Hooray to marijuana!
Five Things You May Know About Marijuana That Arent True
by Elsewhere 69 Replies latest social current
-
-
FreudianSlip
6of9-
A Black square? Jerk...
Else-
Actually.. I'm not. I'm a square. Would you like to hear my argument against marijuana use other than for medicinal purposes?
-
purplesofa
A history of our irrational marijuana laws
By Jim Hilsabeck | Posted: Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:00 am | (1) Comments
Historical records illuminate the motivations and judgments of lawmakers who promoted the criminal prohibition of marijuana in the United States, and the story does not reflect well on our current policies or their defenders.
What role have science, medicine and critical analysis played? Unfortunately, not much. Largely, emotion and overblown rhetoric created this prohibition.
Around 1900, there was a recession in Mexico and Mexicans crossed the border to work in the beet fields of the American Southwest. That is how the practice of marijuana smoking entered the United States. In Texas and elsewhere, bigotry and xenophobia ruled the day, and state legislators capitalized on people’s fear by demonizing the exotic weed some of the Mexicans smoked.
Nobody knew what marijuana was, but they knew it had to be bad.
Lawmakers decried the presence of cannabis and suggested users were prone to insanity and uncontrolled rage.
Criminal prosecutions dealing with non-medical use of drugs started with the Harrison Act of 1914, which dealt with heroin and other drugs, but not marijuana. From 1915 to 1937, some 27 states passed criminal laws against the use of marijuana. What motivated them?
An excerpt from a 1919 editorial in the New York Times offers insight: “No one here in New York uses this drug marijuana. We have only just heard about it from down in the southwest. But, we had better prohibit its use before it gets here. Otherwise, all the heroin and hard narcotics addicts cut off from their drugs by the Harrison Act, and the alcohol drinkers cut off by the prohibition of alcohol, will substitute this new and unknown drug, marijuana, for the drugs they used to use.”
The impact of the Harrison Act was to regulate drugs and the doctors dispensing them, and to criminalize the non-medical use of these drugs.
Because Congress expected opposition, it camouflaged the law as a tax: At that time, drugs such as cocaine and marijuana were legal and could be purchased for pennies. However, the taxes made the cost prohibitive.
In 1933, our first federal drug czar, Harry Jacob Anslinger of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, said a federal ban was needed to eradicate the “worst evil of all” — marijuana.
States were apathetic. Not to be deterred, Anslinger explained to his press pals in Washington that things were out of control, and they carried the message forward.
A Hearst editorial from Sept. 11, 1935, stated: “One thing that the indolent legislatures should be made to understand is that the ‘dope’ traffic does not stand still. In recent years, the insidious and insanity producing marihuana has become among the worst of the narcotic banes, invading even the school houses of the country, and the Uniform State Narcotic Law is the only legislation yet devised to deal effectively with this horrid menace.”
In 1937, we get the Marihuana Tax Act, again a prohibition in the form of a tax.
During hearings on the law, Dr. William C. Woodward appeared on behalf of the American Medical Association to oppose the measure because he believed it would kill any medical use of marijuana and inhibit further research.
Members of Congress roundly rebuked him, though the act passed and had exactly that effect.
Often, drug legislation reflects social and political issues confronting our country at the time they are drafted.
What was going on in 1951? The Korean Conflict and the Cold War. It was a time of high paranoia in the United States, and the Fourth Estate fueled perception that drug use among high school students was spurred by subversive foreign enemies.
That was also the year of the Boggs Act, which quadrupled criminal penalties for violation of drug laws.
During legislative hearings, one doctor told Congress the medical community knew marijuana wasn’t addictive and that it didn’t produce insanity or encourage criminality.
Anslinger testified immediately afterward, saying, “The doctor is right — marijuana is not an addictive drug. It doesn’t produce insanity or death, but it is the certain first step on the road to heroin addiction.”
This false notion led to the passage of the bill, and still has life today.
In 1969, the times were again very different, the children of politicians were being arrested for drug possession, and the Dangerous Substances Act passed.
