many other longer lasting ways to ingest cannabis.

 

tldr version:

 

cure cancer: no

help with side effects: yes

smoke it: hell no

[Kranis]

and the point is 'believe' cancer therapies are tested for efficacy, they haven't just decided to pump cancer patients full of incredibly toxic chemicals for no reason. they decided to do it because it helps kill cancer cells faster than it kills normal cells.

 

cannabis DOES NOT DO THIS.

 

what cannabis can do, and has been proven to do, is help people deal with the side effects of cancer therapies. the nausea the pain etc. and these are not trivial side effects, they can be quite debilitating. unfortunately, we cannot just develop a version of anticancer drugs that doesn't have these side effects because that would be stopping the primary mechanism by which they kill cancer cells.

 

I would say cannabis could and probably should be used as a complimentary medicine to reduce the impact of the side effects in cancer patients that are particularly susceptible to it. and for god sake don't make them smoke it. cannabis smoke is just as likely to cause lung cancer as tobacco smoke no matter what the hippies say. there are many other longer lasting ways to ingest cannabis.

 

tldr version:

 

cure cancer: no

help with side effects: yes

smoke it: hell no

 

There has not been reported deaths over just smoking marijuana, all smoke is bad for the lungs i guess, but marijuana has been known to cause the least damage.

[insane_alien]

no, there haven't been reported deaths from smoking cannabis. I never claimed there were. BUT any burning vegetable matter will produce carcinogenic chemicals in the smoke. this is just a fact of the chemicals all living things are made from form (took ages to type this the right way round) when they undergo pyrolysis.

 

The reason i was saying hell no to smoking it is this: If you are trying to cure cancer in a patient, especially if its lung cancer, you don't want them deliberately inhaling carcinogens as part of their treatment. It's counter productive and likely to lead to later cancers. It's especially bad as there are ways of getting the drug into your body that do not carry the same risks.

 

An example, lets say that to treat disease x the patient should be exposed to high wind velocities (this is completely fictional, don't get bogged up on details). Now, you have two possible solutions here, strap the patient to the nose of a 747 or give them a fan?

 

which carries the least risk? it's the fan right?

 

now, that example is admittedly exagerated in terms of risk, but it's the same principle. when treating a patient you want to avoid risk. take the safe option to get get them better if they have equal efficacy and so on.

 

so you option A(smoking) which carries a small risk of future cancers and a certainty of reduced lung function (at least short to medium term, probably limited recoverable if stopped)

 

or option B(almost any other method of ingesting) which carries none of the above risks.

 

I'd go for option B if i were treating a patient.

 

And even if cannabis smoke does less damage to your system, it still does damage. It will reduce your lung function. this is the same with any smoke. denying this just makes you sound like one of the burnout stoners you see ripped apart on a news story about cannabis legalisation. It's a damn silly statement and does nothing to advance the towards the goal of legalisation. Hell, I support legalisation of cannabis and every time I see some guy baked out his mind touting that i think 'its people like you who prevent this from actually happening'.

[Arete]

Smoking pot increases your risk of cancer - particularly early onset testicular cancer in men, and each year of regular use increases your risk of lung cancer by ~8% (which is slightly more than regular tobacco use ):

http://www.ersj.org..../31/2/280.short

http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v9...l/nrc2617.html

http://cat.inist.fr/...cpsidt=20028743

[Kranis]

Smoking pot increases your risk of cancer - particularly early onset testicular cancer in men, and each year of regular use increases your risk of lung cancer by ~8% (which is slightly more than regular tobacco use ):

http://www.ersj.org..../31/2/280.short

http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v9...l/nrc2617.html

http://cat.inist.fr/...cpsidt=20028743

 

That is not true for sure, marijuana most of the time is just plant smoking, when people are smoking cigarettes they are inhaling more then just the tobacco. I know lots of people who smoked marijuana and people who smoke it, they have no cancers at all, i do know people who smoked cigarettes who have cancer, there is a way bigger chance to get cancer with cigarettes then there is by just smoking marijuana.

[iNow]

Sorry, mate... But no matter how much you wish to believe, your few personal anecdotal stories hardly negate the conclusions of the studies shared by Arete.

 

Also, the risk from cigarettes is perhaps greater than the risk from smoking joints because... well... you tend to smoke 10 or 20 cigarettes per day when you're a smoker. Come on... Don't let your emotions keep you from acknowledging that... yes, smoking pot leads to higher incidence of cancer than not smoking pot.

[John Cuthber]

no, there haven't been reported deaths from smoking cannabis. I never claimed there were. BUT any burning vegetable matter will produce carcinogenic chemicals in the smoke. this is just a fact of the chemicals all living things are made from form (took ages to type this the right way round) when they undergo pyrolysis.

