Weed

[cire]

Yet weed has been proven to cause lung cancer

Actually, I think most studies are inconclusive at worst.

A large retrospective cohort study of 64,855 men aged 15 to 49 years from the United States found that Cannabis use was not associated with tobacco-related cancers and a number of other common malignancies. However, the study did find that, among nonsmokers of tobacco, ever having used Cannabis was associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer.[6]

A population-based case-control study of 611 lung cancer patients revealed that chronic low Cannabis exposure was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer or other upper aerodigestive tract cancers and found no positive associations with any cancer type (oral, pharyngeal, laryngeal, lung, or esophagus) when adjusting for several confounders, including cigarette smoking.[7]

A systematic review assessing 19 studies that evaluated premalignant or malignant lung lesions in persons 18 years or older who inhaled marijuana concluded that observational studies failed to demonstrate statistically significant associations between marijuana inhalation and lung cancer after adjusting for tobacco use.[8]

From:
www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page5#Reference5.13

Note it's from one of those government websites that is intent on slandering cannabis at every opportunity and suppressing research, if one were to believe SIK.

[3qX21hU5]

I stand corrected, you are right it would be wrong to say weed has been proven to cause cancer.

But the original point still stands smoking weed does not make you immune to cancer.

[SIK]

I wrote

If this forum was natured on a first name, full identity basis I'd gladly welcome you to bring me someone diagnosed with cancer and prove that they can be cured via heavy cannabis use.

Then Zereo responded

What now you want me to prove to you that cancer can be cured by cannabis? Weren't you the one that was debating that?

can you now see its the complete opposite of what I said.
ie. I dont need you to prove it to me, I said I would prove it to you.

You need to get your logic right.

[chrisname]

@SIK
Actually, his logic is fine, your sentence is just really poorly worded. It's perfectly reasonable to interpret it as you challenging him to prove that cannabis can cure someone of cancer - that's the logical interpretation given the wording you chose. Learn to write less ambiguously before you go around telling people to work on their logic.

[SIK]

@chrisname & @Zereo

Here I worded it better for you inline with the context of what was being said:

If this forum was natured on a first name, full identity basis I'd gladly welcome you to bring me someone diagnosed with cancer and I will prove that they can be cured via heavy cannabis use.

Hope that clears up my point completely.

If such then is proven, it will unfortunatley not be official scientific results. Even if the test were performed numerous times successfully by ourselves with supervision of a medical practioner those results would still not make it to the official scientific community.

This is also how it is for the people who used the hemp oil provided by Rick - their results get completely ignored and swept under the carpet.

The hospitals even refused to release many of these peoples official results after learning that they were using hemp oil and got cured (cancer went into remission).

[rcast]

Whether marijuana should be legalized or not, boils down to whether or not the government can maintain face if it were to legalize marijuana for the use of its citizens, by the other nations, while at the same time generating boat loads of tax dollars from the "cash crop" - also demand. It doesn't matter if it does or does not cause cancer or is harmful to health as has already been proven by legalization of alcohol and tobacco.

If this debate weren't such a giant deal to so many pot smokers, who IMO, just want to get high to solve problems, then the government wouldn't still be making progress towards it legalization, i.e... legalization of marijuana in Washington. Still, I see no problem with it. I don't think it will cause crime or poverty.

I stand with the crowd that says if it helps some people "get through the day" or feel better when they are sick, who am I to judge? In 1919 when congress enacted prohibition by ratifying the 18th amendment, alcohol was looked at as a problem and a disease that was not to be allowed to plague the American people. However, this doesn't mean their assumptions were correct. In fact, if you regard opinion more valid if it is presented by great minds and influential people, brilliant people such as Franklin Roosevelt who repealed prohibition, then your assumptions about alcohol would have be wrong.

This could be the case with marijuana, perhaps. But who am I to judge, I'm not the 32nd president of the United States. For now, I'll just stick with my Heineken.

