The U.S. Government’s Department of Health Finally Admits That Marijuana Kills Cancer

I wonder how many murderers drink booze. I wonder how many murderers drink milk or drink cigarettes.

You are STILL off topic and need to be reported for being off topic.

Are you honestly trying to say that if someone uses Cannabis to cure cancer, they might kill someone?

First your posts were about people who smoke it might (and your sources bolded MIGHT) have bad side affects. It was funny because you thought medical cannabis use is smoked...

But now you are saying Marijuana can turn people into murderers and say "The correlation is undeniable"...........

No one will ever read anything you say again and take you seriously...

 

Just read back and learn the difference between SMOKE and the medical extracts. Watch the video. Please learn people...Attempt to learn anyway..

 

Should I be scared of that? I think you mean the pot smokers won't. I'm not worried about that either, this time Saturday they won't remember what I posted anyway.

Heavy pot use can permanently damage short-term memory, study shows

 

Stuff smells like crap. Never tried it. Never will.

 

What difference does it make?

The US government has been acting unconstitutionally. Alcohol required a constitutional amendment to prohibit. Marijuana, which has been proven through countless studies to be less damaging then alcohol, was banned with no constitutional amendment.

The next time you argue constitutional rights, I'm linking this discussion.

The US government should not be in the business of restricting consumables to the public. The US government should not be in the business of restricting interstate commerce.

The US government is acting unconstitutionally, and unconstitutional laws are to be ignored.

 

He did both.

What's your point with your junk science?

 

Alcohol is water soluble and it's effects are completely gone in a few hours. THC is fat soluble and can be found in fat cells weeks even months after after injection. Not more or less damaging, just different.

Knock yourself out.

It's called the FDA.

Some how pro pot folks think it will be a "free for all" if pot is legalized nationwide....it won't. To all those who think legalization will be great. It will inevitably lead to Big Tobacco taking over Big Pot. They have the money and the clout to do what Big Alcohol did.....corner the market. You can bet along with legalization "of use" growing your own will become VERY illegal. Having a still can land you in jail unless you meet all the regulations and have prior approval of paperwork to operate a distilled spirits plant.

You will pretty much have to buy Marijuana like you currently do with Cigarettes, from commercial growers. Of course like with tobacco, they will add fillers and chemicals so you'll need to smoke a whole lot just to get a good buzz going. Once Big Corporations and Big Government team up to get involved, you're not going to like the results. It happened already with Tobacco and Alcohol. The worst part is you'll never be able to go back again either. Big Pot (formerly tobacco companies) have the kind of money to pump into Congress to make sure you'll never go back. You'll see sin taxes on pot rise because the Government smells a new revenue stream and don't get caught with "non sanctioned" weed either, they'll put you in jail to the grave. Then there's a thing called "property Forfeiture" which will work nicely when you owe huge fines and back taxes for growing your own that will surely be written in the national legalization law. Seriously, when was the last time you heard of alcohol or tobacco bootleggers? Eric Garner was proof of that.

Where did you get your Constitutional Law degree?

 

No, the inert metabolites can be found some time later (CBD, THC-COOH, etc...).

THC, the psychoactive ingredient, is gone after a few passes through the liver and has zero affect on the user after only a few hours.

 

Nice diatribe, but it proves nothing. It counters nothing. And I don't need a constitutional law degree to know that the government is acting unconstitutionally. Not only do they deny us the right to consume, they then throw us in jail and taxation through citation us into bankruptcy.

So I ask again. Why did alcohol require a constitutional amendment, and pot does not?

How many lives does drunk driving claim in a given month? Week? Day? Hour? Compared to Pot? How about texting and driving? Which is the most? How much control will you keep giving the government?

How many alcoholics need to kill people driving, need to kill themselves, need to damage property, start fights, inflate the cost of healthcare, etc, before you and others admit alcohol is a bigger, MUCH bigger problem then pot?

 

Only 2 states where recreational use is legal and fatal crashes involving pot tripled to 12%, what's that number going to be if pot is made legal in all 50 states?

Pot-Related Fatal Car Crashes Up 48% in Washington State

It WASN'T required...Congress wanted Prohibition to be permanent and at that time no amendment had ever been overturned.

 

Isn't that the same way as it would be conducted, if you were to go to your doctor, explaining your families medical history? However, I'll concede your point. It's not a complete avenue, but it at least opens the question of if it does in fact correlate to one another.

