TheAgitator.com
Better Dead Than High
Friday, July 18th, 2008NORML’s blog notes that British researchers have found that cannabis may slow tumor growth and “inhibit the growth of cancer cells.”
Ah, but we can’t have any news about possible heath benefits of marijuana without some good old fashioned hysteria thrown in, can we?
Its effects are seen in all cancers but particularly in those of the lung and brain, and leukaemia, it is claimed.
But scientists warned against smoking the drug, saying the only safe version was that created in the lab.
Researcher Dr Wai Man Liu said: “I’m in no way encouraging people to take up smoking the ganja – there would be more harm than good.”
Previous research has shown cannabis-based medicines can help cancer patients as a painkiller, appetite stimulant and in reducing nausea.
The drug has also long been used by multiple sclerosis and arthritis sufferers to reduce pain.
Its medicinal benefits come from the main active ingredient, THC. The latest research, by St George’s University of London, shows that THC can weaken cancer cells to make traditional chemotherapy more effective.
Dr Liu said: “It’s another weapon against the armour of cancer. We are quite close but need to jump through certain hoops. I believe it could be used in two to three years.”
And if you don’t have three years, well, sorry about your luck.
One wonders how smoking pot could possibly do “more harm than good” when you’re dying of fucking cancer.
“…dying of fucking cancer”
Same pov I use in my courses about chemicals we use such as chlorination. I might get cancer from chlorine in 30 or so years or I can die from cholera is a couple of weeks, I choose 30 yrs.
I still ask, Why is it that we needed an amendment of the Constitution to ban booze, but no such amendment was made in order to ban “drugs”? In an A&E special that aired a decade ago, it was stated that the marijuana laws were passed in the border states, under force by the fed, so that Mexicans could be deported during the depression and we could save those jobs for Americans.
That’s a very good point. In a “land of the free,” taking away freedoms for your own good should require an amendment at the very least. If the issue were forced now we’d have 30yrs of data to review in the process…..
I have had friends and relatives go through hell
on earth to treat their cancers.Some have died~
sad to say.
.
Besides,weed,the FDA (arg) outlaws alternative ways
to treat cancer.
.
As individuals..why do we not learn and live healthy
lfestyles?
We run and workout at the “gym” but poison ourselves.
.
Why do we color our hair with cancer producing chemicals?
Why do we continue to barb-b-que to excess and have
nightly dinners of free radical chicken and hope
nothing happens to us? I do not understand this
suicide by food.
.
Marijuana cam shrink tumors..but so can tumeric.
People simply want to comtinue poisoning their bodies
and throwing their ill bodies one day at the hands
of an MD.
.
In a free country, there shoud be no limits on our
choice of cures.
How can that MD undo the damage?
I still ask, Why is it that we needed an amendment of the Constitution to ban booze, but no such amendment was made in order to ban “drugs”?
Because prior to prohibition the government hadn’t twisted the commerce clause into power over everydamnedthing in the country.
“I do not understand this
suicide by food.”
I find it preferable to suicide by starvation.
“In a free country, there shoud be no limits on our
choice of cures.”
Nor should there be limits to our choice of poison.
Dan, it’s because during Prohibition people were still holding their government somewhat accountable, so the Constitutional processes were followed. Also the Federal Reserve and IRS were very young in the country (both started in 1913, what a coincidence). As time goes on and people become more complacent and STUPID, it has been determined that our amendment processes no longer need to be followed. Most of us would call this an oligarchy, since there is no rule of law, only rule by the few.
Last weekend i watched an interesting documentary on pot and cancer. Its called “Run from the Cure, the Rick Simpson story”. Its streamable or downloadable in divx format.
http://www.phoenixtearsmovie.com/
I watched the same vid. I tried cannabis oil to cure my Basal Cell Carcinoma. IT WORKS. I treated two lesions on my forehead. There is nothing left of them but new healthy skin.
“But scientists warned against smoking the drug, saying the only safe version was that created in the lab.”
WTF? I’d love to hear from the scientists why their lab weed is safe and street weed is so dangerous.
FWB says:
“I still ask, Why is it that we needed an amendment of the Constitution to ban booze, but no such amendment was made in order to ban “drugs”?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause
Commerce clause, as others have mentioned. It’s all FDR’s fault…fuck that guy.