As somebody affected by the death of a family member with cancer, I find it irresponsible to make unfounded claims about "covert studies" that find the use of hemp oil cures cancer. Until I see documents from reputable sources stating so, I will just continue to disagree with those who believe it's the cure for cancer or that it does not cause cancer when smoked.

[SIK]

I find it irresponsible to make unfounded claims about "covert studies"

I find it irresponsible to keep using something that doesn't actually work - like chemo, and not keeping an open mind to the claims of people who actually got cured using cannabis.

With the current state of affairs you aren't going to get proper results from the "reputable sources".

I regret that you had to lose someone to cancer.

If however you again learn of someone close to you having cancer then why not advise them to try heavy use of cannabis instead of chemo which does not really work and only degrades the persons life.

The only thing you then really stand to lose is your doubts of whether cannabis does cure cancer and the only thing the person having the cancer stands to lose is their cancer.

This particular outcome (person being cured) should not upset you or the person who was cure but only BIG PHARM :)

[D80DSL3A]

It's getting interesting here in the US. 13 states have laws permitting medical use (with a doctors referral). On Jan. 1st two states (Washington(not D.C.) and Colorado) legalized pot outright, in defiance of federal law. The Justice department (federal) is promising an official response soon.

I'm now living in Kansas where the governor has warned us that trafficking pot from Colorado (an adjacent state) will be vigorously prosecuted.

I can't drink alcohol, so I will be clean and sober from here on out (no options).
I had a referral in California, which is easy to obtain regardless of your actual medical history due to rampant fraud in the system.

[rcast]

SIK wrote:

The only thing you then really stand to lose is your doubts of whether cannabis does cure cancer and the only thing the person having the cancer stands to lose is their cancer.

How about dignity? Respect? Pride? Those can all be lost by giving somebody the false hope that through cannabis use, they can be cured.

SIK wrote:

This particular outcome (person being cured) should not upset you or the person who was cure but only BIG PHARM :)

Who has been cured? Please give us something to work with.

[SIK]

How about dignity? Respect? Pride?

Don't give them false hope - just give them as much hope as chemotherapy does. If the cannabis then succeeds in curing their cancer they really haven't lost their dignity, respect and pride.

With chemo they would lose they lose dignity, respect and pride twice - once while in treatment due to it degrading their looks and health drastically and after the treament when they discover they most likely still have cancer.

Who has been cured? Please give us something to work with.

My friends mom and quite a few people Rick Simpson has provided the hemp oil to. This is most likely not the only examples.

[rcast]

SIK wrote:

Don't give them false hope - just give them as much hope as chemotherapy does. If the cannabis then succeeds in curing their cancer they really haven't lost their dignity, respect and pride.

I know chemotherapy actually has cured people with low level cancers, and there is official scientific studies saying so. I haven't been able to find scientific studies that pot has done the same. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc my argument is factual and valid and yours appears to be based on personal experience and no secondary research or trusted sources and as a result, just may be fantasy.

[SIK]

I know chemotherapy actually has cured people with low level cancers, and there is official scientific studies saying so. I haven't been able to find scientific studies that pot has done the same. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc my argument is factual and valid and yours appears to be based on personal experience and no secondary research or trusted sources and as a result, just may be fantasy.

You won't find any "reputable sources" currently promoting cannabis as a cure for cancer even if they knew it was true. This is due to them not approving of it as a cure because its a dirt cheap treatment compared to chemo. The medical industry stand to lose one of their most lucrative mechanisms for making money - ie they don't really care about the people who got cancer.

This however does not mean there aren't other independant tests that were performed by qualified people - you will unfortunately not find those results listed because the "reputable sources" simply discard these results when presented with them.

Try researching other uses of cannabis. You will learn that it is also perceived as a threat to thousands of other industries. When these industries were presented results of experiments proving that cannabis would be a superior supplement for their industries, the "Reputable sources" simply threw these results into the bin, hence people like yourself never hear of it.