It was important because we finally abandoned the faux-tax strategy and — instead of raising criminal penalties — for the first time in our history lowered them. But that didn’t last. Today, federal law classifies cannabis as a Schedule One narcotic. Schedule One contains drugs with the highest abuse potential that have no accepted medicinal value.
This brief history illustrates the flawed logic and irrational actions of the government and the cultural mainstream, demonizing marijuana and its users while ignoring its true nature and medical potential.
(Hilsabeck lives in Napa.)
-
ldrnomo
all the research on MJ you could ever imagine right here
-
purplesofa
CBD and Cancer - Cannabidiol Treatment For Cancer
Tue, 07/14/2009 - 19:33 — thcfPart 2 in Storm Crow's look at the little known but highly effective medical ingredients in cannabis.
Storm Crow for Salem-News.com
(NORTHERN Calif.) - There is a lot more to cannabis than just THC. Although the press and science have focused on THC because of its effects on the brain, the other cannabinoids are potent medicines in their own right. Studies reveal that CBD, a non-psychoactive cannabinoid, may affect cancer cells of many types. Breast cancer, leukemia and glioma (a rather nasty brain cancer) are all slowed, or even killed by CBD.
I usually put in something amusing into my articles, but I find nothing amusing about cancer. Both of my grandmothers died of it. So please forgive me if I do not amuse you this time, but "cut straight to the chase".
In 2006, a study called "Anti-tumor activity of plant cannabinoids with emphasis on the effect of cannabidiol on human breast carcinoma," (see: Breast cancer: Antitumor Activity of Plant Cannabinoids with Emphasis on the Effect of Cannabidiol on Human Breast Carcinoma) compared the effect of five different compounds found in cannabis on an aggressive breast cancer. CBD was the clear winner.
In a short article about the study, it was stated "Cannabidiol (CBD) was the most potent cannabinoid in inhibiting the growth of human breast cancer cells injected under the skin of mice. (see: Science: Cannabidiol inhibits tumor growth in leukemia and breast cancer in animal studies)
CBD also reduced lung metastases deriving from human breast cancer cells that had been injected into the paws of the animals." To put it simply, CBD slowed the growth of the breast cancer and kept it from spreading into the lungs.
The glioma studies (see: Glioma apoptosis: Inhibition of Glioma Growth in Vivo) and (Glioma apoptosis: Cannabidiol triggers caspase activation and oxidative stress in human glioma cells) are very interesting, since the CBD attacked only the cancerous brain cells while leaving healthy brain cells untouched. Gliomas are one of the most malignant forms of cancer, resulting in the death of affected patients within 1–2 two years after diagnosis. Current therapies for glioma treatment are usually ineffective or just palliative. So how does CBD work to inhibit gliomas and other cancers?
Cells normally die through a process called apoptosis. Normal cells die after going through their programmed lifetime--but cancer cells refuse to die and begin to multiply rapidly. CBD "tells" the abnormal cancer cells that it is time to die by setting off the normal chain of events in programed cell death. The normal cells don't need to be "told" and are left alone.
But CBD doesn't stop there with putting a halt to gliomas. One of the things cancers do is to grow a lot of extra blood vessels to support their rapid growth. This is why a mole that bleeds when you scratch it may be suspected of being skin cancer. In a Spanish study, (see: Glioma blood vessels: Cannabinoids Inhibit the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Pathway in Gliomas) two glioma patients (stage IV) received CBD injected directly into their tumors, for 16 and 19 days respectively, before their tumors were removed surgically. Both showed evidence of regression of the blood vessels to the tumors. The authors considered the results as "promising" and worthy of further study.
A third area where CBD is "promising" is in the treatment of leukemia. In the study "Cannabidiol-Induced Apoptosis in Human Leukemia Cells", (see: Leukemia: Cannabidiol-Induced Apoptosis in Human Leukemia Cells) we find this in the abstract- "Exposure of leukemia cells to cannabidiol led to cannabinoid receptor 2 (CB2)-mediated reduction in cell viability and induction in apoptosis. Furthermore, cannabidiol treatment led to a significant decrease in tumor burden and an increase in apoptotic tumors in vivo." Which is a fancy way of saying CBD killed the leukemia cells and reduced the number of tumors. And again, the authors urge further study.