“I’d love to hear from the scientists why their lab weed is safe and street weed is so dangerous.”
Probably because their version is/may be patentable, which means it probably gets rid of most of those nasty cannabinoids that, like, get you high, man.
““I’d love to hear from the scientists why their lab weed is safe and street weed is so dangerous.”
Probably because their version is/may be patentable, which means it probably gets rid of most of those nasty cannabinoids that, like, get you high, man.”
Um, what then would be the point of smoking it? These may seem like dumb questions, but I always thought it was the THC in weed that, like, gets you high man? The article states that the medical benifits come directly from the THC.
“I’m in no way encouraging people to take up smoking the ganja – there would be more harm than good.”
I think there are a number of interpretations ofDr. Liu’scomment. Radley seems to think he means “cancer patients” when he says “people”. That’s a reasonable interpretation but he could mean that people in general should not take up smoking “ganja” (btw I love that he used that term) to avoid getting cancer. Truth is, this is the “I’m a reasonable scientist” dodge. Heaven forbid he ruffle feathers and suggest that there are very few negatives to marijuana use. He’s afraid he won’t be taken seriously so he spews this pablum as cover. While I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt in suggesting that what he was saying wasn’t as moronic as what Radley apparently believes, he’s still a giant wimp - otherwise why issue the disclaimer at all.
THC gets you high and THC has the good cancer benefits. The reason they say that the lab version is safer is that they are lab scientists and they are trained to believe such things. I think what they probably mean is that the stuff produced in the lab is of consistent and verified purity and content.
“One wonders how smoking pot could possibly do “more harm than good” when you’re dying of fucking cancer.”
You’re my hero, Radley.
I think everyone who has commented here is not quite right about the Commerce Clause. While I completely agree that it has been twisted to apply to things it never should even come close to touching, the commerce clause, by it’s plain language, would allow the government to outlaw a product from being sold or traded.
I think the opinion that it only can regulate trade that is interstate in nature is a valid one, but I disagree with it, and I think that while the main purpose of the clause was to prevent states from passing and prmoting protectionist policies that helped their citizens to the detriment of the national economy, it certainly was also intended to give the feds exclusive authority on passing our own protectionist policies to benefit American citizens.
When you think back to the time that Constitution was written, the British, as well as most other European countries were passing laws that created ridiculous economic policies to help their big industries and their citizens and I believe that the founders wanted to give the national government the power to do the same. Rather than having a mish-mosh of state economic policeis or models. One basic part of any such power would be the ability to outlaw a certain product form being sold as perhaps a way to negate the importing of another country’s main export, e.g.
Now, some might say well then they should have the power to ban the importation, but that’s not the point, and it doens’t have to necessarily be for international trade, but a federalized economic policy was firmly believed to be the best for the nation. The federal government clealry has the power to tax products, otherwise the states could create heavy protectionist policies (Yes I know states can still do that, but that doens’t change the fact that this still HAD to be imagined as one of the fed’s powers to regulate commerce) and so if they can tax something they can certainly ban or “destroy it.” Banning a prodcut’s sale is a staright up regulation of commerce, and can not be compared to all the other crap the Commerce Clause has been used to regulate things that “touch upon commerce” or “affect the channels of interstate commerce.”
The 18th amendment was passed as a political statement, I think, and to insulate it from judicial challenges.
[...] clipped from http://www.theagitator.com [...]
I say we should either be allowed to smoke weed or have suicide booths, preferably both.
Even my mother, who was as anti-drug as they come, asked me in her final days if I could get her some pot. By the time I could score some, she was in need of stronger medicine (morphine). Two days later, she was dead.
If somebody needs it, I’m getting it. Fuck the police, fuck the DEA, fuck Dick Cheney and his monkeyboy President.
Even if there isn’t a medical benefit to the pot, I see a case of the giggles as a major benefit to somebody dealing with cancer.
When I was a kid (late 50’s-early 60’s) we lived across the street from the family lawyer. He later became a superior court judge. Over several years his beloved wife fought and ultimately died from cancer. Many years later, at a Christmas party, when talk turned to medical marijuana, he loudly proclaimed that if he had known about the benefits of weed he would have risked everything to get it for her.
“One wonders how smoking pot could possibly…”
Because other elements in cannabis negate the effect. It’s a case when you’re looking very much at THC, not Cannabis.