You claim your argument is factual and valid because you take the word of these "reputable sources" who have got great motive to lie to you.

I'd say your argument is based on simply what the mainstream flow tells you and not the actual results - which is chemo has not really cured the majority of people it was implemented on.

[rcast]

SIK wrote:

I'd say your argument is based on simply what the mainstream flow tells you and not the actual results - which is chemo has not really cured the majority of people it was implemented on.

The mainstream tells you that you should brush your teeth and take showers as well, so should I not believe or trust in those things because that's the word in the mainstream? I believe what is proven to be true through personal research, it's your right to believe in other uses of weed, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's true though.

It may very well be true, that doesn't mean it's going to be believed either, again without the facts to back it up.

[SIK]

The mainstream tells you that you should brush your teeth and take showers as well, so should I not believe or trust in those things because that's the word in the mainstream? I believe what is proven to be true through personal research, it's your right to believe in other uses of weed, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's true though.

It may very well be true, that doesn't mean it's going to be believed either, again without the facts to back it up.

I follow many mainstream practices as well like brush my teeth because it works. Chemo does not work, hence there is supposedly no cure for cancer. So I do not follow this mainstream trend, especially when I personally know better. May I remind you, that mainstream views have been wrong many times in the past.

And once again - the "reputable sources" sources isn't going to tell you something that really only benefits you but not them.

If that is the case then you are going to wait for a very long time probably before they actually do give official evidence.

You can now personally also testify to a case where chemo was not successfull. I too have a number of people I can recall who went for chemo and other standard cancer treatments. In most of these cases the person died. In the case where chemo has cured them (mainly due to it being a specific kind of cancer and caught very early) the person ended up with a completely degraded life style.

This has so far been my general experience w.r.t. cancer patients on chemo. In contrast I got a much more positive picture from the people who used hemp oil - they were cured and looked very happy and healthy.

I have seen these people on Rick Simpsons documentary and site. I have also seen this with my friends mom personally.

[SIK]

It may very well be true, that doesn't mean it's going to be believed either, again without the facts to back it up.

So imagine it is true and the places you are loking for confirmation does not provide it due to the reasons I already mentioned (ie money) - then what should you do - go test it out yourself - its simple enough - that is exactly why this form of treatment is so threatening to the "Reputable sources" - because it does not require their involvement as is the case with conventional treaments like chemo.

[firedraco]

I follow many mainstream practices as well like brush my teeth because it works. Chemo does not work, hence there is supposedly no cure for cancer. So I do not follow this mainstream trend, especially when I personally know better. May I remind you, that mainstream views have been wrong many times in the past.

So basically your argument reduces to "I do what works because I know it does."? Sounds like circular logic.

[SIK]

So basically your argument reduces to "I do what works because I know it does."? Sounds like circular logic.

No it does not - my words does not indicate or imply that at all.

It merely states that I follow certain mainstream practices like brushing my teeth because I know from personall experience (like everybody most likely does) that when I don't brush my teeth they start to feel not so clean after a day. If I were to leave it off longer then more of the buildup will occurr on my teeth.

My personal experience w.r.t. cancer patients who use chemo was that it did not work in most cases and in the few where it did work it was not a very convincing cure even after the person was cured (they had to deal with the consequences of the chemo).

So your statement of "I do what works because I know it does" is not applicable to me as I have just pointed out to you the reasons why I believe certain mainstream practices and not others.

Do you on the other hand follow mainstream advice without a reasonable dose of common sense? ie if mainstream advice told you to brush your teeth would you do it without knowing why, simply because mainstream told you so. Better hope they don't say its better to wipe ones arse with ones bare hand, otherwise you may fall victim :)

[sysopfb]

I don't care if it's legalized or not but I do think it should be regarded similarly to alcohol if not even stricter to obtain. I also think it should have similar consequences for someone to infuse it in a drink or bake it into food and then serve it without telling someone which should be very illegal just like it is with alcohol maybe even worse than.