Aside from feeling relaxed, there are no noticeable effects from CBD, even with very large doses.
On the other hand, modern medicine's chemotherapy is the practice of using poisons that are slightly more toxic to cancer cells than healthy cells. The idea is to poison you just enough so all the cancer cells die, while you, as an organism, live. A lot of healthy cells die in the process. Some patients die in the process. Even at its best, chemotherapy makes you feel very sick.
CBD or chemo? Which treatment sounds better to you?
Of course, these studies are just preliminary and need to be duplicated, refined and studied further. We need to examine the effects of CBD on these and other cancers. Until then, we are stuck with chemotherapy and all of its side effects. We must reschedule cannabis for research.
Source: http://salem-news.com/articles/july132009/cbd_2_sc_7-13-09.php
-
purplesofa
good link ldrnomo
-
recovering
How about testiclar cancer? one study has linked pot smoking to a much higher incidence of testicular cancer. All I am saying is that no drug has no adverse side effects. Even aspirin has the potential for negative side effects.
Marijuana use linked to increased risk of testicular cancer
Risk appears to be elevated particularly among frequent and/or long-term users
SEATTLE — February 9 — Frequent and/or long-term marijuana use may significantly increase a man's risk of developing the most aggressive type of testicular cancer, according to a study by researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. The study results were published online Feb. 9 in the journal Cancer.
The researchers found that being a marijuana smoker at the time of diagnosis was associated with a 70 percent increased risk of testicular cancer. The risk was particularly elevated (about twice that of those who never smoked marijuana) for those who used marijuana at least weekly and/or who had long-term exposure to the substance beginning in adolescence.
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
1100 Fairview Ave. N. PO Box 19024 Seattle, WA 98109
©2010 Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization -
avishai
nice
-
VIII
Now we know why some are afraid of flouride, hmmm?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20100228/hl_hsn/marijuanausecanuppsychosisrisk
Marijuana Use Can Up Psychosis Risk
SATURDAY, Feb. 27 (HealthDay News) -- Long-term use of marijuana can lead to increased risk of developing hallucinations, delusions and psychosis, a new study shows.
Australian researchers asked nearly 3,100 young adults averaging about 20 years of age about marijuana use. They found that almost 18 percent reported using the drug for three or fewer years, about 16 percent for four to five years, and just over 14 percent for six or more years.
Among the participants, 65 had been diagnosed with a "non-affective psychosis" such as schizophrenia , and 233 had at least one positive item for hallucination on a diagnostic interview conducted for the study.
The researchers found there was an association between length of marijuana use and mental health.
"Compared with those who had never used cannabis, young adults who had six or more years since first use of cannabis [i.e., who commenced use when around 15 years or younger] were twice as likely to develop a non-affective psychosis and were four times as likely to have high scores on the Peters et al Delusions Inventory [a measure of delusion]," wrote Dr. John McGrath, of the Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Park Centre for Mental Health in Wacol, and colleagues. "There was a ' dose-response' relationship between the variables of interest: the longer the duration since the first cannabis use, the higher the risk of psychosis-related outcomes."
The study appears online March 1 and in the May print issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry.
But the association between psychosis and marijuana use is not simple, the researchers noted. They found that people who'd experienced hallucinations earlier in life were also more likely to have used marijuana longer and to use it more frequently.
"This demonstrates the complexity of the relationship: those individuals who were vulnerable to psychosis [i.e., those who had isolated psychotic symptoms] were more likely to commence cannabis use, which could then subsequently contribute to an increased risk of conversion to a non-affective psychotic disorder," wrote the study authors.
Further research is needed to learn more about the mechanisms underlying the association between psychosis and marijuana use, they concluded.
-
Twitch
Dude, awesome,....