Should marijuana be legalized?

[God]

I created it for a reason didn't I?

 

[9sublime]

we've got a bit of a comedian here havn't we.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

we've got a bit of a comedian here havn't we.

No, we've got a worthless, retarded troll here.

 

[God]

US: Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew In '74
( Wednesday, March 28, The United States Supreme Court rules on whether marijuana use for medicinal purposes can be a valid defense on charges of marijuana possession. The following article was listed as one of the top 25 censored stories of the year 2000. We reprint it here and pose the question, why would the government want to keep us from knowing this? )

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. In 1974, researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institutes 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."

The Madrid researchers reported in the March issue of Nature Medicine that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells, producing tumors whose presence they confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2, a synthetic compound similar to THC. "All the rats left untreated uniformly died 12-18 days after glioma ( brain cancer ) cell inoculation ... Cannabinoid ( THC )-treated rats survived significantly longer than control rats. THC administration was ineffective in three rats, which died by days 16-18. Nine of the THC-treated rats surpassed the time of death of untreated rats, and survived up to 19-35 days. Moreover, the tumor was completely eradicated in three of the treated rats." The rats treated with Win-55,212-2 showed similar results.

The Spanish researchers, led by Dr. Manuel Guzman of Complutense University, also irrigated healthy rats' brains with large doses of THC for seven days, to test for harmful biochemical or neurological effects. They found none.

"Careful MRI analysis of all those tumor-free rats showed no sign of damage related to necrosis, edema, infection or trauma ... We also examined other potential side effects of cannabinoid administration. In both tumor-free and tumor-bearing rats, cannabinoid administration induced no substantial change in behavioral parameters such as motor coordination or physical activity. Food and water intake, as well as body weight gain, were unaffected during and after cannabinoid delivery. Likewise, the general hematological profiles of cannabinoid-treated rats were normal. Thus, neither biochemical parameters nor markers of tissue damage changed substantially during the seven-day delivery period or for at least two months after cannabinoid treatment ended."

Guzman's investigation is the only time since the 1974 Virginia study that THC has been administered to live, tumor-bearing animals. ( The Spanish researchers cite a 1998 study in which cannabinoids inhibited breast cancer cell proliferation, but that was a "petri dish" experiment that didn't involve live subjects. )

In an e-mail interview for this story, the Madrid researcher said he had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate literature on it. Hence, the Nature Medicine article characterizes the new study as the first on tumor-laden animals and doesn't cite the 1974 Virginia investigation.

"I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original investigation by these people, but it has proven impossible," Guzman said.

In 1983, the Reagan/Bush Administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966-76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer, who states, "We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared."

Guzman provided the title of the work -- "Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids," an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute -- and this writer obtained a copy at the University of California medical school library in Davis and faxed it to Madrid.

The summary of the Virginia study begins, "Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol ( THC ) and cannabinol ( CBN )" -- two types of cannabinoids, a family of active components in marijuana. "Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size."

....

http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v01/n572/a11.html


'nuff said.

 

[9sublime]

Good stuff

 

[Rokerijdude11]

good article thanks for posting it for the readers

 

[vyo476]

I just saw this and thought I'd throw it out there for everyone to ponder on:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070426/hl_nm/marijuana_strength_dc

 

[Rokerijdude11]

A few Quotes from the so called expert on the subject they produded

Volkow's institute has been studying the effects of cannabis, whose active ingredients are very similar to important brain chemicals called endogenous cannabinoids. "It clearly is addictive," she said.

Thats it? It clearly is addictive? thats the basis of her argument? where is the supportive science in this claim? there is none frankly.this in nothing but an un-substantiated statement

If children and adolescents use marijuana, it could affect their still-developing brains, she said.

Youll Notice the statement .....It "COULD" affect....Could hardly a conclusive statement? again an un-substantiated claim that also is non conclusive hardly any proof of the "harmful" effects portrayed in the erroneus article

The pharmacy department at Mississippi has compiled data on 59,369 samples of cannabis, 1,225 hashish samples, and 443 hash oil samples confiscated since 1975. "The highest concentration of (THC) found in a cannabis (marijuana) sample is 33.12 percent from Oregon State Police," the report reads.