Thus, with the following articles:

I still stand by my claim that correlation doesn't equal causation. The individuals have those underlying issues already, that surely need to be studied, and identified how to properly help those individuals. Cannabis only heightens that in an individual, it's not the cause of it. That much I think you can concede that point on.

 

Sorry to hear about your brother-in-law. It's never a good thing for anyone to die, especially for things that we, as humans, are still unable to properly cure. I do believe that more research needs to be tailored towards cancer and cannabis. I don't think that all strains of cancer can easily be identified to be attacked by cannabis. I think as more research is done, more strains of cannabis can be made in order to attack various cancers within our body. I do believe that, I don't think we're, as humans, there quite yet.

However, that leads me to my other point, I believe cannabis (All drugs, in my opinion) should be unscheduled, or at least reduce the scheduling of cannabis. On 4/20 (Coincidence?), the United Nations is slated to release their policies on drug reform (http://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/un-general-assembly-approves-resolution-presented-mexico-international-cooperation-against-). Many folks, in the legalization movement, believe this is the time when the world view on cannabis, in particular all drugs, will begin to change. Next week is going to be a huge week, as calls for decriminalization most likely will be in the fore-front of that statement.

 

[MENTION=68620]BrunoTibet[/MENTION], I have to disagree with you and agree with Professor on this one. The affects of THC, and/or cannabis, continues to remain in the body for quite sometime. The 'high' effect might be gone after a few hours, but the various elements within cannabis will remain.

To me, and this is just me thinking out-loud as I haven't found nor have the ability to study this on my own body (In part because of cannabis being illegal and the money to run various tests on myself), but I find it curious that THC does stay in the fat tissue/cells of your body for quite sometime. As a diabetic, my body, when my blood sugar is high/I don't eat enough protein, will actually begin to eat the fat tissue/cells. I don't know what effects that would have if THC was consistently in my system, nor have I been able to find any research in this one area. This might lead to nowhere, but I do find it quite particular that this occurs, and I wonder if it could lead to something. Maybe not necessary THC/cannabis being there, but maybe another avenue that treatment can be conducted to cure diabetes.

Again, thinking out loud, but it's something that's been at the back of my mind for a while.

 

And? That's incorrect in that the psychoactive element is long gone by them. They may be referencing THC-COOH, but it's simply not THC Delta 9.

 

How does one know that one of your parents siblings that the family isn't close to have mental illness. It's not something they talked about much in their day. You could be carrying the markers and simply not know it. It sounds a lot like playing Russian Roulette to me. There's going to have to be carefully controlled studies in order to convince me it isn't a causation in some people. Sorry, the studies so far rely on too many variables for the reasons I identified in the first sentence.

 

Sounds like you just don't want to believe the facts to me. There is NO harmless high, you just have the choice between different harms. Pick your poison.

 

As usual, the medical dope issue leads to a decriminalization of dope for all.

That's what it's been all along.

The main stream medical dope cards program of the recent past has been nothing more than a farce and a joke the way it actually played out where it was allowed to play out.

All it did for the majority was to give dope heads a card so that they could legally possess and smoke dope.

It actually took away from those people that had an actual need to smoke dope.

And, as we all can agree on, unless you're a cancer patient or have some other proven ailment that dope can actually do good to some degree for it, dope smoking is for losers.

 

This is what I find funny about non pot smokers. I have never once said anything negative about people who don't smoke pot. In fact I have many friends who do not partake at all. Yet non smokers think they have some divine right to call me names and degrade me.

So as I sit in my nice home in font of my big screen tv, typing on my brand new laptop with my beautiful wife and daughter asleep down the hall, I politely extend my middle finger and tell you to go (*)(*)(*)(*) yourself.

 

Can you come up with the name that I supposedly called you whilst you're doing God-knows-what with that middle finger of yours?

Incidentally, I'm an ex-dope head.

I smoked dope for most of the 70s and 80's and on rare occasions in the 90's.

I just got tired of being a loser dope head.

 

Marijuana does not meet the minimum qualifications of being a schedule 1 narcotic
Not everyone that consumes marijuana is a "loser dope head"

People with your mentality had indoctrinated my mother so severely throughout her entire life she chose to ignore "illegal" advice after her cancer diagnosis from numerous physicians and hospice workers urging her to ingest cannabis in lieu of her appetite pills (derived from weed by big pharma, didn't work), anti-anxiety meds (big pharma, neurological side effects), and short term opioids (big pharma, to many complications to name).