[3qX21hU5]

then what should you do - go test it out yourself - its simple enough - that is exactly why this form of treatment is so threatening to the "Reputable sources" - because it does not require their involvement as is the case with conventional treaments like chemo.

So you advising people who have cancer to risk their life by only using cannabis to try and cure their cancer without any research that backs up the claim that it even cures it. That is just delusional, most people won't play with their life like that.

It comes down to you (Someone who doesn't even know correct grammar which says a lot about your education) who is saying that cannabis cures cancer and chemo doesn't work. And thousands of medical and scientific minds that have PROVEN chemo works and have no evidence that cannabis cures cancer. Who would you believe? Also based on your previous statement about how if people smoke cannabis it not only cures cancer it also makes them immune to cancer (IE they have a 0% chance of getting cancer again) your claim is even less reputable.



We have asked you plenty of times to give some actual proof to your claim, but you just ignore us. Yes you keep quoting the certain documentary that you have watched (Which means nothing without real proof for the claims), and you have cited your personally experiences which also mean nothing since they are biased and have no place in science.

You also say that everyone in the medical field doesn't care 2 cents about their patients they only care about money. What proof do you have of this? This is a very stupid way to look at the world. Yes there are some medical professionals that only care about the money, but out of the thousands I believe this is a very minor amount. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to prove that this is happening.


You also claim that the reputable sources do not allow people to publish anything on the merits of cannabis. This is just not the case here is some studies to prove otherwise.

A 2002 review of medical literature by Franjo Grotenhermen states that medical cannabis has established effects in the treatment of nausea, vomiting, premenstrual syndrome, unintentional weight loss, insomnia, and lack of appetite. Other "relatively well-confirmed" effects were in the treatment of "spasticity, painful conditions, especially neurogenic pain, movement disorders, asthma, [and] glaucoma".[8]
Preliminary findings indicate that cannabis-based drugs could prove useful in treating adrenal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, migraines, fibromyalgia, and related conditions.[9]
Medical cannabis has also been found to relieve certain symptoms of multiple sclerosis[10] and spinal cord injuries[11][12][13][14][15] by exhibiting antispasmodic and muscle-relaxant properties as well as stimulating appetite.
Other studies state that cannabis or cannabinoids may be useful in treating alcohol abuse,[16] amyotrophic lateral sclerosis,[17][18] collagen-induced arthritis,[19] asthma,[20] atherosclerosis,[21] bipolar disorder,[22][23] colorectal cancer,[24] HIV-Associated Sensory Neuropathy,[25] depression,[26][27][28][29] dystonia,[30] epilepsy,[31][32][33] digestive diseases,[34] gliomas,[35][36] hepatitis C,[37] Huntington's disease,[38] leukemia,[39] skin tumors,[40] methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA),[41] Parkinson's disease,[42] pruritus,[43][44] posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD),[45] psoriasis,[46] sickle-cell disease,[47] sleep apnea,[48] and anorexia nervosa.[49] Controlled research on treating Tourette syndrome with a synthetic version of THC called (Marinol), showed the patients taking the pill had a beneficial response without serious adverse effects;[50][51] other studies have shown that cannabis "has no effects on tics and increases the individuals inner tension".[52] Case reports found that cannabis helped reduce tics, but validation of these results requires longer, controlled studies on larger samples.[53][54]

So if you claims were true and they don't allow the publishing of studies that show the benefits of cannabis these would not exist. This further reducing your argument.



So for my closing word I would just like to say that yes cannabis have been proven in studies to help with combating cancer, BUT it is not a stand alone cure for cancer and does not prevent cancer if you spoke it like you have stated. So you are wrong by saying it is a cure for cancer since there is no cure for cancer but you are right that is does help in combating cancer.

If you would like to prove your point on it does cure cancer please please like many have asked and I have asked multiple times prove it with studies.

[cire]

Can we get this thread locked?

I have the feeling any fruitful discussion we're going to have, we've already had.