 

The reason i was saying hell no to smoking it is this: If you are trying to cure cancer in a patient, especially if its lung cancer, you don't want them deliberately inhaling carcinogens as part of their treatment. It's counter productive and likely to lead to later cancers. It's especially bad as there are ways of getting the drug into your body that do not carry the same risks.

 

An example, lets say that to treat disease x the patient should be exposed to high wind velocities (this is completely fictional, don't get bogged up on details). Now, you have two possible solutions here, strap the patient to the nose of a 747 or give them a fan?

 

which carries the least risk? it's the fan right?

 

now, that example is admittedly exagerated in terms of risk, but it's the same principle. when treating a patient you want to avoid risk. take the safe option to get get them better if they have equal efficacy and so on.

 

so you option A(smoking) which carries a small risk of future cancers and a certainty of reduced lung function (at least short to medium term, probably limited recoverable if stopped)

 

or option B(almost any other method of ingesting) which carries none of the above risks.

 

I'd go for option B if i were treating a patient.

 

 

 

This rather ignores the fact that many drugs used in cancer treatment are in fact carcinogens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkylating_antineoplastic_agent

 

If I have two options, one of which will statistically shorten the patient's life, but will improve their quality of life for the duration and the second will extend their life slightly, but make them feel like death warmed up, the choice isn't so clear (and I think the patient should make that choice).

 

In any event this whole thread seems to be making a silly assumption which is that you have to smoke the cannabis to get an effect.

 

I'm not saying that eating hash cookies is good for you but it's difficult to argue against them as part of palliative care in terminal cancer cases.

It's also reasonable to include cannabinoid drugs in treatment regimens if the anti emetic effects (etc.) mean that you can deliver a larger, more effective, dose of the active carcinolytic.

[insane_alien]

This rather ignores the fact that many drugs used in cancer treatment are in fact carcinogens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkylating_antineoplastic_agent

 

I was working on the principle that you want to follow the ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practical) principle with exposure to carcinogens. Sure, the anti-cancer drugs are carcinogenic, but that doesn't mean you can soak your self in a tub full of carcinogens with no ill effects. If it can be easily avoided, then avoid it. in the case of administering cannabis, the inhalation of carcinogens can be extremely easily avoided.

[John Cuthber]

You could not take the anti cancer drugs and reduce your exposure even further.

The point is not just that there is a risk, but that there is also a benefit.

In particular, if cannabinoids let you keep taking the anti cancer drugs then they are a good thing.

You can't just look at a risk in isolation.

[insane_alien]

You could not take the anti cancer drugs and reduce your exposure even further.

The point is not just that there is a risk, but that there is also a benefit.

In particular, if cannabinoids let you keep taking the anti cancer drugs then they are a good thing.

You can't just look at a risk in isolation.

 

I was not trying to imply that anti-cancer drugs should not be taken because of the obvious benefits they bring.

 

My entire point was this: you are already at a heightened risk of future cancer due to the drugs necessary for you to beat the current instance of cancer. It would be foolish to expose yourself to extra carcinogens when it can be so easily avoided with no impact to the benefits.

 

I'm sorry if it came across that i was taking it in isolation, i'll chalk that up to poor communication on my part.

[John Cuthber]

My point is that, at least in some cases, there is an impact on the benefits.

 

One of the biggest problems with anti cancer treatments is nausea and vomiting. These problems can be so severe that they limit the dose of the treatment.

 

Adding cannabinoids like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabilone

to the treatment regimen can reduce the nausea and therefore increase the tolerated dose of the carcinolytics.

That can make the difference between a successful treatment and an unsuccessful one.

I'm not advocating smoking dope as a "treatment" for any and all cancer, but there are times when it is actually beneficial (albeit indirectly).

 

And, of course, I agree that, if you were using it that way, it would still be better to swallow it than smoke it.

[Kranis]

Sorry, mate... But no matter how much you wish to believe, your few personal anecdotal stories hardly negate the conclusions of the studies shared by Arete.

 

Also, the risk from cigarettes is perhaps greater than the risk from smoking joints because... well... you tend to smoke 10 or 20 cigarettes per day when you're a smoker. Come on... Don't let your emotions keep you from acknowledging that... yes, smoking pot leads to higher incidence of cancer than not smoking pot.

 

His links are saying different things, they say they do cause cancer faster, and that they do not. Yes there are people who smoke lots of cigarettes a day so it can be worse, but also when you take a hit of marijuana it stays in your lungs longer because you are holding it in longer then cigarettes. I have not found one source of information that states that a person has gotten cancer Only by smoking marijuana.