This is a fairly true statement. Since the 70,s much has changed in the growing and harvesting of high grade marijuana .Not unlike any other agricultural Products such as wheat soy and corn.Of course the process has Gotten better and the product has gotten better. what this means to the cannabis user is a more concentrated product that will last longer . and be used less ,as not as much material will need to be smoked to catch a buzz.

many of todays High grade Medicinal marijuana is in the 30 percent or higher range the reason for this is specifically so the paitient does not have to continually smoke all the time....the THC content of hashish Now can be had at percentages as high as 90% pure thc

it is no more harmful because of its concntration it just means less will be used

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Adminstration, marijuana was involved in 242,200 visits to hospital emergency rooms in 2005. This means that the patient mentioned using marijuana and does not mean the drug directly caused the accident or condition being treated, SAMHSA says.

I am very very skeptical of this claim and am presently looking into this accusation as i suspect the effects are largely exaggerated and experienced mostly with Beginning teenaged experimenters which i understand but dont necessarily condone I will comment on it further as soon as i can see what type of reports these are





Basically what we have here, is a report telling you that the methods of growing, and breeding, of Marijuana has improved over the last 30 years.Which is producing a product, with a higher THC content................Which is understandably true, as i explained....Then they begin to drift ........Just because the active ingredient is present in higher quantities.......Does not make the substance any more harmful,or dangerous....
It is still... the SAME substance-----------there is just MORE of it present.... this is a play on words and a phallacy


Technology has blessed the marijuana Grower just as it has pretty much every other area of our lives. improved products,improved genetics,improved techniques, just as in any other area of "farming" in the last 30 years many advances have been made

they have proven nothing beyond that

 

[vyo476]

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_chemistry.shtml

I'm sorry to disappoint you but THC becomes lethal in higher doses. It takes a while before becoming truly lethal; at 5% you'd have to smoke about a kilo of it and at 15% you'd have to smoke about a pound before the chances of it killing you would increase. The "average" marijuana out there today, according to the report I gave you, contains 8% THC, meaning that the LD50 is somewhere between a kilogram and a pound (yes, I'm mixing measurement systems). That's a ton of marijuana but people closer to my age love extreme excess.

As for the article, it was a Yahoo news article, not a health report. Here's the report, for you perusal.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/default.html

 

[Rokerijdude11]

BULLSH^T

there has NEVER EVER EVER been ONE SINGLE DOCUMENTED CASE of LETHALITY in a marijuana user

It is Physically IMPOSSIBLE to Overdose On THC

I dont need Erowid to tell me what the THC make up of the plant is im a 30+ year smoker I have bred and grown marijuana for many years i grew medicinal Mj for paitients who needed it I am very well aware of THC and its make up

Im sorry but all you have done is made an assesment and tell us what "COULD happen POSSIBLY if someone sat down and smoked 2 pounds of weed in a sitting? do you have any idea how physically impossible that would be? not to mention the fact that NEVER has anyone overdosed from marijuana and NEVER has anyone Died from too much thc



I have smoked Ice water hasj that is 90% pure thc and LOTS of it .....ive smoked as many as 3 grams at once in this concentrated form it was the equivelent of smoking 2 kilos worth of 8-12 per cent weed

which btw is COMMON DIRT WEED anyone who really is into the whole scene is REGULARLY smoking weed in the 20-37 percent range........



Secondly you are handing to me a report put out by the federal Government? what good is that? they have consistently LIED about marijuana and hemp since they prohibited it back in 37....the Government entered into a conspiracy to LIE to the American people and the world about Marijuana and its effects............


based on this information.which BTW is 100% documented and verifiable ...if you think you can somehow disprove that i direct you to the 100,000,00 challenge also..some of you really dont KNOW what the truth is this is evident in your postings....go read the book and learn what your dealing with the NIDA report is a skewed Govt report which ill address in the next post i make


In short the Government has lied and is STILL lying about marijuana ..I am Not likely to take anything they have provided as evidence of anything

I challenge you to produce for us a SINGLE case in which marijuana smoked by an individual resulted in a lethal dose ...in which the subject died...........



and like i said your post has no conclusive evidence and im living proof you theory dosent hold water

we will discuss Nidas lies in the next post

 

[9sublime]

A post on another forum so I can't take credit for it. I've clean it up a bit though.