So I will have to agree with pocket aces:
Go (*)(*)(*)(*) yourself

 

Agreed, you're absolutely right that smoking cannabis, with potentially having these markers, as you will, can very much be considered playing russian roulette. However, in my opinion, this would mean that more studies need to be conducted in order to completely understand the comparison between the two. As it stands, cannabis is currently a schedule 1 substance, wish deems it as having zero medical benefit. Even if you feel there is a comparison between these two things, you have to at least admit that there is some medical benefit to cannabis.

In which case, all I ask is to at least fight with me in getting cannabis rescheduled, to allow doctors/universities/scientists/researchers/whomever to legally do further studies on this. As of right now, Israel is leading the world in researching cannabis and it's health benefits. Regardless to how anyone feels about Israel, their religious beliefs, their, potential, US conservative slant, the reality is that another nation is discovering the benefits well beyond the US. If folks believe the US should be in the fore-front of a lot of this stuff, I can tell you right now that this nation is vastly behind in the cannabis research sector. A lot of other things as well, in my opinion, but definitely cannabis research.

All I ask is that no matter what folks feel about the plant, at least fight with me to get it rescheduled. It's far past time to start doing some serious research on this. Rescheduling this plant may/may not change minds, but it will at least give folks, in various states that currently don't have the plant legalized, a fighting chance to get it legalized. When more of us stand up and say we're, as human beings with a moral fiber to want to help others, ready to look into the medical benefits of this plant, it will have a ripple effect across this nation. Allow folks to research it, I think that is a very valid stance for ANYONE to stand on. Regardless to ones opinions/beliefs on the plant.

Stand with me and let's discover the pros/cons of this plant. I'm looking for common ground for folks. I don't want to fight against anyone on this. I feel it does have medical benefits, regardless to my disease or anyone elses. All I want is a chance to discover it. Let me see it to the end. We're, as humans, going to die anyway, let me go out on my own terms. If it's getting "high", so be it. Again, I don't want to harm you no more than I want you to harm me. I want to find a cure for this disease (diabetes), fight with me to help me find it. That's what I'm asking everyone.

This disease has to die before I do. That's the promise I made to myself, and no one will stand in my way of doing it.

 

I have type 2 diabetes, with the potential of losing that battle and becoming a type 1 diabetic. While most research isn't revolved around cannabis help curing diabetes, I don't even know if it has the true capabilities to cure this disease, but I've done enough research that I feel this warrants a try, on my end. Unfortunately, this entire country is fighting a moral battle on whether this plant should be legalized or not. In yet, folks would much rather go to their doctor, be prescribed some other drug that has other side effects, and be good with it. My father-in-law, before he passed away, was on so many different medications, they were there to counter-act a lot of the side effects that some of the main drugs caused. That's not how I want to live my life.

Currently, I'm sticking myself at least twice a day to test my blood sugar levels, on top of taking two 500mg pills of Metformin, once in the morning, once in the evening. I was on 1000mg of Metformin, but since I've been watching my diet & exercising, I got my A1C to a normal enough rate that my doctor lowered it. If my blood sugar changes and my A1C spikes, I can easily be put back on the higher dosage, not to mention no longer having the ability to utilize pills, and having to convert to sticking myself with a needle full of insulin. I don't want to do that. If cannabis can be my answer to curing this, I want to do it.

In which, even if you feel folks who smoke cannabis are 'losers', I feel like you have a very wrong view of this. I grew up in Baltimore, MD, the first 21 and a half years of my life was spent there. Highlandtown, if you want to be really specific. In yet, I've seen heroine addicts, crack addicts, different folks standing on the corner of my block every other week selling whatever to whomever. Never once did I feel they were 'losers'. All of us are struggling to survive. It's human instincts, within us, to find what drives us, what makes us happy, what keeps us going every single day. You may/may not agree with folks smoking it, but I ask you to refrain from calling folks losers for utilizing this plant, for their medical and/or personal needs.

I understand your brother-in-law passed away, and I understand you used to do it, but that doesn't give you the right to call anyone a loser, in my opinion. Just because someone may/may not have a reason to utilize the plant, in your opinion, doesn't make them any better than an individual who may/may not have a reason.

 

Nope.

They're losers.

 

to be fair, socialism has issue too if taken to the extreme for instance, they do not like things that could be bad for you cause it could increase health care costs

so instead of corps trying to pass seat belt laws, if the gov controls it, they may try to do the same thing

maybe socialism would ban Alcohol, drugs, sports, cigarettes, skydiving, rock climbing, you name it

or just tax it like crazy like they do cigarettes....

....