There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality to this very day after 10,000 or so years of use.

the LD50 It's extremely high... Impossibly high... At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD50 is around 1:20,000 to 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Ha ha ha ha ha

same chick same bunch of "POSSIBILITIES" absolutly NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE HERE EITHER!!!!!!
again i would like the readers to carefully note the "verbage" used in this so-called conclusive report By the federal Government......particularly the words italicized and bolded in red


the bolded black words in parenthesis are words that would have been used had they had proof read the article using each set of words seperatly to see what i mean

The use of marijuana can produce
( PRODUCES)adverse physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral changes, and - contrary to popular belief - it can be addictive.( IS) Marijuana smoke, like cigarette smoke, can(harms) harm the lungs.4,5,6 The use of marijuana can(IMPAIRS) impair short-term memory,7,8 verbal skills,9 and judgment10 and distort perception.11,12 It also may(WEAKENS) weaken the immune system13,14,15,16 and possibly(Increases) increase a user's likelihood of developing cancer.14,17 Finally, the increasing use of marijuana by very young teens may have(Is Having) a profoundly negative effect upon their development.9, 18, 19,20

whayt you will Notice here in this supposedly substantaited "Proof" is no less than 4 times they use the word "CAN" if they had ANY PROOF the word used would be "DOES they dont use that word because they have NO PROOF THA THESE THINGS DO HAPPEN they only suggest they possibly CAN happen...........................
then as to throw you off track a lil bit they change the verbage, and use the word "MAY" twice, and Possibly once.............If they had the PROOF they claimed..... the words may, and possibly, would also have been replaced with Will,Does,
they also admit right here in theyre own Federally approved and funded website that it may POSSIBLY increase the chance of cancer..............Possibly thats conclusive Government Proof? Hardly


in Bold in parenthesis I have written in words that would CETAINLY have been contained in this report had they ANY proof at all do you really think the government does not take the time to carefully craft its words?...........

 

[palerider]

Ha ha ha ha ha

same chick same bunch of "POSSIBILITIES" absolutly NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE HERE EITHER!!!!!!
again i would like the readers to carefully note the "verbage" used in this so-called conclusive report By the federal Government......particularly the words italicized and bolded in red

Your defense of pot smoking and evident belief in a conspiracy to keep it illegal seems to be bordering on paranoia. Speaking of paranoia:


http://www.rsna.org/rsna/media/pr2005/Marijauna.cfm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10116853
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4305783.stm

 

[9sublime]

Palerider, you are a real *****. His defense of pot smoking is called an opinion, and I don't think he's ever ranted about a huge, worldwide conspiracy from every official in the world, but more about the fact that the government is too opinionated to ever change cannabis and so it doesn't give its findings out straight to the people, but twisted them.

Obviously you have memory loss on the word opinions defenition, and that this forum is here for opinions, and memory loss on the tone and point of most of Rokers point. I always hear memory loss is quite a common side effect from cannabis too. Maybe you shouldn't have puffed away in the 60's.

 

[palerider]

Palerider, you are a real *****. His defense of pot smoking is called an opinion, and I don't think he's ever ranted about a huge, worldwide conspiracy from every official in the world, but more about the fact that the government is too opinionated to ever change cannabis and so it doesn't give its findings out straight to the people, but twisted them.

Maybe you should read back through this thread. He most certainly has stated that "forces" are working to keep pot illegal so that other "forces" may gain profit. That is a conspiracy; and who ever mentioned a worldwide conspiracy involving every official in the world. Few conspiracy theorists claim that their conspiracy involves every official in the world.